PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); D. Routley in the chair.

The committee met at 3 p.m.

On Vote 37: ministry operations, $318,559,000.

The Chair: Minister, do you have an opening statement?

Hon. S. Robinson: I do, hon. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. Before we get started, I look forward to the questions from the members opposite.

I just want to introduce and speak to the very talented group of experienced senior staff who are absolutely central to the work and accomplishments of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I’m pleased to be joined by our new, shiny deputy minister, Kaye Krishna, who joined us in March. She absolutely has hit the ground running, in a very busy ministry. I’m also joined by our assistant deputy ministers, Tara Faganello, with local government; Greg Steves, with housing; and David Curtis, executive financial officer and ADM of community and legislative services. It is with their support and valuable leadership that we have been able to make significant progress on the issues that matter to British Columbians.

I also want to take a moment to recognize the leadership of our Crown agencies. They provide an amazing amount of service to British Columbians. We’re going to have available to us tomorrow the B.C. Housing chief executive officer, Shayne Ramsay, whose workload never, ever seems to let up; the B.C. Assessment Authority’s president and chief executive officer, Jason Grant; and Technical Safety B.C.’s president and chief executive officer, Catherine Roome.

I’m looking forward to the questions, as it will give me the opportunity to highlight some of the incredible work that’s underway in our ministry on behalf of British Columbians. British Columbians have told us that housing affordability and housing availability are their top concerns. So since the day that we formed government, we have been making that — and it still is — our number one priority. We’ve backed that commitment with an investment of $7 billion over ten years, the largest investment in housing in the history of our province.

We’ve also made a list of actions and initiatives to fulfil our commitment through our ten-year housing plan. These include policies to curb speculation; reduce tax evasion; address tax fairness; close real estate loopholes; and, of course, increasing the right kind of housing supply. Just to get it in on the record, over the 16 years of the previous government, 27,000 new units were funded by government. By comparison, over the last 18 months under our government, there are over 20,000 homes already built or underway.

We vow to tackle homelessness in our province as well, and we’ve committed to funding 4,500 supportive homes with wraparound services for people. On top of these homes, the action plan includes a commitment to invest in an additional 200 modular supportive homes for people who need them for this fiscal year. As we build on the momentum of helping to house people experiencing homelessness, over the next year British Columbians will see a lot of movement on our efforts to increase the right kind of supply of affordable homes for middle-income British Columbians.

Through our housing hub program, we are working with non-profits, Indigenous organizations and First Nations, local governments, co-ops, landowners, investors and faith communities in innovative and forward-thinking ways to address housing affordability and housing availability. In addition, our rental zoning legislation gives local governments new authority to zone for rental housing and enact bylaws that create and preserve rental housing in their communities.

We’re also working with municipalities where transit projects are cost-shared with the province, to encourage a higher density of affordable housing in transit corridors. Speaking of transit, as the minister responsible for TransLink, we continue to support the mayors’ vision and to work with the region on long-term transit and transportation priorities that make life better for people who live, work, learn and play in Metro Vancouver as we prepare for the one million more people who are coming to the region in the decades ahead.

While housing and TransLink are two major priorities for our ministry, our ministry continues to work hard to improve many aspects of daily lives for British Columbians. We’re pleased to continue our support for about 5,000 not-for-profit organizations in every corner of British Columbia through our community gaming grant program. We’re also working with the federal government and our province’s 189 municipalities and local governments to deliver much-needed infrastructure improvements in every corner of B.C.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think I can speak to the common thread around all of these various programs. It’s our commitment to partnership, and it’s through these partnerships that our ministry is helping to make lives better for British Columbians.

Before we get into the questions, I do want to acknowledge a number of other people who help make my ministry function and provide an invaluable contribution to the lives of British Columbians: my senior ministerial assistant, Craig Ashbourne, who continues to provide advice and pay attention to things that are going on around the province; my ministerial assistant, Daniela Gardea; ministerial assistant Eveline Xia; my executive assistant, Matt Djonlic; administrator coordinator Christine White; and administrative assistant Jena Rayner.

All of these people keep the office functioning, making sure that I get to the places that I need to get to and that I have all the information that I need to have. It really is a team effort to make the lives of British Columbians better.

T. Stone: By way of opening remarks, I will say this. I certainly appreciate the exceptional professionalism of everyone in the ministry. I appreciate the minister and her office offering — every time there’s a bill that’s introduced and certainly as part of this estimates process — the official opposition opportunities for briefings. Sometimes we take them up on the offer, sometimes we don’t, but we certainly appreciate that the offers are made. We do know how hard everyone in the ministry works, and we appreciate the work that all of you do.

To give the minister and her team a sense of how today and tomorrow will likely unfold insofar as the topics that we would like to cover as an opposition, we’re going to be focused tomorrow on housing. Tomorrow will be our housing time. I’m not sure exactly how much time, but that will be the main topic — possibly the only topic tomorrow.

Today we will use the time that we have available to us to canvass questions on a range of other topics — a number of ministry operations, local government and a little bit of infrastructure, some questions on TransLink and so forth.

Last but not least we will have a number of different opposition MLAs come in and ask questions. Because we have three Houses going, everybody is coming and going. It may not appear to be as perfectly consequential in terms of the order of topics that we’re covering, so I appreciate everyone’s patience with us in that regard.

The first question I would like to ask the minister is with respect to the overall ministry budget. I find that often in these estimates, we get very bogged down on specific policies, and so forth, and policy changes. I think it’s important, as a baseline, to just set some common understanding as to the actual expenditures in the ministry.

The first question would be if the minister could walk us through…. The overall expenditures in the ministry have increased by $154 million. Could the minister please just walk us through what accounts for that $154 million increase by ministry area and responsibility?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I have an answer for the member about the changes in the budget. For the ministry operations vote, excluding housing, the ’18-19 estimate budget is $329.054 million, a net decrease of $13.698 million.

The $13.698 million decrease is due to the following: a $135.4 million decrease to the local government division due to the addition of supplementary estimates in fiscal 2018-19 for the northern capital and planning grant of $100 million; the clean water and wastewater fund, $17 million; Building Canada fund, $10 million; and Peace River agreement, $8.4 million; a $400,000 decrease to the local government division to reflect the second-year funding for the housing needs report program. Budget 2018 provided three-year funding for this program.

These decreases to net ministry spending are offset by a $113 million increase to the local government division for the acceleration of local government grants; an $8.4 million increase to the local government division to increase base budget funding to $50 million under the Peace River agreement; a $566,000 increase to salaries and benefits due to negotiated wage increases for BCGEU staff; an $83,000 increase to salaries and benefits due to changes in the benefit chargeback rate; a $53,000 increase to the university endowment special account for the water, sewer, storm main capital improvement project; amortized expense, $45,000; and changes in the benefit chargeback rate of $8,000.

In the Housing vote, the 2019-20 estimate budget is $499.249 million, which is a net increase of $32.377 million. It’s due to the following, a $28.167 million increase to transfers to the B.C. Housing Management Commission for the following programs: the rental assistance program, the Shelter Aid For Elderly Renters program, which is $23 million; the provincial investment in affordable housing, which is $2.5 million; investment in affordable housing, which is $1.5 million; the homelessness action plan, which is $1.129 million; and Building B.C. is $300,000.

This is offset by a decrease in the single-room-occupancy annual service payment of $262,000. We also have a $2.476 million increase to transfers to the B.C. Housing Management Commission due to the negotiated increases for staff. That’s $2.167 million and the employer health tax of $300,000.

We have a $790,000 increase to the building and safety standards branch for the clean growth strategy, a $500,000 increase to the housing policy branch to fund additional resources to support housing initiatives, a $381,000 increase to salaries and benefits due to negotiated wage increases for BCGEU staff and a $72,000 increase to salaries and benefits due to changes in the benefit chargeback rate.

Under capital funding, the 2019-20 estimate budget is $247.002 million, which is a net increase of $19.315 million. This increase is due to the following: a $53.486 million increase to fund the homelessness action plan, the encampment prevention and response strategy, and long-term permanent housing. It’s offset by a $34.171 million decrease to reflect revised estimates for the completion of ongoing projects.

T. Stone: So it sounds like we’re all done here. [Laughter.] We might have a couple more questions, but I do appreciate the minister walking us through those line items. That answered a few of my questions.

I’m just wondering if she could expand on…. In ministry operations, under local government services and transfers, again, it’s showing an increase of about $121 million, a little north of $121 million. I’m just wondering if she could provide a bit more detail as to, specifically, what that $121 million is allocated for in this fiscal year.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The decreases to net ministry spending are offset by a $113 million increase for the acceleration of local government grants; an $8.4 million increase to increase base budget funding to $50 million, under the Peace River agreement in prior fiscals — the $8.4 million was funded through contingency access; a $250,000 increase to the BCGEU salaries and benefits; and a $38,000 increase due to changes in the benefit chargeback rate.

T. Stone: Under community and legislative services, community gaming grants shows, basically, as flat. It’s up just modestly, year over year. The government had announced that it was going to be making gaming grants or community grants available to First Nations. I’m wondering if this is the line item in the budget where community grant dollars for eligible First Nations projects would be drawn from. If not, could the minister advise as to where those funds will come from?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member asking the question, because this is, I think, a pretty exciting program that our government is undertaking, in terms of a new revenue-sharing agreement with First Nations.

As part of Budget 2019, First Nations in British Columbia will have a source of stable, long-term funding through a dedicated portion of provincial revenue from gaming. The Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation is leading that process. It is a separate program that will be designed, developed and delivered by MIRR.

