Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 10, the Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 10; R. Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

On section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to rise to recognize staff and representatives who are here with me today. Chris Beresford is here, the director of maintenance enforcement for the province of British Columbia. Darryl Hrenyk, who is legal counsel with justice services branch, is joining me here in the chamber.

M. Lee: To the Attorney General, I just want to ask about the form of the notice of maintenance order that is going to be included in place of the full order itself. I understand, of course, that this is done with a purpose — to reduce the amount of information of a sensitive nature that would be in the public realm. But just with the nature of the drafting of 1.1, I would ask the Attorney General: what other information, if any, would be included in that notice being filed?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (1.1) sets out the minimum information that would have to be in there: the full name and last known address of each person who is a party to the maintenance order; the date of the maintenance order; the court file number and court registry location, if any, associated with the maintenance order; and a description of the land against which the maintenance order is to be registered. We don’t expect there will be any other information required.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

M. Lee: In terms of section 2, with the accelerated mechanism as a result of the proposed amendments, I wonder whether, on the existing provisions that provide for an arrangement under 29.2 to effectively be entered with the director of enforcement, there are any considerations as to the mechanism of timing that will be at play because of this amendment — meaning this is not, anymore, going to be a situation where we’re talking about renewal of a driver’s licence. We’re talking now about cancellation, so obviously, that accelerates and puts forward the time frame.

I’m just wondering if there are any concerns or considerations around the opportunity that would provide the debtor to enter into arrangements with the director.

Hon. D. Eby: At a minimum, a 30-day notice is required before refusing to renew or cancelling a driver’s licence. This provision reflects that intention. There may be a scenario where someone has a do-not-renew notice already in place, and they’d received the 30-day notice. That notice might be replaced by a new notice that it is the intention of the director to cancel the individual’s driver’s licence, but that would have to be at least 30 days before forwarding a notice to the Insurance Corporation of B.C.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Given this mechanism, is there increased volume expected in terms of how the director may need to deal with these debtors because this is a mechanism that will be less prolonged? I’m just wondering whether that 30-day notice…. Is that going to provide a sufficient opportunity for the director to address all the possible cancellation notices that he or she may need to provide?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of elements that I now understand the member is asking about. The first is: under the existing legislation, there’s the 30-day notice. Then there’s the time period until the renewal of the driver’s licence, which essentially gave someone a longer period of notice before an action was taken — in this case, the action of not renewing the driver’s licence.

[4:10 p.m.]

Under these amendments, there’s a 30-day notice, and then the driver’s licence could be revoked if no action is taken by the debtor. So you’ve lost that whole additional period until the renewal notice in terms of notice to the debtor. That is, indeed, the intent of the section. The intent of the section is to ensure a more prompt response from the individual who’s in arrears in excess of $3,000 and to provide the director with an additional tool to use at his discretion in order to ensure that somebody contacts the office and straightens out their debts.

The other question that the member had was: is this going to increase the volume of work or the demands on the director? Currently the caseload will be the same. It’s the same now under the existing legislation as it will be afterwards. I guess, theoretically, as people find if this is more effective….

We believe that this will assist people to realize that they have to at least make contact and make some arrangements about their payments. If this is successful, it may cause an increase in caseload in that people are like: “Oh, it’s working better. Now I’m going to pursue with the director this kind of remedy for the situation I’m facing, where my former partner is not paying child support.”

In that sense, it might theoretically increase caseload. But currently the director still has to deal with all these cases and, in fact, has to deal with them for a longer period of time, because people are saying, “Oh, I don’t have to straighten this out until my driver’s licence renewal comes up,” and that’s not for two years. So that leaves the file on the books of the director, where they’re not contacting and they’re not dealing with it for the extra two years. We want to get rid of that time period.

This might actually…. I’m being optimistic; I don’t want to be too optimistic. This is not projected to change the caseload for the director. What it’s projected to do is encourage people who are existing members of that caseload to be in contact with the director in a more timely manner. These are people the director already has to be reaching out to anyway.

M. Lee: I appreciate the answer from the Attorney General, to go through those steps. Just one other potential scenario that I wanted to ask about or test specific to this amendment. That is the possibility where the debtor, for reasons of change of circumstance, may, through some mechanism, apply to the court for an amendment to their maintenance order.

If there are delays in getting that through the court process, would this mechanism, again, be taking away, removing, something that the debtor may want to be trying to adjust already in terms of the payment schedule that may be attached to the order? Whether there’s a scenario there where…. We know that in areas of this province, there’s been a challenge getting through the court process, including areas up north, like the Peace River district. Is there a possibility that that might occur under this provision as well?

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question.

The core of the director’s work is not to be in some job of punishing people. The job is to encourage them to adhere to the judicial order of payment that they need to make. That payment is determined on the basis of submissions to the court, and the court makes the decision about what someone can reasonably pay to support their child.

If the person’s circumstances change after those submissions happen and the court order no longer reflects their ability to pay, they do need to go back to court and get that order modified. And there is certainly an amount of time required in order to take legal advice, to prepare the necessary documentation, to serve the parties and so on.

This can be amplified in rural situations where it may be more difficult for someone to find a lawyer quickly or to get to the courthouse — maybe employment obligations and so on. We can think of 1,000 reasons why it might take a while to get in front of a judge. The key is that the family maintenance enforcement program needs to be kept up to date on the status of the application.

[4:15 p.m.]

The person needs to be calling the enforcement officer and advising them of where the application is in the court system. “I just retained a lawyer. We’re setting a court date. We’ve set a court date for this date. We’re appearing on that date. We’re filing. Here’s a copy of the filings.” As long as the thing is moving along, then the enforcement officer knows that the person, in good faith, is taking the efforts to go to court and get the order changed and will give them time to do this.

The problem that the driver’s licence piece in these amendments is intended to address is where the person is just not responding to the enforcement officer, is not responding to their former spouse, is not responding to the court’s demands that they pay a minimum amount of child support. This is meant to encourage them to get in touch and to keep the office up to date. The enforcement officers provide people with the time necessary to make court applications to refine or modify orders to ensure that they reflect the person’s actual circumstance.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask further about subsection 8(d) under section 29.1. That leads in with the words “within one year.” I would like to ask just for an explanation from the Attorney General as to the importance of that time period or whether that time period is necessary for this provision to operate.

Hon. D. Eby: This section refers to a shortened period of notice for someone who has come into compliance after receiving a notice and has had a driver’s licence issued — reissued because they’ve come into compliance. It allows the director to provide shorter notice. So the notice period that we canvassed earlier was 30 days. But this section actually allows a ten-day notice, where the person just recently came back into compliance.

The reason for the shortened notice is that the person’s already been engaged with the enforcement officers, has already understood their obligations, has come back into compliance. But an additional 30 days…. Someone is unfair to their former partner, the person who’s supporting their child. To say, “Well, now we have to wait for 30 days again for them to come into compliance….” They do a shorter ten-day…. “Look, you know what the situation is. We need you to come back into compliance.”

The question of sub (d) says that there is a point in time where that shortened notice becomes unfair again, where you should go back to 30-day notice. So someone has come into compliance. They’ve done 11 months, 12 months of consistent payments, and then they miss a payment. Is it really fair to say to that person: “Okay. We’re just giving you ten days’ notice now”? So the idea was that the short notice should only last for a year, and after that, the director should have to issue a 30-day notice.

There’s nothing stopping the director from issuing a 30-day notice. This section enables the short notice where the director is of the opinion that that will facilitate a more fair resolution of the situation. It’s just another tool available to the director, but a tool that’s only available for a year after the person comes back into compliance.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE
ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Eby: I call estimates for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

The committee met at 4:23 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $196,910,000 (continued).

Hon. D. Eby: Mr. Chair, if we could have a few minutes to get the right people in place here.

The Chair: The committee will be in recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:31 p.m.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: I wanted to come back just to update the conversation we had yesterday. Perhaps the minister will recall that we had talked about the phase 1 units in the RMOW, which are the units that allow for…. Nightly rentals have a 215 covenant on them to allow for nightly rentals, and that nightly rental option is actually encouraged, and it’s expected for these units to be used in that way.

Typically, what would happen is these units would be used in a nightly way, nightly rentals, for three or so months of the year, and then the balance of it is put in a fixed-term lease, which, without the vacate clause, has become impossible to do. So what’s happened is that these units have defaulted back to nightly rentals.

What I wanted to update the minister on was that I was incorrect in the number of units that we would be talking about here. I mentioned several hundred. I did some checking last night, and I found out that the actual number of units that are in phase 1 with the nightly-rental covenant on them is 5,400 units in Whistler. This is a very, very significant number.

If the long-term impact is that all of those units, or the vast majority of those units, are no longer available for a fixed-term tenancy, this will exacerbate an already significant problem in Whistler. I thought it was important that the minister understood the magnitude of that issue.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to express appreciation for the member getting more detailed information. I said yesterday that staff are aware of the issue and are continuing to do some work to identify how to best manage the situation. But I thank him for doing the research and sharing that and getting it on the record.

J. Sturdy: While I have the opportunity, I wondered if I could follow up on two housing initiatives in the Sea to Sky, one being the Helping Hands proposal in Squamish.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then I wondered if there is any update on additional initiatives with regard to the Whistler Housing Authority and the next phase of housing — specifically in Cheakamus Crossing, and if there are any other initiatives that B.C. Housing is involved in at this point.

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member just repeat the name of the group? He mentioned it really quickly, and I didn’t get to write it down.

J. Sturdy: In Squamish, it’s the Helping Hands Society. There was another proposal that seemed to have languished, as well, with the seniors housing. It was a fairly significant one — I think 230 units in Squamish that B.C. Housing and Polygon were working on. Then the last one would have been any initiatives with Whistler Housing Authority in Whistler. Typically, Cheakamus Crossing is the next focus, but there are other opportunities in Whistler as well.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member taking the time to come and ask the question. We don’t have our B.C. Housing staff here with us today, so I can’t give him a direct answer today. But I can commit to the member that we’ll be sure to get that information over to the member so that he can follow up and can be made aware of what the status is of those projects.

L. Larson: I just have one proposal I wanted to put in front of the minister, and I do not expect an answer. I will follow up with the appropriate paperwork.

A group of hotel owners in Osoyoos have formed a society called the Osoyoos staff housing society. They have, in partnership with the Osoyoos Indian Band, which has provided the land, arranged for 40 units temporarily to house some of the 300-plus workers that they will need just during the tourist season. This is not meant to be permanent housing. These are units from, I guess, a fire camp or something that they can move in onto this property. They will then be moved off again. But they need another partner, somebody with a little bit of money just to finish it off.

Like I say, the Osoyoos Indian Band has already put the land on the table. The hotel group has put, I believe, more than $100,000 to purchase, to be able to bring these units there, and they need it serviced. I think it’s about $90,000. If I could leave you the documentation so you could have a look through it, I’d really appreciate it.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I want to thank the member for bringing such a creative idea forward. Recognizing that there are partnerships here is always really critical. It’s one of the things that our government is really very focused on — recognizing that when we can bring people together with various resources and assets, we can actually make something great happen in communities right across the province. I look forward to seeing some of the details. I’m sure the member will bring forward all the information needed so that we can take a look at it and see how we might be helpful.

T. Stone: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions of the minister with respect to the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. I want to preface my comments by saying that I very much appreciated the Auditor General for Local Government reaching out to me not that long ago. We had a really good sit-down face to face. He walked me through the work that’s been done to date and plans for the forthcoming fiscal year. I really do think that the province has an exceptional individual in place in the office. Gordon Ruth is doing, I think, a very good job with a small team of individuals that are working really hard.

Just a couple of questions. My first question relates to capacity in his office. I think he and his team are performing yeoman service with the budget that they have that allows them to engage the complement of staff that they have. I understand there are 13 FTEs, eight of whom are auditors. As I said a moment ago, I have a pretty good sense of the volume that this office is crunching through.

[4:40 p.m.]

Mr. Ruth did suggest to me quite clearly that there’s more that he feels his office could do that would be of benefit to local government if there was more capacity in his office. I’m wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not she’s actively considering adding some additional capacity to the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. I just double-checked. There are actually 14 FTEs out of this office. Mr. Ruth has done, I think, a yeoman’s job in fixing an office that was in significant turmoil for quite some time. I remember; those days weren’t too long ago. He joined this office only two years ago and has developed significant momentum and stability to an office that was, I think, floundering and rather unstable.