[3:20 p.m.]

T. Stone: Okay. Just to confirm 100 percent, this particular line item, the community gaming grants, continues to be exclusively reserved for those grant recipients that have come to depend on this revenue stream. The funds in this revenue stream will not be accessed by First Nations. Rather, First Nations will have an opportunity to access a different pot of money, which is administered through the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, to confirm, the revenue-sharing agreement will not impact the community gaming grant program. The budget is set at $140 million annually, supports over 5,000 not-for-profits. There is no expectation of change. MIRR is actually taking lead on this program to develop a limited partnership of B.C. First Nations. They’re creating a body that will receive, manage, distribute and report on the funds. That’s coming out of that ministry.

T. Stone: I appreciate that.

Next, the assessment policy and support. I know B.C. Assessment is not here. I think that was potential for tomorrow. But I just wanted to…. This is more of a higher-level policy question that I’m hoping that the minister can answer.

Last year we saw the government pass legislation with respect to…. It was the Assessment Amendment Act of 2018. During the debate on that…. We understood and supported the concept of amendments being proposed to allow B.C. Assessment to value major industry properties, class 4s, based on their current industrial use, rather than potential future highest and best use.

Aside from the class 4s, the main concern that we raised at the time was around class 5 and class 6. The issue that seems to be continuing to be very predominant in the Lower Mainland but also in some other urban centres of the province is the significant pressures on small businesses, in particular, due to triple-net lease obligations that are really all about costs being driven up, tax burdens being driven up because of the assessment approach for class 5 and class 6.

The reason I’m talking about that now, in the context of this line item, is I do recall, in the comments and the interaction that the minister and I had in that debate, that the minister said that the ministry would be engaging with small business and would be having a discussion and looking at really reaching out to affected organizations, small businesses in particular, to determine how to best proceed, if proceeding at all, on looking at this split assessment question in class 5 and class 6, relief for small business.

I’m just wondering. I mean, it’s $9,000. It’s basically a flat line here in terms of assessment policy and support. I’m wondering: one, is that the budget where, if you were to do a consultation of some sort with small business around assessment policy, you would tap into the funds to do that? Secondly, in relation to my previous comments, has the minister done any consultation, or has the ministry overseen any consultations, with small businesses to really address that issue that I’ve described, in terms of soaring costs relating to soaring property values and, therefore, soaring property taxes for those class 5 and class 6 organizations?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, again, thank the member for a very good question. I know that the member started off his question by talking about Bill 42, which enabled B.C. Assessment to value eligible major class 4 properties based on current use rather than the highest and best use, where there were changes to the community plan while the plant sort of maintained its production level. We did take immediate steps, because the scope is very limited and the new legislation would help protect dozens of community-sustaining jobs that were imminently threatened. I acknowledge that the member appreciated that and valued that and saw that that was important work that we undertook.

We absolutely recognize that owners and occupiers of properties in other classes are feeling a similar sort of challenge. It is what happens when you have an out-of-control real estate market that is let to spiral and continue to go up and up and up without any acknowledgment of the problem, so we’re very proud to be part of a government that acknowledges the problem.

I know that the member appreciates that this is complex work. There are many layers. There are 189 local governments. They each have their own way of zoning and classifying. And then there’s the triple-net lease overlay that also plays out, because we recognize that while the landowners might benefit from the rising land value, the cost — the burden that comes with that on the property tax system — falls to the occupier, the lessee. So we recognize that it’s a burden for small business, and they have been asking, for a significant amount of time…. Even before we formed government, they were asking for some relief and some help.

I do want to get on the record — and I’m sure the member knows this — that local governments do have some tools to help mitigate some of the impact, whether it’s adjusting tax rates or averaging or phasing in assessment increases and revitalizing tax exemptions. Those tools are available to local governments, but I want to assure the member that we are undertaking the significant body of work that we said that we would. We’re doing it within the current budget. We are undertaking that.

We’ve had discussions with various stakeholders to look at assessment and taxation mitigation strategies that would support the economic viability of these businesses. Work to date includes participation in the Metro Vancouver property assessment and taxation working group. We’ve also met and had consultations with the business improvement associations that represent over 60,000 businesses and property owners. The BIABC, local business network society; the South Granville BIA; the Downtown Vancouver BIA; and Hastings North BIA are just some examples.

UBCM staff have also facilitated discussions for ministry staff with some communities outside the Metro Vancouver area. I know that the member appreciates that when you look at making a legislative change, it affects the entire province not just certain regions. It’s important that we take a look to see, in other communities, what’s going on and what would be helpful.

The preliminary feedback that we’ve received has been valuable, and it’s helping to design the highest and best use review. Like I said before, this is complex. It’s an important issue. It’s absolutely an important issue for our government, which is why we’ve dedicated resources out of the ministry. It’s why we’re working with the Ministry of Finance and B.C. Assessment to make sure that we are all talking about what we can do to continue to support small businesses.

[3:30 p.m.]

Our government has cut the small business tax rate from 2½ to 2 percent. I know that that’s made a difference for business, but we’ve certainly continued to hear that this continues to be a challenge for them, and it’s work that we have said we would undertake and that we would review.

T. Stone: The minister mentions that local governments do have some tools. This is true. The challenge is that we are, as she is, hearing from a lot of constituents — a lot of small business owners in particular, largely concentrated in Metro Vancouver — who are continuing to express (a) concern for their own financial viability, but (b) a higher-level concern that I think we all share, and that’s the hollowing out of our downtown cores.

This ever-rising pressure that is related to the higher tax burden because of how the assessment policy is established now for class 5 and class 6…. It continues to be cited as a major concern. I would say, certainly, a lot of the organizations I’m hearing from — if not the top concern, it’s one of the top two or three.

I’m aware that there have been some discussions with UBCM. I’m aware that the minister, I’m certain, has had some interaction with BIAs and chambers, and so forth. I think, for the record, it would be of value, at this point, to understand more fully what the minister’s plan is on a go-forward basis in terms of engagement, consideration of policy change and a potential timeline related to that change to, essentially, signal to small businesses that this government not only is hearing the concerns but has a plan, or has intentions to execute on a plan, to provide some relief, following a more formal engagement process.

Could the minister speak to that? Does she have any plans for a more formal engagement process here? The government has done lots of consultations on lots of topics, and I don’t take issue with most of those consultations. It would seem to me that a more formalized approach here, in terms of consultation, would be appropriate. Does the minister have any plans for a more formal consultation with affected stakeholders, with the intention to really hear from these stakeholders what these potential solutions could be that could then be considered by government for implementation?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s queries. We are engaged in formal consultation. We are speaking and very carefully listening to a range of stakeholders. It is really important, I think, especially when you’re dealing with something that’s as complex as this, that you really make sure that you take the time to get it right — that you hear from all the various stakeholders.

There are 189 different local governments that would be impacted by any changes that we would make. It’s important that we hear from the variety of different kinds of businesses and the impacts that they have. We need to remember that there is a triple-net lease structure that’s in place, so we need to make sure we understand how all of that works.

I know that there’s an appreciation from the small business community that they want us to get it right. We’ve certainly heard that from them as well. So we’re continuing to engage in those consultations, make sure that we get all ideas on the table and take a look at what the opportunities are so that we can address what should have probably been addressed a number of years ago and wasn’t.

I know that there is great appreciation from small business and from communities, because municipalities have been struggling with this as well. They’re trying to mitigate these challenges. Like the member said, none of us wants to see hollowed-out downtowns. But the appreciation that there are various downtowns all throughout the province that will impact differently…. It’s really important that we understand what the full impacts are of making any sorts of changes.

We’re committed to continue to do the work to find a solution, because at the end of the day, I think that’s what small businesses want. They want a solution to the burdens that they are carrying, and we’ve certainly heard that. We’re going to continue to make sure that we do a fulsome consultation before we take the actions that are necessary to relieve the pressure that they’re under.

T. Stone: I’m well aware that there are 189 local governments in the province. We can agree on that data point. I’m well aware that the UBCM has a convention every year and well aware that the minister meets with the UBCM on a regular basis. The president of the UBCM is Coun. Arjun Singh from Kamloops, so I have lots of opportunity to receive updates from him, including his interactions, from time to time, with the minister.

What I think organizations — small businesses, in particular — really would like to understand is whether or not the minister and this government actually have any inclination or any intentions to provide some relief through some policy changes here.

The minister mentioned, in a previous answer, the bill, Bill 42 from last year. That was a very acute situation that happened very quickly and required an immediate fix so as to protect a bunch of jobs. I think that far too often in this job, we all tend to be very reactive to emerging situations, and that’s an important part of what we do.

If you take the small businesses — even in downtown Vancouver or in Surrey or in Coquitlam — and you actually add up the number of businesses that either have closed because of the cost constraints that have been foisted on them as result of this issue or are feeling seriously squeezed and are very worried about their future, it adds up to a heck of a lot of jobs too.

I don’t want to belabour this point for too long, but I would really appreciate if the minister could advise whether or not she has any intention, if the government has any intention, this year, in fiscal ’19-2020, to actually conclude the engagement that she says is underway — I take her at her word on that — and to consider some policy changes around assessment to actually provide some relief. Is there an intention to address this issue with some relief this fiscal year?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s fair to say to the member and to British Columbians that if we had no intent to take action, we wouldn’t be undertaking all this work. It’s a significant amount of work, and our government is committed to working with all the stakeholders. They’re quite varied, and it’s really important that we engage all the stakeholders. There are many opinions — I’m sure the member has heard all the various opinions — on what is the best course of action to take. It’s really important that we understand all of those various options and all of those various opinions.