Right now the work undertaken by the Auditor General for Local Government is to take a look at some themes and do some work among various local governments and develop prospective booklets so that other local governments can learn from that perspective — for local government. Now that it’s stabilized, it’s an opportunity to sort of see how well it can function. I’m glad to see that that work is continuing in the way that it’s moving forward.

T. Stone: My question related to capacity. I understand that there are two topics that are currently being audited, water and emergency management, and there are about, it looks like, seven or so sub-audits under those two themes. The auditor general did indicate that there were some additional themes that he would pursue, if he had some additional capacity, that would add value to local government in this province.

Is the minister open to or is she actively considering adding some additional capacity to the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government? If she is, could she provide some details as to what that might look like?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure the member can appreciate that there are many places where people would do more if they had more capacity — meaning that they had a bigger budget. Typically, that’s what that means, in terms of capacity. At this time, I’m just monitoring and making sure that they’re able to deliver what they’ve been asked to deliver.

T. Stone: I think the point I’m trying to get across to the minister is that the auditor general feels constrained in being able to respond to a good number of the audit requests that come in from local governments that are looking for the guidance and the kinds of help that the office of the auditor general can provide.

[4:45 p.m.]

Mr. Ruth did indicate to me that they would be able to double the capacity of their office and manage half to two-thirds of the incoming requests that they’re not able to get to, to this point, with an additional $400,000 investment.

He’s confident, or at least he conveyed to me that he was confident, that half of that he could find from within his existing budget, repurposing current dollars that they have available to their office. But they would still need a couple of hundred thousand dollars in funding, plus or minus, from government in order to be able to do this.

When you look at the work that the office does and the results, I couldn’t agree more with the minister. Certainly, over the last couple of years, since Mr. Ruth has been there, very, very good work has been done. I’ve certainly heard, as a critic for Municipal Affairs, from a number of municipalities and regional districts that have been engaged in those audits with Mr. Ruth and his team.

They have indicated that they feel there’s really good value for the taxpayers’ dollars. They’re just not able to get to a lot of the incoming requests from local governments for the kinds of support that they would like to be able to provide.

A couple of hundred thousand dollars. I’m wondering if the minister is aware of that request from the Auditor General and if that is something that she would be willing to entertain in the forthcoming fiscal year.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I think it’s important to recognize that while this office has been in operation or the AGLG has existed for the last five years, I think, it’s only really been a functioning office for the last two years under the guidance of Mr. Ruth. So as things stabilize, we’ll get a better sense of what’s realistic to get accomplished.

Like I said in my earlier answer, there are many different organizations and opportunities to do more. I can appreciate that there are opportunities, certainly, for Mr. Ruth’s office, as the AGLG, to do a tremendous number of audits. At this point, this is an office that is just stabilized after a number of years of what I will characterize as chaos. I’m looking forward to seeing more stability as we go forward.

T. Stone: I will take from the minister’s response that continued stability of this office in the forthcoming months and quarters may result in favourable consideration on the part of the government. I can certainly get back to Mr. Ruth and let him know that I put a good plug in for his office here. I do appreciate that opportunity.

If I could switch gears now, I’d like to ask a few questions with respect to the municipal and regional district tax, the MRDT, which I will acknowledge at the front end is a tax. Therefore, the ultimate purview of that tax, I assume, would be the Minister of Finance, working in collaboration with the Minister of Tourism.

The tie-in, however, that I see that makes it a valid line of questioning here today with the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the suggestions and the decision by government, in the recent provincial budget and in the companion documents to that budget, to announce that municipalities and regional districts would be able to use MRDT revenues for affordable housing projects in their respective communities.

On the surface of it, it doesn’t necessarily sound like a bad idea. However, the purpose of the MRDT is to generate revenues to be used for tourism and marketing purposes. I guess my first question to the minister would be: what is the minister’s understanding of the purpose of the MRDT? It was created in…. I believe it goes back to 1987 and has been a pretty important source of marketing revenue for the tourism industry.

What does the minister believe the purpose of MRDT really is?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The MRDT is to be used for tourism marketing activities. Our government…. Given the current housing crisis and, certainly, given what we’ve been hearing from communities where they’re really struggling with housing — particularly worker housing where tourism is a significant factor as part of their local economy — having the ability to use the MRDT to help with some of the housing challenges that they have has been a game changer.

I can share with the member that the community of Tofino, for example, their biggest challenge…. I met with their chamber of commerce and their council, and they were literally pleading with me around the challenges they’re having around housing, particularly in the summer, when the tourist season is among them. They actually have a campground designated for worker housing — it’s a campground for worker tents — because they just don’t have enough housing. They just can’t manage it. In fact, one of their chamber of commerce members said: “We sell the dream and can’t service the nightmare.”

For them, being able to use some of these resources to provide some worker housing that serves and services the tourist economy that they are dependent on is a logical choice. They’re very pleased, as are many other local governments we’ve been hearing about that have this as an opportunity to help them manage their tourist economy a little bit better.

T. Stone: I don’t think that I would quibble, or members on this side of the House would quibble, with the suggestion that in communities like Tofino and others that are very heavily focused and, in many respects, dependent on the tourism sector, ensuring that there’s accommodation available for those engaged in tourism is an important housing need in their respective communities.

The quibble that I would have and that we’re certainly hearing from a lot of British Columbians is why it essentially pits the tourism industry against the housing industry in local communities by suggesting that tourism revenues that are generated from MRDT be repurposed, to varying degrees in different communities, for housing projects.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister this. She did acknowledge in her previous answer that MRDT is there to generate a source of revenue for tourism marketing in communities. Why, then, is the government encouraging that those tourism revenues, to be used for marketing, should be invested in housing projects in communities across the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, remind the member that this isn’t about encouraging; this is about enabling. It’s about giving local governments another tool, where they make the decision about how to best use and meet the needs of servicing the nightmare in communities like Tofino. It’s so they can make the choices for their local community and make sure that they’re able to, like I said in my previous answer, service the nightmare.

T. Stone: Could the minister indicate what analysis her ministry has done, or she has participated in with other ministries, to determine how much MRDT revenue is anticipated to be siphoned off from being focused on tourism marketing initiatives to be used for housing projects?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, our government certainly heard that in some communities where they have been very successful at marketing and the marketing has worked — because they sell the dream, and they sell the opportunity — it’s created unintended consequences. It’s created other challenges for these communities.