It is a layered, complex system, and making sure that we understand the various components of it and the interactive components of how that all plays out — everything from the assessment system to the local government zoning to the triple-net lease and how those all play out — is really important. We need to make sure that we understand and that we hear from all the interests in this issue, and we’re very committed to addressing it and finding a way to provide relief.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. Every year the Kelowna MLAs get together with the local municipal council and mayor to discuss what their capital priorities are going forward. I also do that with the district of Lake Country to understand where their priorities are. So over the next few minutes I’ll discuss something to do with Kelowna and then one to do with the district of Lake Country. Then my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission will be in later to discuss some other ones. It’s mostly a fact-finding exercise right now.

On behalf of the city of Kelowna, one particular project they asked me to bring in is the Glenmore Recreation Park. This is a park filled with fields and courts that would serve mostly the Glenmore, which is the north, northwest, north end of the city. Phase 1 is currently under construction — we’re not looking for money there if it’s under construction — but the total buildout of the park is $15 million. With $4 million funded, there’s a shortfall or $11 million. I was wondering if there’s any funding source that the city of Kelowna can apply for so that they can get that $11 million funded.

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his question. The community, culture and rec program there is an infrastructure program, a joint federal-provincial program that had opened. We announced it at the UBCM. It closed in January. We just checked. Unfortunately, Kelowna didn’t apply for those funds, which would be the right category. If we have a second intake, from the way the member describes it, it would fit within that application. So they can certainly contact, give us a call, and our program staff will be sure to have a listen and see what it’s about. If there’s a second intake, we’ll certainly encourage the city to apply for those funds.

In the interim, the UBCM has two programs that they should look at. They’re the gas tax program and the community works fund. That might be an opportunity for them.

N. Letnick: Thank you to minister for that. I appreciate the set of directions. It is always helpful.

Moving on to district of Lake Country…. I see my colleague from Kelowna-Mission has arrived, so he’ll talk more about the Kelowna city asks in a minute. I’ll just finish on the district of Lake Country. There are two projects that the district of Lake Country has made application to already through the Canada-B.C. investing in Canada infrastructure program, through your ministry I understand.

One is the Indigenous cultural and discovery centre, $4 million. The grant application was submitted. Seventy-three percent of the funding is to come from the district of Lake Country, so I imagine 27 percent from the grant. This is to highlight the Okanagan Indian Band, their heritage and culture. The location of the building is at Woodsdale Road and Oyama Road. That’s right next to the district of Lake Country tennis courts, which we helped fund, I think, two governments ago. I was there for the opening of that. That’s one.

[3:50 p.m.]

The other one is Oyama Lake water pipe replacement and UV water treatment. This is $10 million. The grant application was submitted. This is to replace a pipe size in order to meet fire flow requirement as a high-risk area for fire and to provide for water treatment to the Okanagan Centre. If the minister would please provide us with an update as to where these grant applications sit, that would be great.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member had asked about two specific projects. One was the Indigenous cultural centre, which made an application to the community culture recreation program, which is part of the investing in Canada infrastructure program.

I want to let the member know that we had over 200 applications, eight times the amount of funds that are available. So it’s taking longer to do the review, because every single project is worthy of review. For that reason, we’re not going to have any decisions made by the public service for some time, not till towards the end of the calendar year.

I also think it’s important to recognize, given the volume, that it really speaks to the demand that has been building for some time, about the need for investment in this sort of infrastructure, which really makes our communities what they are, gives people a sense of place and space, in a way, and a place to connect and be together in the community.

The second one. I just want to confirm with the member, because we were just looking to see what applications have been received. He called it the Oyama water treatment project, dealing with fire flow.

[3:55 p.m.]

According to our records, we’ve received an application from the Okanagan Centre water source and distribution improvement project. Is that the name of the project that he is referring to? I don’t want to mislead the member in any way. I want to make sure that we’re talking about the same set of facts.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister. The note I got from the district of Lake Country is it’s the Okanagan Lake water pipe replacement and UV water treatment — $10 million.

If I may, this is to replace the pipe size in order to meet fire flow, a requirement in a high-risk area for fire, and to provide for a water treatment system.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member delivering a message through others to determine where things are at. I’m not sure exactly which fund they’ve applied to. It could be the green infrastructure–environmental quality fund. We do have a project with a different name. I don’t want to mislead the member around where things are at.

What I can say is that the green infrastructure–environmental quality fund is still under review, with decisions for later this summer. But rather than try to guess, if we could have a way to follow up and just double-check. Staff would certainly be pleased to let the member know what the status is of whatever that project is. It’s just to make sure that we’re talking about the same thing. I think that would make the most sense.

N. Letnick: Yes, I will get you the exact name, if it’s any different than this. I’ll get you more information just to make sure.

The other three that have to do with the district of Lake Country are aspirational. We’re looking to see who we would apply to, what fund and, if there’s no fund, then how we can get help with these three projects.

One is a new fire hall, $6.5 million for a new fire hall. We’d like to know if there’s any money at all, any partial assistance that the province can help to fund a $6.5 million investment in the district of Lake Country — obviously a small population, growing, but it needs a new fire hall.

The second is a sewer expansion. This project is in the order of around $20 million or more. It’s not ready yet, but it would be nice to know what direction the district of Lake Country should take when it is ready to make an application.

The third one is something that I must honestly say I was not able to deliver in my ten years as an MLA. The anniversary, actually, is coming up on Sunday, of being elected. Hopefully, the minister can bail me out on this. It’s dredging of the Oyama canal. This is a canal between Kal Lake and Wood Lake. It is constantly getting more and more silt, making it difficult for recreational boats to get from one lake to the other, amongst other problems.

It’s not in the district of Lake Country’s jurisdiction, but it’s causing some issues also with flood prevention. They’re trying to see what the best solution is over the long term to dredge the canal — subject, of course, to all the environmental approvals and everything else.

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I certainly appreciate the member’s list. He’s representing his community well by checking in to see what opportunities there are.

I’ll start with the fire hall and let the member know right off the bat that there are no granting opportunities for fire halls in particular. I want to let the member know that I’ve been hearing this from small communities since I’ve been the minister. This is an issue around how we fund fire halls, given the difficulty when you have a small tax base and you’re growing or you’re aging or both, and there’s no grant program. So we have been talking with the federal government around this particular issue.

I’ve also been encouraging local governments to bring that to the UBCM floor for resolution, and I would encourage the member to do that with his local governments. I think that there is an appetite among small communities to do that. Hearing from enough of them, I think, will push — certainly the federal government — that conversation further, around making sure that we are ready, that communities are ready. It’s a theme that I’m hearing. I want to express gratitude and appreciation that the member has brought that forward, because it’s one more that is struggling with this.

There was, however, an extra payment from the federal government for gas tax funds. So that might be a place where the community can go, with the UBCM — they’re managing those funds — and see if there’s an opportunity to apply for some of those funds to help fund a fire hall.

On the sewer expansion, at $20 million, I had mentioned earlier about the environmental quality program. If there’s a second intake, that would be the appropriate fund. So again, the local government can reach out to staff to make sure that they’re made aware when that opportunity arises — that they’re made aware and that they have a project that is ready to go and can get into the mix.

On the third one, the dredging of the Oyama canal, I want to commend member for his persistence over ten years. First of all, he mentioned that it wasn’t technically within the Lake Country boundary. So my first suggestion, certainly talking with staff, was to work collaboratively with whatever local government is responsible, if it’s shared. That they work together as a unit to come up with a plan, I think, is a good start so that they can make an application for joint funding.

[4:05 p.m.]

Where that is I’m not 100 percent sure, because he mentioned flood protection. I’m not sure if that would fall under EMBC or where that would go. Again, contact staff directly, and they would be happy to provide direction about what the options are.

The first step would be to make sure that, jurisdictionally, all those who are invested in making sure that this is addressed are all together on the same page and paddling in the same direction, if I can use a water analogy. I think that would be the first step.

S. Thomson: First of all, thank you to my colleague for giving me a quick opportunity here to ask a couple of questions as well. I think I’ll be fairly brief, because the first one is just around two specific projects that the city of Kelowna has applied for. I wanted to ask the minister if she could provide any update on the status of consideration of those projects.

One is a sanitary sewer connection program, under the water quality enhancement project under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, the green infrastructure component. The application was submitted in August, so I understand approval is pending on that project. The application has been in for quite a while.

It’s a very, very important project in our community and particularly in my riding, because this will bring a sewer to over 10,000 households that are currently on septic, particularly up in an area called Hall Road. This has been a longtime ask. The opportunity’s here now, and the application’s in, so just wondering about the status of that.

The other one is under the investing in Canada infrastructure program, as well, under the community, culture and recreation component. This is for a master plan renewal of the Kelowna City Park, a jewel in our community but needs a significant upgrade and renewal. They have submitted an application that went in on January 23. The amount requested from the federal-provincial process is $6.6 million, and there’s a $2.4 million local government contribution to that project.

I’m just wondering if I can ask the minister the status of those two applications and when there might be an expectation that decisions would be forthcoming.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to thank the member for his questions about two very important projects in his community. I just confirmed that staff did receive those proposals. The green infrastructure and environmental quality fund is under process, under review. We are expecting, later this summer, to be able to inform successful proponents. That should be coming fairly soon.

The CCR — the community, culture and rec program. I want to let the member know that we had over 200 applications, which is certainly an indication of the significant demand for these sorts of projects. You add up all of the requests for funding. It’s eight times more than what we actually have, so we know that there are going to be some disappointed communities.

[4:10 p.m.]

The work is being undertaken. Because there are 200 of these projects and we feel that every single project is worthy of attention and an analysis, that analysis is going to take some considerable time. At this point, we’re anticipating end-of-the-calendar-year announcements with that program, because of the volume that has been received.

S. Thomson: Thank you, Minister, for the update. I guess I’ll just say that I hope, under both of those projects, that Kelowna is not a disappointed community when you’re making the decisions, because they are critical projects. The first one, in particular, with the sewer, is really one that has tremendous benefits to the community.

I’ll just ask around one more initiative that’s underway in the community. I don’t expect an answer from the minister right away. Maybe I’ll just put it on the record here, and then she could provide an answer as a follow-up, because I know it’s not a program that’s specifically within her ministry. But it’s one that we’re looking for some advice on, as to where would be the best approach to pursue on this. This is the Mill Creek flood mitigation project.

Mill Creek, which flows all the way from the outer edges of the community, by the airport, through communities, ultimately right through the middle of town — there have been significant impacts over the last two years with flood impacts. They’ve received a $22 million contribution to the mitigation requirements for that creek from the federal government. Federal funding has been announced and approved.

It is, in total, a $55 million project. The city is looking for where there are opportunities to pursue provincial funding in matching, or in some process, with the federal contribution that has been made. If I could just leave the question there and then the opportunity for any advice to be provided. I’ll certainly be following up with this, as well, with other ministries, emergency management B.C. and other areas where there might be some opportunities here. If the minister had any advice, we would appreciate it.

Thank you for the opportunity to ask a couple of short questions here.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. My advice was going to be to check in with other ministries as well, but staff have taken note of it and will provide direction, based on what’s available, and help the community determine how to best address these challenges.

T. Stone: I always make room for the consummate gentleman from Kelowna-Mission.

To the minister, we’re on the topic of infrastructure here, and I’m just wondering if she could provide us with just a high-level sense of each of the major capital programs that she has — the clean water and wastewater fund, the small communities fund and the gas tax fund. I appreciate that priorities are established, and the UBCM has a huge role there, but I’m just wondering if she could give us a sense of how many dollars are available in the current fiscal year in each of those programs.

This probably goes without saying, but year after year after year, these pots of money, our capital programs, are over-prescribed. Depending on which priorities are in play at any given time, different governments will assign different priorities, but there are multi-millions of dollars available. There are many multi-millions of dollars of more need.

I’m just wondering. If these programs are oversubscribed, what is the minister’s plan, on a forward-looking basis, to ensure that when it comes to clean water and waste water, when it comes to local infrastructure, the priority needs in local government are met?

[4:15 p.m.]

I would put one final lens on this. If the minister could also address…. We’re in, now, the early stages of the current freshet, with some flooding beginning to take place in different parts of the province. It pains me to say this, but we’ve had several brush fires already, in different parts of the province. We’re barely into May, and communities throughout the Interior and the north are already very concerned about impacts to infrastructure from wildfires of years past. We’re heading into another wildfire season, so there will be further pressure on infrastructure with respect to those kinds of natural disasters, which are becoming all too frequent.

Could the minister just give us an overview of each of those programs and then perhaps speak to some of the concerns that I’ve raised around meeting the most important needs of local governments from an infrastructure perspective?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question, because I know that it can feel like there are all these different grant programs that governments have — and understanding that they’re open at different times and have different requirements. So I think it’s good to get on the record.

[4:20 p.m.]

The ministry has an infrastructure planning grant program that’s $500,000. It’s an open intake. They can apply for up to $10,000, so it’s a limited fund. It offers grants up to $10,000 to support local government projects for the development of sustainable infrastructure. It helps to create a vision for the future — one that embraces sustainability, resilience and livability. We get applications from local governments, and they can use it for activities related to assessing technical, environmental and/or economic feasibility of local government infrastructure.

It also provides a solid foundation for future capital projects to make sure that they have a successful implementation. We find that local governments often use that to apply for the larger infrastructure grants. We want to make sure, and I know that the member opposite agrees…. The more planning you can put in place, so that you understand exactly what the detailed nature is and you can put a project proposal and a funding proposal together, then you know what the actual costs are. That requires good planning. So we make sure that local governments have the resources to do some good planning.

Then we’ve been working with the federal government. I know that the member opposite appreciates that these infrastructure projects are significant. They are very costly, so it’s important that we leverage together the federal government dollars with provincial dollars. We have the Invest in Canada infrastructure program. The province signed an agreement with the federal government on March 22, 2018, securing $3.917 billion in federal funds over the next ten years. This is a ten-year program, and we’ve just done the very first intake. There’s certainly lots of time left in this program, and opportunity going forward.

There are a number of buckets from this fund. We were the first province to open program intakes. We moved very quickly. We thought it was really important to have local governments, which have been waiting for the opportunity to invest in their communities, so we opened up as quickly as we could. The initial environmental quality program intake was open from summer to fall of 2018. The decisions, like I’d mentioned earlier, we’re anticipating later this summer.

Two other buckets were the rural and northern communities program and the community, culture and recreation program. Those intakes were launched at the UBCM in 2018. They closed in January. The applications are currently under review, and on both of those funds, decisions are anticipated in late 2019. The initial CleanBC communities fund intake launched to support the CleanBC plan in late 2018. It closed at the end of March 2019, and it’s going to be some time before those successful proponents are announced.

T. Stone: I appreciate that information. For each of those capital programs that are available to local governments…. A side note. I know, again, it’s the tremendous hard work of the civil servants in the ministry, as certainly was the case when I was a member of government. British Columbia, for a long time now, and it’s continuing under this minister and this government, is known for being on the ball and being ready to apply for federal funding as soon as possible. I think that’s obviously good for all British Columbians.

I’m just wondering. Can the minister, for each of those capital project funds that she just rattled off, provide me, for the current fiscal year, with the total dollar value of the funds that are available, including the leveraged amount from the federal government? What is the total dollar value of the project applications for each of those funds?

What I’m really looking for here is the level of oversubscription, in dollar terms, for each of these different capital programs.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to thank staff for their diligence. I turned around, saying, “Do you guys have these numbers,” and they said: “Yup, we do.” They’re fully prepared.

As I said earlier, there are four buckets. Again, this is a ten-year program. I think it’s really important to recognize that it is a ten-year program, so the opportunities for additional intakes are certainly available. When we do an intake, it’s for a finite portion of the ten-year plan. So when we look going forward, it means that there are opportunities for those that are not successful proponents.

In the environmental quality stream, the combined total for this program, over the ten years, is $729.12 million. The provincial amount is up to $331.4 million, and the federal amount is up to $397.72 million. The first intake is $243.04 million, and the applications were 3 to 1. So three times is the request.

For the rural northern community stream, the combined total over ten years is $284.86 million. The provincial amount is up to $120.52 million, and the federal amount is up to $164.34 million. The first intake is up to $94.95 million, and in this rural northern bucket, it’s 7 to 1.

The community, culture and recreation stream. The combined total over ten years is $269.68 million. The provincial amount is up to $114.17 million. The federal amount is up to $155.51 million. The first intake is up to $134.84 million, and that was 8 to 1.

T. Stone: Sorry, which program?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is the community, culture and rec, also known as CCR or the fund with the band name.

The final one is the CleanBC communities fund. The combined total over ten years is $188.82 million. The provincial amount is up to $85.82 million, and the federal amount is up to $103 million. The first intake amount is up to $62.94 million. It just closed at the end of March, and it looks like it’s a 2-to-1 ratio.

T. Stone: Moving on, I’m going to turn to a few questions on TransLink. I don’t know if you’ve got the right folks in the right chairs.

Interjection.

T. Stone: They’re on their way? Okay, so maybe while they’re on their way, I’ll ask a different question.

[4:30 p.m.]

Just one question about the change that was made to MRDT to allow local governments to potentially tap into MRDT funds for affordable housing projects. I’m just wondering if the minister could provide us with an update on whether or not any municipalities have actually, to her knowledge, accessed MRDT funds for affordable housing projects. If so, which communities, and is she aware of the dollar amounts and the details of the projects in question?

Hon. S. Robinson: It was as I thought. I thought I would check with staff. The MRDT is tracked through the Ministry of Finance, so I would suggest that the member…. My understanding is that the estimates are happening right now, so if there’s somebody who would like to ask that question of the Minister of Finance, that would be the appropriate ministry to ask that question.

T. Stone: Are the TransLink folks on their way still?

Interjection.

T. Stone: They’re on their way. Okay.

Another question, non-TransLink-related: are any municipalities or regional districts, to the minister’s knowledge, contemplating any boundary changes in the forthcoming fiscal year?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I don’t know if the member’s aware, but on a regular basis, there are often small changes, sort of taking in one property here or there around an improvement district to make sure that they can access water. That’s sort of a regular boundary change process that is relatively minor and doesn’t require a whole lot of study.

I’m sure the member appreciates that when communities talk about what it would look like, there’s a lot of conversation and a lot of discussion, and we’ve had a number of communities approach the ministry. The Columbia-Shuswap, for example, is interested in having discussions around a study around changing boundaries with Blind Bay and Sorrento and taking a look at what that would look like.

The process is a slow one. It’s a methodical one that requires study and conversation and consultation and engagement. So oftentimes there are queries from local governments about: “How would we go about it? What would it look like? What would the process look like?” That information is shared with them, and then often it involves, usually in early stages, some sort of study about what it would look like, what it could look like.