Being able to properly service what they sell is really critical. Our government made the decision to enable local governments to use some of these resources so that they could properly service the dreams that they sell, the fun that they sell, the tourism that they sell. This is an opportunity for local governments to make choices that work for their local economies.

T. Stone: Is the minister, then, basically saying that as one of a series of tools in the toolbox to address housing challenges and the need for more affordable housing in different communities, she and government are just fine with encouraging a redirection of MRDT revenue from tourism-related initiatives — tourism marketing initiatives that are critical to the tourism industries in communities in different parts of the province — and that those dollars should be re-routed to affordable housing initiatives in those same communities?

Hon. S. Robinson: What I am saying is that this is another tool that local governments can use to respond to a housing crisis in the communities where they have a challenge, particularly around worker housing and tourism housing. They don’t have places; they don’t have workers.

[5:00 p.m.]

I met with the Tofino Chamber of Commerce. They were telling me stories of not having the ability to keep restaurants open in the evening because they didn’t have staff. There was no place for staff to live. While they’ve been quite successful in marketing as a tourist destination, they were no longer able to service. They were no longer able to maintain their staffing so that they could actually create the dream that they’d worked so hard to sell.

This is an opportunity, an optional opportunity, for local governments, where they need to, to make sure that they can have a successful tourist economy.

T. Stone: Then could I ask the minister to provide the opposition with a sense of what analysis has actually been done to project just how much MRDT revenue the ministry expects to be redirected from tourism and marketing initiatives to affordable housing? How many units of housing does the minister anticipate will actually be built in communities as a result of redirected MRDT revenue?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, remind the member that this is a choice it’s enabling for local governments. There’s no policy or no direction coming from government. It’s just an opportunity for local governments to respond to crises that they may be experiencing in their own communities. But if the member has questions about the design of the tax, that was work done by the Minister of Finance.

T. Stone: My question was: what analysis has been done? Obviously, I would hope that some analysis was done in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, in conjunction with Tourism, to determine in part how much revenue the ministry is anticipating will be siphoned off of the MRDT revenue stream and be redirected to Housing and what that translates into in the form of units of affordable housing.

The minister didn’t answer specific questions yesterday about the allocations of her ministry’s affordable housing targets, which is disappointing. But perhaps today she would be willing to provide some sense to British Columbians as to how many units of affordable housing she anticipates this policy choice of government to redirect MRDT revenues is actually going to generate.

Hon. S. Robinson: I thought I did answer every single question yesterday.

Like I said earlier, this is the choice of local governments. They get to have the opportunity to respond to local needs. That’s what we expect them to do.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could answer this question. Does she feel that it’s fair and reasonable to ask a municipality, to ask a local government, to essentially choose between investing in tourism marketing initiatives within their respective communities or affordable housing projects?

[5:05 p.m.]

Does she feel that that’s a fair and reasonable choice that communities should be faced with — essentially, tourism opportunities or affordable housing opportunities in a respective community?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it’s a very interesting dichotomy that the member is choosing to speak to, because I don’t see local governments behaving in that way at all, actually. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in local government. I’ve been the critic for local government, and now I’m the minister responsible. I pride myself on the work that I’ve done over the years with local governments around how they best work and meet the needs of their citizens, of their communities.

I have a lot of respect for the work that local governments do. They’re always managing various challenges, whether it’s engineering of local roads and building sidewalks or building more sports facilities or libraries or whether it’s affordable housing or how to market and build their local economy. Local governments do that work all the time and are making choices all the time about how to best meet the needs of their constituents. I have tremendous confidence in their ability to balance all of those and make the choices that best meet the needs of their communities.

There are 189 different local governments. I have certainly had opportunities over the years to go to area association meetings all over this province — unfortunately, I don’t get to leave this place very often, so I haven’t been able to get to many — talking with mayors and councillors and regional directors about what’s going on in their communities, hearing about the challenges that they have and the tools that they need in order to be responsive to the needs of their specific community. I have tremendous confidence in their ability to make the decisions that best meet the needs of their constituents.

T. Stone: I concur insofar as…. We have every confidence in the ability of local governments to make choices that are right and reasonable for their respective communities.

What we’re talking about here is a provincial government policy that essentially forces a choice in a community between continuing to see the direction of MRDT revenues to tourism marketing initiatives, which is a very worthy and important area of investment in a community, or redirecting those revenues to affordable housing projects, which are also very worthy and important in a particular community. Communities are being asked to choose one or the other with respect to MRDT revenue. We don’t think that that’s just, that that’s reasonable.

I’m wondering if the minister could indicate for this House, or just outline for this House, her understanding of how the MRDT actually works, how it’s actually collected and how it’s actually structured. Then perhaps we could go from there in terms of what the impacts are of the policy choice government has made in allowing a redirection of MRDT revenues. Is the minister aware, and could she explain to this House, how the MRDT tax piece actually is structured and how it works?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to point out that there’s nothing about this enabling legislation, this enabling change, that is forcing any local government to do anything different. Our government has made a $7 billion commitment to housing affordability so that people have the kinds of homes that they need, so local governments are not alone in addressing housing affordability.

However, some local governments have significant pressures and want some flexibility that would allow them to address some of the housing challenges they have around the tourism piece. The mayor from Tofino is so grateful for this change, because it allows her to be responsive. It allows her to make the choices that she needs, in the moment, so that she can address significant challenges that are happening in her community.

But again, no one has to do anything different. They can continue doing whatever it is that they’ve been doing. It’s just an opportunity that’s available to them, should it make sense for that community to make use of these additional resources.

T. Stone: The question was, actually: does the minister understand how the MRDT actually works, how it’s structured? So I’ll ask it a different way. The success of the MRDT revenue stream rests entirely on the backs of hoteliers, who agree to collect the revenue. You can correct me if I’m wrong, Minister, but my understanding is that these are five-year contracts. It’s different time frames in different parts of the province. But hoteliers have to agree to collect the tax.

They do so on the basis of an understanding as to what those tax revenues are going to be actually utilized for, and that understanding is that those revenues would be utilized for tourism marketing initiatives. What the government is doing through this policy decision here is saying that if you want to continue to use it for tourism marketing initiatives, fine, but we’re going to facilitate the ability of MRDT revenues to actually be used for affordable housing projects.

Now, I’ve asked: what analysis has been conducted to give any semblance of context to this decision, insofar as MRDT revenues that might be redistributed to affordable housing projects? Get no answer on that. What analysis has been done on how many units this would actually build? Get no answer on that.