The other area that we’ve heard from is the regional district of Kootenay-Boundary. They’ve inquired about the process of a study. And again, just because a community wants to study it doesn’t mean that it happens. Oftentimes they find that…. The information that they learn is that it’s not going to work. It’s not going to solve a particular problem that they may have identified, or it’s not going to make sense, given what they now know.

There’s lots of time and energy and study that goes into making sure that everybody understands the process, everybody understands the implications. And, as a government, we take that very seriously, and also that we need to hear from the community itself, because that’s the other piece — that the community does get to have a say, and that’s really important. So it takes a significant amount of time from the first “What would it look like; what could it look like?” query to some sort of result that they were looking for.

T. Stone: I appreciate that. I’m just wondering, then. Would the minister commit to following up with me, perhaps in writing, with whatever details she is able to share on those two examples that she just cited with those two regional districts, and whether or not there are any other active considerations being undertaken within the ministry as it pertains to potential boundary changes?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member asked for staff to communicate and provide, perhaps, a list of those communities that have requested a boundary change. We can certainly share that with the member. We can certainly share with him the requests that we have received in the ministry around boundary changes.

[4:40 p.m.]

T. Stone: Okay. One more question, and then we’ll switch over to TransLink. This has nothing to do with boundary changes.

In the supplementary estimates process, we had a number of questions and a bit of discussion around the Peace agreement. The supplementary estimates included, I believe, $8.4 million of the total $135.4 million for Peace River infrastructure under the Peace River agreement. What we were trying to understand in the supplementary estimates process was what exactly that $8.4 million was for, when the Peace agreement has a very specific fixed calendar of payments and payment amounts, with interest that accrues each year. The 2020 payment, as I understand it, is $50 million, plus an inflation rider of another $1 million for a total of $51 million. That’s as per the agreement.

I’m just wondering if we could take another stab at it here to understand what, exactly, the $8.4 million was for, in relation to the Peace agreement.

[4:45 p.m.]

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: There’s been no change to the agreement or the payment. Last year $41.6 million was part of the base budget; $8.4 million was part of the contingency. That’s the same formula that the previous government had used. However, this year, that $8.4 million has been added to the base budget.

T. Stone: Just so I’m crystal-clear, on a go-forward basis, there won’t be a need to access $8.4 million from a contingency budget. If I hear the minister correctly, the full $50 million, plus whatever the inflation amount is for that year, will be provided in base budget, with respect to the Peace River agreement.

Hon. S. Robinson: This is the amount that….

Interjections.

The Chair: Members, keep it down. Thank you.

Hon. S. Robinson: Rowdy crowd over there.

This is the amount that we have in estimates for this current budget year that we’re talking about right now.

T. Stone: Okay. Just, again, to be clear. The financial obligations in the Peace River agreement, which is the $50 million per year plus an inflation rider — there’s no impact or change to those numbers. The amount that’s in the budget for this fiscal year is that $50 million plus inflation. It’s just $41.8 million of it is base and $8.4 million of it, roughly, is from contingency.

If I’m correct in that — that adds up to the total that is the obligation in the agreement — then I’m done with my line of questioning here. If I’m incorrect on anything I’ve just said, the minister could maybe indicate as such, and I will sit down and she can correct me where I’m incorrect.

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. Can I ask for a bio-break? Is that possible?

The Chair: Yes, okay. Members, we’ll take a five-minute recess. Thank you.

The committee recessed from 4:49 p.m. to 4:57 p.m.

[R. Kahlon in the chair.]

T. Stone: I’m just going to put a number of questions on the record. The minister and I just had a brief conversation prior to coming back here. I’ll put these on the record, and I appreciate being provided some answers in response. There’s one, though, that I would really appreciate having a response today, if I could.

I will start. The questions relate to the building code — in particular, the initiative to move forward towards the new B.C. energy step code standards by 2032. I think everyone that’s in this room — and folks at home, I’m sure — is familiar with the commitments that have been made by previous governments and the current government, in terms of moving towards and getting close to, hopefully one day, a net zero in terms of new home construction. It’s an important part of any government’s environmental plan, climate plan or emissions reductions strategy plan.

The challenge is that, depending on where you are in the province, the requirements that comprise each of the different steps in the step code become increasingly onerous and place significant added cost onto that unit of housing that can have a very different macro impact in a community like Kamloops, where the average home price hovers around $450,000 to 500,000 per year, versus an average new unit of construction in, say, Coquitlam or Vancouver. The climate is very different, and there are a lot of differences across this big province of ours that really drive the costs related to these new standards.

The concerns that I wanted to express, on behalf of the Kamloops home builders and on behalf of new-home construction companies in Kamloops but also elsewhere in the province, really relate to three areas, in terms of the step code.

[5:00 p.m.]

The first is obviously cost. Affordability is a big concern. We’re going to canvass housing affordability and the government’s initiatives around that in great detail tomorrow. I think we can all agree that each additional step of the B.C. energy step code adds additional cost to that new unit of construction.

The second — and this is the piece that I would appreciate a response to today, if I could get one — is around the requirement for energy advisers. I think it’s safe to characterize that, at a high level, the changes represented in the B.C. energy step code are really about moving from a prescriptive model to more of a performance-based model when it comes to these requirements and new-home construction. Part of a hallmark or a feature of the performance-based framework that we’re moving towards is to have energy advisory consultants that have to weigh in and, essentially, sign off on the home contractor meeting the standards, as per the code.

The challenge that we have in a community like Kamloops is there are no energy advisers in Kamloops. There’s not a single one. We have a number of energy advisers from neighbouring communities like Kelowna. I believe there might be one in Vernon. There are a number of them in the Lower Mainland, but there are none in Kamloops.

This has raised a series of consequences that sort of flow from that. One is the timeliness of energy adviser engagements, as required. Secondly, it’s adding additional costs in having to bring these energy advisers in from outside of Kamloops.

Kamloops is a city of 110,000 people now. One would think that a city of that size would have energy advisers. I’m not aware of what the reality is in every other municipality around the province, but I’m hearing anecdotally that the challenge of accessing energy advisers in a timely and cost-effective manner, as per the new requirements of the energy step code, is problematic and is a challenge that we need to address.

Perhaps we could get an answer on that one, and then I’ll read a few other questions into the record that I’d be appreciative of receiving written responses to in the weeks ahead.

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s questions about the step code, which was an initiative undertaken by his government. It started in 2017, and we’re pleased to continue to do that good work. I think it’s important work.

I think it’s important to remind everyone that the step code remains voluntary; it’s not a requirement. We recognize that there’s some transition that needs to happen in terms of building capacity, which I think is what the member is referring to. That very issue is being addressed by the Energy Step Code Council. They are aware of some of these challenges.

Because it’s a new program, it is about building capacity. But I’m pleased to let the member know that the CleanBC labour readiness plan is addressing this and making sure that we have people who are available to be energy advisers in communities across the province. As we see more and more of this uptake coming on line, that’s a piece that we’re going to be seeing. But it remains a voluntary program for the time being, so that we can build the capacity.

T. Stone: Thank you for that, Minister. Could the minister indicate, then, if it’s a voluntary program now and if one of the driving realities of the voluntary aspect of the system at the moment is that there is a need to build capacity, is there a point in time when the minister envisions these provisions no longer being voluntary? Have she and her government given consideration to moving from a voluntary model to a required model?

I am well aware that it’s voluntary. It’s voluntary insofar as it pertains to local governments wanting to opt in to a step in the step code. It’s not voluntary once a local government opts in to it. It’s not voluntary from the perspective of the small construction company that builds the homes and, therefore, then has to meet the requirements of whatever step in the step code that municipality requires.

Could the minister provide some comment as to what consideration government is making at the moment with respect to whether or not this program will ever become mandatory? If it is to become mandatory, does the minister have any timelines that she can speak to with respect to making that transition?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The step code is a gradual implementation, over a series of code cycles, through to 2032. Both the B.C. building code and the national code are going to be increasing the energy-efficiency requirements. I think we all agree how important that is, given the challenges we’ve seen with climate change and recognizing that everybody has a role to play in making sure that we are more energy-efficient. The increase to the base B.C. building code to net-zero energy-ready by 2032 will go through three code cycles: the 2022 code, the 2027 code and then, finally, the 2032 code.

I think we need to recognize that, when you’re creating this kind of change, starting off with voluntary opportunities means that you can slowly build the capacity so that you can make sure that you have the right kind of talent and tools available so that we can actually deliver on buildings that are more energy-efficient.

The other thing I want to mention…. I’d mentioned the CleanBC labour readiness plan. The Minister of Advanced Education and the entire sector know that this is coming, and they are working together to make sure that we have the right training in place so that the people that we need in order to deliver on this are at the ready and so that we can have more energy-efficient buildings.

T. Stone: I will just read into the record a series of questions related to the step code. Again, I appreciate the minister’s willingness to provide written responses to these questions in a timely fashion. I will preface this again by saying: please do what you can to help us wake up one morning in Kamloops and know that there are energy advisers that actually live in Kamloops.

Interjection.

T. Stone: Kamloops is a great place to live. It’s a retirement plan for some, not for me. Nice try.

A first question would be this: has the province given thought to the effect on smaller communities where climates are more extreme and where the incremental increase in cost has a greater impact due to less robust markets? I would note, for example, that for a single detached home — say, a 4,000-square-foot house, just as a baseline here — step 3 compliance would have an estimated additional cost, related to those requirements, of about $16,000.

A $16,000 additional cost to a $450,000 average housing unit, which this would be in Kamloops, is a very different story than a $16,000 additional cost on the exact same home in Coquitlam, Surrey or Vancouver, where it might be $1.3 million, $1.5 million or $2 million. A $16,000 increase in construction costs due to that step code would have a much more significant impact on that home in, say, Kamloops or Kelowna or even a smaller community than it would in a comparable home in the Lower Mainland.

A second question: why are existing buildings, which are responsible for the majority of the inefficiencies, not being asked to share more in this cost through retrofits? Does the government have any retrofit strategy to encourage energy-efficient retrofit upgrades to be made within existing homes and existing buildings?

[5:15 p.m.]

Three, through the mandatory use of an energy adviser — or, essentially, promoting an additional layer of bureaucracy — is the ministry open to considering simplifying this to guide the industry to adopt more efficient prescriptive measures through our building codes?

The next question. Many communities in the province — including Kamloops, as I said — don’t have enough energy advisers in place to service them. We’re hearing lots of stories of permit applications being delayed due to these shortages. These delays are only going to get worse as the step code becomes mandatory and all permit submissions require the use of energy advisers. What is the plan to ensure that there are energy advisers available in communities like Kamloops and others around the province where we have a serious shortage?

The last question would be this. What will actually happen if a builder follows a design that’s signed off on by an energy adviser and the efficiency goal that was set in that energy adviser’s approval is not met? Would municipalities be expected to hold back occupancies in that case? What would this do to the housing industry, the housing supply and the affordability of housing? I’m hearing that that’s a piece where there are some growing pains as well. I’d appreciate the minister’s thoughts on that piece.

Again, thank you for being willing to provide some written responses to those questions. We’re now going to move into a series of questions with respect to TransLink. We have the right folks in the room? Okay, good. Thank you.

First off, I’m wondering…. A year ago, when we canvassed TransLink in estimates, it was my understanding that there was an oversight committee in place, with respect to the major projects — the Vancouver project down Broadway and the rapid transit project in Surrey — to provide guidance to government and TransLink on both of these large rapid transit projects. My understanding is that this oversight committee comprised senior civil servants and that those individuals would be providing advice and guidance with respect to the business cases for both of these major rapid transit projects.

The first question would be this: with respect to the business plans, have the business plans for each of the Surrey rapid transit project and the Vancouver-Broadway rapid transit project been effectively signed off? Are they completed? A second question would be: what is the total dollar value that is provided for in those business plans? With respect to the construction and completion of these two very important rapid transit projects, which are supported by all members of the House, are the business plans signed off? What is the total project value today for each of these two projects?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll start with the Broadway subway project, the Broadway line. The RFQ was released to the public in February 2019, including confirmation…. Sorry, the RFP is scheduled to be released at some point this summer. The total cost of the project is estimated at approximately $2.83 billion.

The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project…. I would remind that phase 2 of the Mayors Council ten-year vision included building $1.65 billion of light rail transit in Surrey, while phase 3 included LRT along the Fraser Highway to Langley, estimated at a cost of $1.9 billion. The Mayors Council voted, in November 2018, to suspend the LRT, and in December 2018, they decided to proceed with planning and project development work for a Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project instead.

Right now the project development workplan, including a business case for senior government and updating the investment plan, is estimated to take about 15 months. So there will be more details coming.

T. Stone: Okay. Again, just to confirm, the Surrey project is, essentially, on hold, pending 15 months of additional work to take into consideration the decision that the mayors have taken with respect to, I’m assuming, the technology — Surrey’s insistence on SkyTrain being the technology of choice for the project. This has required everybody to go back to the drawing board and do that business planning work taking into account that very significant change in technology. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Nothing’s on hold. Work continues. Making sure that we have a business plan for the new technology is critical work that’s happening. So nothing’s on hold. Things are moving forward.

T. Stone: “On hold” was perhaps a poor choice of words. What I meant by that is, essentially, that because the technology is going from light rail on 104th to SkyTrain, there’s a very significant difference in cost in terms of the technologies that are now being contemplated for the Surrey project. So the project….

It would seem to me that, when the minister says 15 months of work now needs to be done to essentially re-scope or redo the business plan taking into account the new technologies, that would essentially mean that the start of construction for the Surrey project will be different — i.e. it’ll be later — than was originally planned had the technology not changed on the part of the mayors.

[5:25 p.m.]

With respect to the Surrey project, could the minister confirm or indicate again, for the record, prior to the technology change being confirmed by the mayors, the start date of construction and the completion date for the first phase of rapid transit in Surrey? And what is now the most likely or anticipated revised start date and completion date for that first phase of the Surrey rapid transit project?

Hon. S. Robinson: The original vision that was part of the mayors’ ten-year vision for light rail was to have it operational in 2024. That was the original vision. Our government, of course, is partnering with TransLink and with the Mayors Council to make sure that we’re delivering the right kind of transit infrastructure that meets the needs of the communities as the communities determine what those needs are and how to move forward.

We’ve heard members coming through earlier today talking about their local governments and identifying whether they needed to invest in pipes in the ground or in rec centres. I think there’s respect around this table for the work that mayors and councils have to do in terms of determining what the priorities are for their communities and how to make sure that their communities are delivering the kinds of services and have the livability that people are wanting.

In this case, there was a change, a change that happened in Surrey that requires a fresh look at a new technology. So we’re going to continue to work with the region and the federal government to help the Mayors Council deliver on the projects that best meet the transit and transportation needs of Surrey and the region.

[5:30 p.m.]

Like I said before, because of the change, it means that there is a piece of work that needs to happen in terms of developing a workplan, including the business case, so that we can update the investment plan, determine exactly what the scope of the project is going to look like. It takes time to do that, so that work is continuing.

The other thing is that TransLink is also refreshing the South Fraser transportation strategy concurrently with planning for the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project to ensure that the area’s transit needs are met. They are taking a wholesome look to make sure that the investments will deliver for the people of Surrey, because they have waited a long time. I know that they’re all looking forward to having the kind of investment that works for them as they move around the region.

J. Thornthwaite: Carrying on, on a SkyTrain theme, I have with me, Minister, the integrated North Shore transportation planning project, INSTPP, which was released last August 2018. On page vii, the first introduction part — these actually are an executive summary — No. 3 says: “Evaluate the conditions for rapid transit between the North Shore and Burrard peninsula, connecting Lonsdale city centre with Vancouver’s metropolitan core and the regional rapid transit network.”

I’m wondering why, in this report, there was no mention of the Second Narrows.

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for her question. I am aware of the INSTPP report. However, this report was undertaken by MOTI, and they would be the best folks to be able to answer the member’s question.

J. Thornthwaite: As the minister knows, the MOTI estimates are over, and all the SkyTrain questions, I understood, were supposed to be related to this ministry, because it’s TransLink. So I’m going to ask another question with regard to the report.

On page 9 or 10, there is a map of mobility — of people that are moving back and forth from the North Shore to Surrey, to Tri-Cities, to Burnaby, to New West, to Vancouver. It’s all an indication of the commuter flow of where North Shore residents are either getting to their jobs or back to their jobs. In other words, people are either travelling, say, from Langley to work in North Van or going the opposite direction. But in either case, this map on page 10 indicates the strong commuter traffic that’s occurring either way.

Obviously, a lot of that is on the roads. My question is, with regard to the need for a SkyTrain, which, as I said, is under TransLink: has the minister considered SkyTrain to the North Shore?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Our government is keenly aware that congestion on the North Shore continues to build. It’s significant. It’s creating challenge for people to find others to work, to find employees, because they can’t get to the North Shore. We’ve certainly heard those stories, and we are looking for ways to ease congestion, to get traffic moving more freely.

The integrated North Shore transportation planning project, or INSTPP, was led by the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink. However, it was done in partnership with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and it was actually the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure that led it. It’s their report. It was led by the MLA; it wasn’t led by the parliamentary secretary. I think that might be where the member is getting a little bit confused. The report actually belongs to that ministry.

The member might also be aware that our government is committed to 40 percent of the capital costs to building transit and growing the transit capacity of the region. However, we work collaboratively with the Mayors Council. They’re the ones that determine priorities, and they’re the ones that determine where the next investments need to go.

Right now we’re working on the extension of Broadway and working out in Surrey. Phase 3 is still to come, and I would certainly urge the member to work together with the mayors of the region in the North Shore, making sure that the voice of those mayors is recognized around the Mayors Council. Given that their work to create the vision is the lead on how to best proceed, given that there has been not a steady rate of investing in transit, which we’ve needed for a long time, we continue to be committed to make sure that we can relieve congestion.

I think everyone agrees that with a million more people coming to the region over the next number of decades, we need to continue the investment. Our government is committed to doing that, and I would urge the member to make sure that the mayors are working collaboratively to make sure that the North Shore is well represented around the decision-making table for what the next vision is for that part of the region.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I totally agree with the minister on that one. Just going back to the report. You’re right. The chair was the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, but she is also the Parliamentary Secretary for TransLink, so it makes sense that this would be a question I would be asking under TransLink estimates. In addition, the INSTPP steering committee…. The only so-called non-politician on the steering committee is actually, in fact, Kevin Desmond, who’s the CEO of TransLink, which this ministry is responsible for. So I think I’m pretty legitimately okay in asking TransLink questions pertaining to this report to this minister.

I have another question pertaining to TransLink and, actually, transit. Is the minister familiar with Dr. Stephan Nieweler’s research on Population and Employment Catchment of Proposed Rapid Transit: Comparison of North Shore–Burnaby and Broadway (Arbutus-UBC) Corridors?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is actually a little incorrect in terms of the role that the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale played. She was there in her capacity as the MLA, and she was working together with the Ministry of Transpor­tation and Infrastructure. That report didn’t come out of my office; it came out of that office. That was the work that happened.