The minister talks about the affordability crisis. I agree with her: more needs to be done there. But there’s a tourism crisis brewing in this province as well. There’s a cumulative impact of Family Day and the rising minimum wage — and now the decision that the government has made around the MRDT.

What can the minister say to answer the question: what if hoteliers say no? What if hoteliers say: “No, that’s not what we signed on for. We didn’t sign on to collect this revenue stream so that it could be repurposed for affordable housing projects”?

What does the government do then, in that scenario? Is the minister prepared to change the legislation, to force their hands? What is the minister’s message to the tourism sector and to hoteliers, in particular, who have in good faith negotiated the terms that exist in how MRDT is collected?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, local governments…. Giving them this enabling opportunity to be responsive to their communities includes working with everybody in their community. That includes their local tourism sector that’s in their communities. They need to work together in order to benefit their local economy and their local communities.

Really, in this case…. When I think about those that I’ve met who talk about the challenges of where their workers can live and the challenges that that presents, whether it’s people who clean the rooms in their hotels, people who work in restaurants, people who service the tourism sector, that’s a real struggle. They can’t sustain their businesses because of that. So providing this additional tool among all the other tools that our government has committed and is delivering is about making sure that there are opportunities for the sector to grow and to grow responsibly.

[5:20 p.m.]

Like I said before, we certainly heard about: “We sell the dream, and we can’t service the nightmare.” That really drove that home for me.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. We should be clear about this question. It is not about local governments. This is not about this side of the House questioning local government’s ability to make decisions and to work with people in communities. This is about the collection process for the MRDT.

Let’s be clear. Communities work very hard to gain approval from hoteliers in British Columbia to actually earn the right to collect the MRDT. When hoteliers, often after very difficult discussions…. The minister, I’m sure, is aware that in some communities, there may be three hotels and you have to gain approval of two hotels. So a pitch is made to those hoteliers to say: “We need to collect this so that we can build the tourism sector.” Nowhere in that discussion was there an approval by hoteliers based on affordable housing.

We have every confidence in local government as well. I’m very proud of mine. They do a great job. The issue here…. The minister talks about an additional tool. The minister is providing a tool that was not agreed to in discussions between the tourism sector in their communities and hoteliers.

Can the minister tell this House whether, before adding this tool, anyone went and talked to the hoteliers, who are a critical component of any community even collecting the MRDT?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, I spend a considerable amount of time talking to local governments about their needs. I want to, I guess, remind the member, who I suspect knows, that when it comes to the collection of the tax, that’s actually the work of the Minister of Finance, and that comes out of her office.

S. Bond: It’s interesting that suddenly it’s the work of the Minister of Tourism, yet this is the minister who has added the flexibility for municipalities to use this as one of their tools. So we should be clear. The minister has changed the rules of the game. Tourism marketing was the intent of the agreement by hoteliers across British Columbia — in many communities, hard fought to earn the right to collect the MRDT.

The minister has, in these estimates, referred to this issue, so I’m going to pursue this line of questioning. Does the minister know on what basis hoteliers approve the use and collection of the MRDT?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, while I appreciate the question, it’s the Ministry of Finance that designed the tool and the collection.

S. Bond: Let’s talk about the tool, then, since the minister isn’t going to have a discussion about the fact that the government requires hotels’ approval to collect the MRDT. In fact, it is contingent upon this being used for tourism marketing. I can’t imagine that there are many hoteliers in British Columbia who today would say: “Yes, I’m absolutely happy to sign on to the MRDT proposal, because it’s going to build affordable housing.” That is not what the MRDT’s purpose is.

As much as this minister wants to pitch it as, “Well, it’s just another tool,” it is fundamentally flawed when it comes to the purpose of the MRDT. This is a way to either find another source of funding for housing, and the minister…. We certainly have acknowledged that there have been investments made by this government. But we should be clear about the purpose of this tax and exactly how hoteliers today are justifiably concerned — and so is the tourism industry.

Let’s talk about the tool. The minister talks about this now giving some communities, or communities that have expressed concerns, the ability to deal with affordable housing “particularly around worker housing related to the tourism sector.” Will this tool, then, be restricted, by regulation or in some way, to deal with the issues that are linked directly to the tourism sector?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, the member…. I know that she’s passionate about this subject. She’s asked again about the design of the tool, and again, that came out of the Ministry of Finance.

S. Bond: The minister’s responsibility is affordable housing. She’s had several comments about that previous to this debate. The question was if this will be restricted to use for affordable housing related to the tourism sector, which the minister referenced earlier in her remarks.

Perhaps I will ask another question. The minister has referred to the communities that have made it clear to her that affordable housing related to the tourism sector….

We should be clear. MRDT is revenue generated to support tourism marketing. The changes that this government is suggesting have been captured under the umbrella of: “It will give the municipalities an ability to use it for affordable housing.” I’m not sure how that connection was made, but it is a significant concern to the tourism sector, to the hoteliers who, in good faith, agreed to collect the MRDT. That has been a significant struggle in many communities. Opening this door, which this minister has referred to numerous times today, is causing significant concern.

Can the minister tell us and tell British Columbians today what other communities came to her and said, “Open the door to other uses of the MRDT,” aside from Tofino?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the concerns expressed by the member, but again, I have to say that local governments don’t work in isolation. They don’t just sit in city hall and make decisions without talking with their local folks. So in those communities where they realize that they have really built a significant local economy that is dependent on making sure that there are staff opportunities to have the housing that they can afford on the wages that they’re paid, it’s really very critical.

Local governments work with their communities to determine how best to respond to some of those challenges. In some communities, it might make sense to use the MRDT portion of it to help them respond to what’s happening on the ground.

Again, this is one of those tools that is just available. It’s not a requirement. It’s not an expectation. It’s just another tool available to local governments that want to be responsive to the needs of their local community.

S. Bond: I didn’t hear a list of the communities that came to the minister.

I think the key point that continues to be missed here is that this discussion is not about local communities and municipalities. It’s about how the MRDT approval process works and what that agreement with hoteliers is based on. It is based on the fact that the money will be used for tourism marketing. So while local governments have the opportunity, as the minister points out, to use this tool, that’s not what hoteliers signed up for. It is not what the tourism industry expects.

[5:35 p.m.]