These questions do belong with the Ministry of Transportation. They are the ones best poised to answer those questions.

[5:40 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: My question still remains unanswered. I asked a question to the minister, if she was familiar with Population and Employment Catchment of Proposed Rapid Transit: Comparison of North Shore–Burnaby and Broadway (Arbutus-UBC) Corridors. We were just talking with my colleague from Kamloops about the Broadway-Arbutus and Surrey-Langley SkyTrain proposals.

My question to the minister remains. Is she familiar with Dr. Stephan Nieweler’s work with regards to the comparison of those TransLink SkyTrain proposals to the one that he has suggested in the North Shore?

Hon. S. Robinson: I have not read that particular report.

J. Thornthwaite: All right. Well, then I’m not going to go through it, but I am going suggest to the minister that she take a look at it, because I do know that Dr. Nieweler did present to the INSTPP committee. Again, the committee included several North Shore politicians in addition to the CEO of TransLink, so they are quite familiar with his research. He also has presented to the district of North Vancouver council, as well as the mayors of West Vancouver city and the city of North Van. This research is quite well known on the North Shore and, in fact, quite prominently researched.

My point is that I wanted to let the minister know, if she has not been familiar with it, perhaps to check it out or get her counterparts in the TransLink department to take a look at it, because there are some stunning numbers there. According to a meeting that I attended last month at the district of North Vancouver, the new INSTPP chair, who happens to be the mayor of West Vancouver, has now taken it on herself to do a feasibility study on, in fact, this study. It is stunning, with regards to the numbers.

This professor has done an entire comparison of the costs of SkyTrain, both to the extension from the Arbutus line to UBC and also the Surrey and Langley line. He’s done a comparison to what we could get for bang for our buck, so to speak — getting also a line to the North Shore, an extension to the Millennium Line, and also maybe even light rail across the corridor in the North Shore.

Anyways, there’s a lot of material here that I think…. Before any decisions are being made from this government, maybe at least make them aware of the research that Dr. Nieweler has presented to all councils and mayors on the North Shore. We certainly will be imploring the new chair of INSTPP during the feasibility study — if there was another version or an updated version of the INSTPP report — to actually include at least a look at Dr. Nieweler’s research.

I know that wasn’t exactly a question, but it was a comment and perhaps a plea to get the staff in this ministry to take a look at this research. If the minister wanted to comment on that, that’s good. I have more questions on another topic.

Hon. S. Robinson: I would like to comment. I’m pleased to hear that the mayors are well aware of this research, because it really is their role to determine where the investments go. We work together with the mayors. If the Mayors Council determines that this needs to be the next investment, then we’ll be responsive to make sure that that’s where we go. This is what it means to work in partnership with them.

They’re on the ground, and I’m pleased to hear that the three mayors that represent the North Shore…. It sounds like they’re heavily involved. The job, I think, will be to engage with the other mayors around the region, recognizing how the region will benefit by freeing up the congestion that the three members of the North Shore have certainly talked about. All three of the members of this House who represent the North Shore have certainly talked about it.

Again, it really belongs with the mayors to make that determination that, given the numbers, this is where we need to be doing that investment. I would urge the member to do what she can to talk with the other mayors around the region and make sure that they can come up with a plan that works for the entire region and puts the investments where they next need to go.

[5:45 p.m.]

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you to the minister for that. Then I do have a question related to the Mayors Council. Of course, the mayors that I was talking about were the mayors on the North Shore. Is the minister aware of the — and these are my words, not theirs — top-heavy representation in weighted voting on the Mayors Council to Vancouver and Surrey because of population?

Hon. S. Robinson: We are well aware of how the Mayors Council is governed and what the structure is. I think we need to recognize that they have done, I think, an outstanding job for the ten-year plan, in making those determinations, in making those difficult decisions. I think they have done the analysis and looked at the data, in terms of making determinations about how to best make investments over a period of time, over a period of years. That’s how the ten-year plan came to be.

There is an opportunity now, with the regional transportation strategy, to look further out, so there’s another opportunity to work together with the mayors, with the province as well, and the region — so Metro Vancouver, the Mayors Council as well as the province — to sit down and take a look out beyond this ten-year plan. That work is going to continue.

Again, I think it’s important to acknowledge that while we get all excited about investments in SkyTrain, in terms of what that looks like and what the possibilities are, we’re also talking about investments in over 900,000 additional hours of buses, B-lines and all that comes with that, as well as making sure that we have the kinds of densities that support these transit infrastructures.

There’s a lot that goes into making these decisions, and it means, really, the mayors having fulsome discussion about how to best move forward on a regional plan. People live regionally. We might go to school over here and work over there but live over here, and we need to be able to move around the system. Making sure that we’re continuing to do that is really critical.

I have faith in the Mayors Council, as a body, to continue to take a look, with good data, like the data that the member shared with us. I imagine that the mayors on the North Shore, if the other mayors haven’t heard it, will share that with them to make sure that everyone understands what the implications are and how we all suffer. It’s not just the people on the North Shore. We all suffer when the North Shore is challenged with traffic and congestion.

This has been the frame that they have taken. I think they’ve done an amazing job with the ten-year plan. There’s more work to do — absolutely. No one is saying that we’re sitting back on our laurels. We’re moving forward with the regional transportation strategy and making sure that we can continue to make the investments that people need right across the region.

J. Thornthwaite: My point that I was trying to make on the weighted vote is that some of the smaller mayors, smaller city mayors…. I wasn’t trying to make a comment on the mayors’ size.

Interjections.

The Chair: Go on, Member.

J. Thornthwaite: The smaller cities — i.e., the cities that are smaller than Vancouver and Surrey…. Of course that would encompass North Van, West Van and many other ones. I know that they sometimes feel that infrastructure is getting preferential treatment in the larger centres, even though congestion and, in the case of SkyTrain…. There’s a need on the North Shore for at least getting to the North Shore, let alone when you’re already there.

[5:50 p.m.]

My point on the weighted vote was to just express frustration that a lot of the smaller city mayors have that when they are at the Mayors Council table, they perhaps are not getting as much representation as they deserve, being part of the region, because they are from smaller cities. That was what I was trying to get at.

I don’t know if the minister wants to comment on that. I can move on to another question? Okay.

I did appreciate the minister’s interest in Dr. Stephan Nieweler’s research, and I’d be happy to share that with her. Of course, everybody on the North Shore has seen it. I’m also giving a plea to the ministries to put it on their radar. If we know that the train has left the station for the extension to UBC, or the train has left the station for the Surrey extension, then perhaps the North Shore could be next. That’s basically what my message is.

The other question I have is actually on mobility pricing. We keep hearing mobility pricing popping up everywhere. There was a special report that was published. The people that were responsible went around and talked to all the MLAs and the caucuses, etc. Everybody knows all about mobility pricing, and they know that it’s potentially in the works. I refer back to the INSTPP report. There’s actually quite a bit of mention of mobility pricing or demand management or whatever they all call it. The point being is….

My question to this minister is: where are we at with mobility pricing in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct in speaking to the Mayors Council and their work. They spent a considerable amount of time examining mobility pricing as a possible approach to manage congestion and support continued investment in transit and transportation infrastructure upgrades, sort of as the member described. We need to be doing more. We need to also reduce congestion at the same time. So the Mayors Council made the decision to explore what mobility pricing could look like.

The Mobility Pricing Independent Commission’s 2018 report was a…. They introduced the region to this idea, and issues raised were around fairness and affordability. Those were the two key elements.

Our government, of course, is committed to making life more affordable and getting people moving around the region. Those are two key elements, certainly, for our government. When it comes to transit investment, we’re going to continue working with the mayors’ vision, which is about reducing congestion. People want to get home faster. They want to get to their families faster. But any congestion solution in Metro Vancouver needs to be fair and affordable for everybody. That’s certainly our government’s perspective, and I know that that’s the mayors’ perspective as well. They, too, agree with that.

This work that they’re undertaking, I assume, is going to continue, but this was sort of their first go at taking a look at mobility pricing and what it could be as far as understanding how it works and introducing all of us to that concept.

J. Thornthwaite: I just want to clarify that I got this straight. The instigation of mobility pricing, then, will come from the Mayors Council.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Like I said, we will work with the region to advance their vision to get people out of traffic and home to their families. Any congestion solution in Metro Vancouver needs to be fair and affordable for everyone. I know that the mayors absolutely agree with us on that perspective.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. I didn’t really get an answer to that question. I’m just trying to get where mobility pricing is coming from. It sounds like a great idea, until somebody makes a decision to do it. I’m basically asking whether or not it’s going to be the province of British Columbia that’s going to be making the decision. Or is it going to be the Mayors Council?

Hon. S. Robinson: TransLink is undertaking the work to explore mobility pricing. They’ve established a new mobility committee to continue studying the Mobility Pricing Independent Commission report, which is the report I alluded to in my earlier answer. Their goal is to bring that back at some point this summer. They’re exploring it. At this point, that’s all I know. They’re just exploring what that might look like.

J. Thornthwaite: My understanding from TransLink is that…. In order to pay for this phase 3, they’ve given a whole bunch of options: vehicle registration; a regional carbon tax, which will be very popular; mobility pricing; a goods movement fee; a hospitality tax; an on-line retail tax; land value capture; a regional sales tax; and a ride-hailing fee, even.