I would like to point out that there are very different circumstances across British Columbia related to housing for seasonal workers or tourism workers. It has not diminished the concern of tourism organizations across the province, including in my own region. There have been letters directly to this government asking for consultation before this decision was made — with TIABC, the main organization that speaks on behalf of tourism operators across the province. Yet here we find that this decision moves forward, despite significant concerns by the industry.

Did the minister…? First of all, before I ask that question — my last one; I know other colleagues have questions to continue — I want to recognize that letters have gone to the Minister of Finance and others expressing significant concerns, particularly from regions which are not experiencing the kinds of issues that Tofino might be, about the fact that they worked hard to find approval for MRDT, based on a certain set of expectations which this government now has randomly changed.

I’ll tell you. There is significant concern about hoteliers’ reaction to the fact that they have to agree to collect this tax. And if isn’t going to tourism marketing, this decision might significantly negatively impact the tourism sector, because hoteliers will simply say: “Not doing it.” Certainly, we’ve heard from Tourism Prince George and a variety of other organizations across the province that this is a concern — deeply concerned about the opportunity to even consider use of the MRDT for some form of affordable housing.

Big concerns ask for discussion. So could the minister tell us: was there a cross-ministry approach to making this decision? Did the Minister of Finance sit down with the minister who’s conducting these estimates today, along with the Minister of Tourism, to actually contemplate what consequences there would be, across a variety of sectors, of simply saying: “Yup. We’re going to give local governments another tool”?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In response to the member’s question, I can assure her that I meet with my colleagues on a range of issues all the time. We talk about our various files, the interoperability and the interconnections between the work that we each do. I also note that the member is aware that tax policy does come out of the Minister of Finance.

D. Barnett: Minister, the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association has struggled for years to get the operators to come to the table. After two years of hard work, finally the CCCTA was able to have the operators come to the table and agree to get into this MRDT taxation process. It was just approved by your cabinet a month or so ago.

I have a letter here that I received today from the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association that I am going to read to you. It says:

“Dear MLA Barnett,

“As one of the newest and largest MRDT collection areas in the province, we are very concerned about the proposed regulatory changes to the MRDT — namely, including any language around ‘affordable housing’ or ‘non-tourism expenditures.’ I have personally heard concerns from several of our accommodators who feel ‘betrayed and deceived,’ as this was not within the allowable use of funds when they provided their signature of support.

“As a regional tourism organization, we are supportive of affordable housing for both British Columbia residents and seasonal tourism employees. Innovation is required to find solutions to our labour and housing challenges in British Columbia. However, under the current two-tiered approval for MRDT, accommodation signature and local government approval, the proposed regulatory change would have negative effects. In our region, the accommodators have been very clear that if the MRDT funds are to be provided to any local government or used for anything other than tourism marketing, they will withdraw their support — effectively, an elimination of visitor investment in rural B.C. of $1 million in marketing.

“Will the government be providing alternate funding programs to replace this investment? We agree that there could be some regulatory changes to the MRDT — namely, eliminating the need for local government approval for an application — but are hearing strongly from our industry that affordable housing should not be placed in regulation.

“If you have any questions on this matter, do not hesitate to contact me directly. We look forward to a response from government on this matter.

“Kindest regards, Amy Thacker, CEO, Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association.”

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to encourage the member to provide the letter to the Minister of Finance. I’m sure she would appreciate reading it.

P. Milobar: My family has a bit of history with the MRDT in Kamloops. We were hoteliers. My mother was the first female president of the B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association. We fought against the MRDT being implemented in Kamloops, when it first came out, because the structure that was going to be used locally actually wasn’t very good. Several years later, after much negotiation, the program changed, and we actually championed the implementation of the MRDT coming forward.

[5:45 p.m.]

The question I have for the minister is very straightforward. Given that the hotels are the ones that decide whether to collect the tax or not, and they come up for renewal periodically, if a municipality chooses to start using the tax revenues collected for affordable housing — a very clear question here, and we’re hoping for a very clear answer — and the hotels decide to withdraw from collecting MRDT as a result, is the Minister of Housing prepared to make up the difference so that a community that starts down the path of affordable housing is able to continue to provide the affordable housing when the MRDT revenues disappear?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to talk about the role of local governments here, because they’re on the ground. They know what’s going on in their communities. They are in many ways…. I know that the member comes from local government. One of the things I love about local governments and appreciate about them is that they really know what’s going on. They know what the lay of the land is, right in their communities.

I know that local governments work with their local communities, including the tourism operators, a whole range of tourism operators, to make the decisions that best meet the needs of their communities. With 189 different local governments, all with the different kinds of challenges and with the different opportunities, giving them this additional tool allows them to be as flexible as they can be, to make sure that their communities thrive. That’s an expectation that I have just as a person who values local government, and I know that that’s how local governments want to be operating as well. I have confidence that they’ll take that responsibility very seriously.

T. Stone: We’ve all been listening with a great deal of interest as the minister has provided responses to, I think, some very specific questions. What we’ve learned in the last half hour or so is that when it came to this decision that government has taken with the MRDT, there appears to have not been any serious discussion, cross-ministry, on this particular initiative.

[5:50 p.m.]

There appears to have been no analysis done as to what the impact of this decision would actually be on tourism marketing revenue that’s generated from MRDT, no analysis as to what the projected number of units of affordable housing would actually be through the redirection of MRDT revenues.

Now we learn that there clearly is no plan should hoteliers say no to this plan and indicate that they will have nothing to do with this, considering that they signed agreements to collect the tax on the basis of the revenues being directed to tourism marketing initiatives. There’s no definitive indication from the minister as to the rationale for essentially pitting affordable housing advocates against tourism enterprises and tourism advocates in a community with, essentially, a local government being stuck in the middle.

This has never been a question of: does one feel that affordable housing projects are more or less worthy than tourism marketing initiatives? That’s not at all what we’re trying to get at here. What we’re trying to understand is: where did the rationale come from, inside of government, to think that it was a good idea to essentially — as a tool; the minister consistently refers to this as yet another tool in the toolbox for local governments — pilfer MRDT revenues, which are there to invest in tourism marketing initiatives?

What we’re hearing from communities is that they don’t want to be in the middle of this discussion. If the government is serious about making affordable housing investments — and I believe that they are, to an extent, and we have acknowledged recent initiatives related to affordable housing stock in the province — that’s one thing. But to suggest that it makes sense to encourage affordable housing projects in certain communities on the backs of tourism-related revenue generated from the MRDT, which is collected in good faith by hoteliers who have signed on to collect this revenue on the basis of the revenue being invested into tourism marketing initiatives, is simply, I believe, grossly missing the mark here.

As my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson tried to point out in his question: what if the hoteliers say no? Where do the tourism operators make up the difference in terms of reduced MRDT revenue?

I think the two final angles on this that I wanted to…. First, I wanted to make sure it was clearly understand in the record that as the member for Prince George–Valemount indicated in the context of Prince George, as we’ve heard from the member in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in the context of her tourism operators….

In Kamloops, Tourism Kamloops — very, very worried about losing MRDT revenue. A letter that was sent to the Minister of Finance and, I believe, copied to the minister and myself — February 28, 2018 — highlights very clearly that the tourism industry in Kamloops employs 2,600 people. It generates $449 million in economic impact, with 1.8 million visitors annually. It’s thriving. It’s growing.

They go on to say in their letter here: “A key reason for our success is the partnership between the province, the local commercial accommodation sector, Tourism Kamloops and the city of Kamloops, who invest revenues from the municipal and regional district tax, the MRDT, into sales and marketing initiatives that generate results.” They credit this revenue source as being an integral component of their ability to meet their performance objectives and to generate revenues for tourism operators and key stakeholders. They’re very, very concerned about the repurposing of MRDT revenue.

[5:55 p.m.]

Subsequent conversations with a number of hoteliers in Kamloops…. They want to pull out if this is the government’s intention, which means less revenue for tourism marketing initiatives, and of course, that money will not be flowing through to affordable housing projects. So it’s a lose-lose — very poor policy choice.

My last question on this would be as follows. Back in February, the Finance Minister, when she was introducing the Airbnb tax, said: “The PST money goes into general revenue, and we will utilize it for housing measures that you will see coming in the budget.” We did see some of those housing measures, but she goes on to say: “The MRDT is a tax that will go to municipalities for tourism. So they will be able to utilize those dollars for tourism, just as they do with the hotel tax.” That was the Minister of Finance on February 7, 2018.

My final question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does she agree with her colleague the Minister of Finance, who, again, said: “The MRDT is a tax that will go to municipalities for tourism. So they will be able to utilize those dollars for tourism, just as they do with the hotel tax”?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I want to respond to the member’s comments. He talked about local governments “pilfering” from the MRDT.

I don’t know what his experience is with local governments, but I have a tremendous amount of respect for them around making the kinds of responsible decisions that they need to make to meet the needs of their communities, including the tourism operators. I don’t see them as pilfering anything. I see them as being responsive and responsible with their obligations to make life better for their constituents.

Again, our government brought forward a number of tax initiatives in our budget. These are all the responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

T. Stone: My comment and the use of the word “pilfer” are in reference to this government. It’s this government, through this policy choice, that is essentially pitting, in communities across this province…. Because she can’t name any communities beyond Tofino, we don’t know who she actually consulted with. It doesn’t sound like there was, actually, engagement or consultation with local government or the UBCM.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’re saying she’s pitting…. Through this policy lever, the government is making a conscious decision to pit affordable housing advocates and their worthy cause against tourism operators and the importance of tourism as a critical economic generator in communities across this province. The government, through this policy, is pilfering MRDT revenues. Let’s be very clear about that.

With that, I’m going to turn the time over now to my colleague from Skeena, who has a couple of questions on a completely different topic.

E. Ross: The Resource Benefit Alliance. There was an announcement made by the government on April 10, 2018, in relation to $300,000 in support of RBA communities’ continued efforts to strengthen economic development in the region.

I just want to know: in terms of the minister’s responsibilities, what is the minister’s action plan to achieve the RBA communities’ goals of revenue-sharing?

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for his question. Our government is pleased to have been able to meet with the Northwest B.C. Resource Alliance over the last number of months. We continue to meet with them to see how we can help them achieve their goals.

E. Ross: It’s pretty specific, what the RBA wants. They want revenue-sharing. The announcement talks about $300,000. It talks not about revenue-sharing but a fund that’s put in place to “build relationships with First Nations, labour, major project proponents, local business and the non-profit sector.”

Aside from that announcement on the funding, there have been a number of different formulas and possible sources of funding that have been discussed that could basically achieve the goals of the RBA. Have these formulas and possible sources of funding been discussed with the RBA to date?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s actually the kind of work that we’re doing with the RBA on a regular basis, in terms of looking at how to help them best meet their needs.

E. Ross: Yeah, okay. Is there any opportunity to see the possible formulas or any types of sources of funding to achieve this? Because I get it all the time. I get asked about the way this is going to roll out and which pot of funding it’s going to come from.

[6:05 p.m.]

The biggest discussion point seems to be on future funding from future resource development coming from the northwest. Is that where this government is leading?

Hon. S. Robinson: Our government is committed to continue working with these communities to identify ways to help move this forward as things grow in the northwest.

E. Ross: Okay. Thank you to the minister for that answer, I think.

In relation to the $300,000 that was given as funding to the RBA, is there a mechanism that the government will employ to measure the success of this funding? How will you measure whether or not the RBA has built relationships with First Nations, labour, major project proponents, local business and the non-profit sector? And will that be reported not only to the RBA but, as well, to the communities in general that are represented by the RBA?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure that the member is well aware that there are 21 communities across the northwest that have formed the RBA. That, in and of itself, is a bit of a miracle, so congratulations to those communities, because I know that’s not easy work, in order to bring people together for a common purpose. So providing them with some funds to help them continue to build relationships, to help them continue to engage, particularly First Nations and others, so that they’re working in healthy relationship and with collaboration is critical to being able to move forward.

We have asked them to report back periodically to make sure that things are still on track. That’s an expectation that we have.

S. Cadieux: To the minister, good afternoon. Switching gears to TransLink….

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Yeah, new hat.

Minister, there has been explosive growth, to say the least, in my constituency over the last number of years and in Surrey generally. But the majority of that growth has fallen in the Cloverdale and South Surrey area — hence the new riding.

There has been a commitment by the previous government and now an additional commitment by your government to rapid transit programs that includes LRT in Surrey, which is terrific. It’s great. But none of the planning to date seems to take into consideration the rapid growth in South Surrey.

[6:10 p.m.]

I have been receiving repeated calls from constituents, and now businesses that cannot get workers, because there’s no transit to this rapidly developing area, an area that has had more than 1,000 new homes in the last couple of years and 10,000 slated for development over the next few. There’s, I think, three million square feet of retail space and no transit in the area, at least nothing that serves the needs of the workers in the area, which means later schedules and so on.

As well, down at the Summerfield area, where there is also increased development — which is the area down by the Pacific Border Crossing between 176 and 172, between Eighth Avenue and the border — there is an elementary school, lots of housing, some seniors sort of retirement housing and yet little-to-no transit access.

The communities have been putting those needs forward to TransLink for some time, but it seems to be a relatively slow process to see progress in addressing those issues. Can you explain, Minister, how TransLink will address those issues in emerging communities while the vast majority of funding is going to the large rapid transit projects?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s concerns and commitment to her constituents, but I also want to remind her that it’s the Mayors Council that determines the plan. The plan, beyond the LRT investment, does include significant improvements in bus service across the region, but TransLink makes those decisions about how that gets dispersed and how the decisions are made.

I’d like to encourage the member to speak directly to her mayor, because that is, at the local level, where they’re making the decisions around that.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a question for the minister. As she’s probably well aware, the number one issue on the North Shore is actually traffic and transportation. Last year when we were in government, we announced the $198 million investment for the Lower Lynn four-phase interchange project, which is going very, very well, and the constituents are very pleased about that. But that is definitely not enough.

Subsequently, a few of us got together and put together a neat plan, including a map, of SkyTrain to the North Shore. We feel that this would definitely help to alleviate traffic congestion in the entire North Shore and help to get people out of their cars — and, obviously, alleviate congestion in the long term.

My question to the minister is: has she considered SkyTrain to the North Shore as part of the major plan for the North Shore region?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s query. I know that my colleague the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale has been very integral to pulling together the leadership on the North Shore, recognizing that it gets pretty bogged down. I appreciate that.

But again, the mayors create the vision for where to put investments going forward. I would certainly encourage all members of the House representing North Shore communities to make sure that their voices and their concerns are heard with the mayors and make sure that it gets included in the mayors’ vision as they continue to move forward.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for that answer. Yes, I know that one of the current mayors in the North Shore, from the city, has actually suggested his own idea for a SkyTrain in a different area. My focus was on the area along the Second Narrows Bridge, the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, because that’s the choke point coming from the Port Mann, particularly considering that the tolls were removed. Even people that are coming from Coquitlam or Surrey, etc., get stuck in North Vancouver traffic as they’re heading west. That’s why my focus was on the Iron Workers.

I appreciate the comments from the minister to keep up the work with the mayors, but I do know that at least one of our mayors is actually supportive of the idea.

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m assuming there are no more questions?

T. Stone: I recognize that we’re rapidly running out of time for today. TransLink — its operations, its planning, the partnerships with the federal government and local and provincial funding sources — I would say, is a huge topic and warrants more discussion than we will have time for in the next five to seven minutes.

I did want to ask the minister if she could first provide an update for us here today on where the government is at with phase 2 of the mayors’ plan insofar as the investment side of it goes. It was good news recently that the region, the Mayors Council and the region, did come to a place of agreeing on how to generate its share of the funding required to move forward with the province and the federal government.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with a current breakdown. Is it still a 40 percent cost share for the province, 40 for the feds and 20 for the local? What is that breakdown for phase 2, and what does that translate into in terms of total dollars? What is that financial contribution in dollar terms going to be from each of the three levels of government towards phase 2 of the mayors’ plan?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to acknowledge the good news about the coming together of three levels of government. That has been, I think, a struggle for a significant amount of time. I think how pleased British Columbians are, as I think everybody in this House is, that we’re going to be able to move forward with a significant investment — and getting people out of their cars and home to their families sooner. I’ve never met anyone who likes to be in traffic.

The cost share. We’re still operating on the cost-share arrangement, the 40-40-20 that the member mentioned. Right now the business cases are being reviewed by the federal government, so it’s premature to actually note exactly what the actual dollar cost is, as the business cases are still working through the systems as they are required to.

T. Stone: I have to note that there have been a number of, obviously, reports and articles that I think flowed from the regions, coming to a place of certainty on the regional cost contribution. These articles and reports have suggested that the project would likely come in, around phase 2, at about $7 billion. The region has also indicated in their work — through the combination, I believe, of three different levers, the biggest one being a projected fare increase — that they’re looking at generating about $2.5 billion in new revenue.

The federal government, if I understand correctly, in terms of their 40 percent cost share in dollar terms, had indicated that the max that they would contribute is $2.2 billion, looking at the agreements that have been signed. I just want to make sure that all of the math adds up here.

Does the minister…? Is she able to speak to an overall, global project estimate at this point? Is the $7 billion number accurate? Is the provincial share going to still be in at around that $1.197 billion amount? Are the feds still in for $2.2 billion, and is the region expected to raise some amount up to $2.5 billion?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: TransLink is working on their ten-year investment plan. We’re expecting that in June. The business cases for these projects are currently under review, so it’d be premature to get into specifics until we have that work done. But I expect it all to come together over the next number of months, and we’ll certainly have an opportunity to see the specifics, then.

T. Stone: This last question just has a few different parts, but I won’t expect the minister to answer verbally today. Perhaps she could commit to getting back to me in writing.

Just a final follow-up on the phase 2 funding of these TransLink projects in the Lower Mainland. I’m wondering if the minister could get back to me as follows. When is government anticipating to actually have shovels in the ground on the first project?

Perhaps that could be broken out in terms of Surrey LRT and the Broadway project. What are the current projected completion dates for the different phases of these major projects? And is the government contemplating, as part of their business planning process, entering into any public-private partnerships for the delivery of these multi-billion-dollar projects that are so desperately needed in the Lower Mainland?

With that, I want to thank the minister and her staff for, I think, a thoughtful exchange on these TransLink matters as well as the broad range of other issues that we canvassed today in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and TransLink estimates.

Vote 36: ministry expenditures, $196,910,000 — approved.

Vote 37: housing, $453,988,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES:
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Vote 49: Auditor General for Local Government, $2,600,000 — approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just take a moment to thank all the members on the other side who took the time to ask questions — ask questions about their communities, housing, local government and TransLink. I appreciated the exchange and the opportunity to talk about some of the great work that I believe our government is doing.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report completion of the resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.