The chair of the Mayors Council, Jonathan Coté, has said that mobility pricing and land value captures have the potential to generate the most revenue. I’m wondering if the minister has a position on either of those.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member continuing to look at investment in public transportation for Metro Vancouver. It is a top priority for our government. That’s why we’ve committed funding for 40 percent. It’s never been done before. Forty percent of the capital for every phase of the mayors’ vision, over the 10-Year Vision, is our government’s commitment.

Our focus right now is on working with TransLink to deliver phase 2. There’s a significant amount of work that needs to happen for phase 2. I look forward to hearing from TransLink and the Mayors Council on the work that they’re going to be doing to develop the phase 3 investment plan. They’re undertaking that work, and I look forward to hearing what they come up with.

J. Thornthwaite: This will be my final question. With regards to the mobility pricing question, am I to assume, then, that it’s on hold? This government is not going to be making a decision on it any time soon, or they’re putting it on to the Mayors Council. I’m just trying to get an answer as to where mobility pricing is in the province of British Columbia right now.

[6:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to reiterate that right now, we’re working on delivering phase 2 of the vision. The mayors are doing their work around phase 3 and what that looks like. They’re exploring a whole range of things, and that’s their work to do. I look forward to seeing where they land as they develop their phase 3 investment plan. The work that the member described is the work that they are undertaking right now.

M. Lee: I’d just like to ask some questions relating to community infrastructure projects in my riding of Vancouver-Langara.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just have to trade staff.

M. Lee: Sure. That would be great.

The first project is a project that our colleague the member for Vancouver-Fraserview knows well and is very supportive of and that and he and I have been having a good conversation with the community on. That’s the project at Sunset Community Centre.

As the minister well knows, in terms of the general community in the area of Vancouver South, there is quite a large seniors population there, as there is in other parts of the city of Vancouver. Of course, we are looking to continue to ensure that there are good facilities for seniors to get out of their homes, to stay in the communities that they live in, with good home care support, of course.

Also, in terms of social activity, there is a very vibrant Indo-Canadian seniors group for men and for women. I’ve met with them on several occasions, and they’re very enthusiastic and very current in all their current affairs and activities.

There has been, of course, under the leadership of others in the community — like Minister Harjit Sajjan, the minister and Member of Parliament for Vancouver South…. There have been past park board commissioners who have been very supportive of this project.

I understand there has been some sorting out, which the new mayor of Vancouver has been very helpful with in respect of the operating agreements between the city of Vancouver and the Sunset Community Association. I think that’s getting to a good place.

Assuming that that is there, I understand there will be a submission, then, for provincial funding to take advantage of what, hopefully, is still a federal opportunity with federal funding on the table, as Minister Sajjan has indicated, before what happens in October, of course.

I’m hopeful that in this tight time period, there still may be an opportunity to find the funding for this particular project. I would just invite the minister to make a comment on the status of that potential submission application and funding.

Hon. S. Robinson: I think the member is referring to an opportunity to apply for the investing in Canada infrastructure program and the CCR, the community, culture and recreation funding program. We signed an agreement with Canada on March 22 to secure a $3.9 billion investment in federal funds to B.C. over the next ten years.

[6:05 p.m.]

We opened up the community, culture and recreation intake back in September 2018. That was at the UBCM. That was an announcement there. It closed in January. We’re reviewing all of those applications as we speak, and we won’t be making any determinations. Staff are taking their time to read all 200 of the applications, which I think is really important.

I just checked with staff, and unfortunately, they didn’t do a submission to this infrastructure program, which is really unfortunate. However, there will likely be another intake at some point. We don’t have that just yet. We’re just working on this first intake. I’m not quite sure what the member is talking about, aside from…. This is the grant opportunity that had been available.

M. Lee: I appreciate the response. That is the program I’m speaking about, and I appreciate that clarity, because there have been various players involved, so it’s helpful to know that.

If I hear you correctly, though, because it’s a ten-year funding program, the funds will be available for future applications — well, other than a change in government, when they withdraw and change the program. But assuming there is no withdrawal of the program, at least from this province’s point of view, the funding will be available for a future intake year. Will that be…? What is the timing of that future intake process? Is that September for January?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct in that it’s a ten-year program. If everything remains status quo, there will be another intake. I don’t have a timeline yet on that.

What I would encourage the member to do is to speak with the leadership. Make sure that they have sort of all their ducks in a row — that they put together a strong plan. They can certainly reach out and talk with staff to make sure that the plan is well put together so that when the call comes, they’re ready to go, and they can submit their application.

M. Lee: I appreciate that. I think it is a situation where a lot of pieces need to fall into place.

Let me switch to another project, which I know the minister has good familiarity with. This is going in increasing level of familiarity. This is, of course, the YMCA — the Langara Y at 49th and Cambie. As the minister knows, we have a very strong friend who used to be the board chair of the YMCA foundation. Jeff Devins saw the prospects of building good community infrastructure for child care, seniors programming and for the general community.

We have a great existing Langara Y now. My mother-in-law and my wife’s family have always been good members of that Y. It serves a great populace in the community. It’s part of that density that’s being created on the Cambie corridor and right next to Langara College as well. I know there are some partnership discussions, recognizing that students also need a place to go to.

I understand that this particular application has been submitted, and presumably — I just want to confirm — that is the case. I understand from the organization that they may well be part of that 200-group submission. They have an application that I think is in the magnitude of $10 million. I will say that the Y is a very strong organization, as the minister knows, so the level of government funding, whether it’s federal or provincial, is a small percentage as compared with the level of community giving that they’re having this project on and other opportunities.

Can I ask the minister just to confirm that this is part of the current intake and that, presumably, this project is being considered as part of this current round?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to express gratitude to the member for mentioning our mutual friend Jeff, who introduced me to the Y and encouraged me, when I was on city council, to bring it to Coquitlam.

[6:10 p.m.]

Actually, one of the first meetings I took as a brand-new councillor was with the late Jeff Devins. He was a great advocate, and he’s sorely missed by many who knew him and saw his commitment to the Y and to community recreation facilities that delivered great opportunities for communities.

I did check with staff. We have received that application. I can let the member know that everything is under consideration, all of the applications, and that later this calendar year we’ll have some decisions made by the public service that will be making the recommendations.

M. Lee: Thank you for that confirmation.

Can I ask just a general question in respect of the rollout of this infrastructure funding? With the global amount in mind, what’s the percentage or the amount that will be available under this first round, globally?

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to thank staff for being so well prepared. They anticipated this question.

The program allocation for this funding stream, the community, culture and recreation stream — combined total over ten years is $269.68 million. The first intake was up to $134.84 million.

M. Lee: That’s a significant amount for this year, on the first year, based on the overall. That’s good in one sense, for the ones that are being considered in the first 200.

I’m just going to save my general comment about the area of my riding and the importance of these projects. I’ll just ask about the third and last project. That, of course, is something I know the minister is very aware of. It’s the Jewish Community Centre, of course, which is at 41st and Oak.

That is a project that’s been worked on for some time. I think that’s another good example of an organization that has its ducks in a row in the sense of looking at a multigenerational facility for children and seniors and families. Of course, the Jewish Community Centre serves the full community, not just one part of the community, and it’s a very open centre that my children and myself, actually, have grown up in.

But I would ask the minister to confirm again that the JCC material and their application is part of the 200 and they’d be considered alongside of the other projects here.

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s interesting. The member talked about less familiar to more familiar. It was very accurate. I, too, spent many, many, many hours in the Jewish Community Centre, and I actually sat on the board. It feels like a million years ago. I think I was maybe 21 years old when I sat on the board. Anyway, that’s another story for another time.

He’s right. It’s a fabulous organization that serves from infants, in their child care, to seniors, in their L’Chaim day program and everything in-between — recreation services and cultural programming. For me, it was a hangout where I would just go and hang out and meet with friends. It looked very different then. It has had many iterations over the years.

It’s open to the entire community, which is one of the things I do love about it. In fact, the bus drivers used to spend a lot of time in there when the depot was across the street. It was all filled with bus drivers who were working out in the weight room. That’s who I would actually spend some time with, hanging out with the bus drivers who came across the street.

[6:15 p.m.]

Having said that, I’m familiar with the plans and the vision, which I have to say is absolutely spectacular. It involves a significant amount of housing and redoing of their recreation centre, better land utilization as well, which I think we recognize is really important given the cost of land and given the cost of housing in that area. They have a tremendous opportunity there that they’re taking full advantage of.

Unfortunately, they didn’t apply for the CCR, so they’re not in that list. I know that I’ve certainly made them aware of that opportunity, and I would hope that we would see something in the next intake.

M. Lee: I need to depart shortly for another House, but let me just…. I appreciate that. I think just the general comment I would make, for future reference…. Of the three projects we’ve spoken to, we have the Y. But for future consideration on future rounds, I certainly would like to welcome the opportunity to work with your ministry and your staff just to ensure that these organizations have their ducks in a row so that we get into the next round of review.

As I was talking to the Minister of Education two days ago…. I know the member for Vancouver-Fairview also agrees with me. The community infrastructure of the density that’s happening in Fairview, Langara and parts of Fraserview, for example, is tremendous in this part of the city. We need this kind of infrastructure.

It’s great that we have the kind of level of partnership and leadership at the community level by these kinds of organizations. I certainly would very much want to support each of these three projects — the Y in the case of this intake, the Sunset Senior Centre in the future, as well as JCC.

Thank you for the time, and I appreciate the opportunity. Hopefully, we’ll keep this dialogue going for the next round.

S. Sullivan: Thank you, Madam Minister. I wanted to follow up on some of the comments you made earlier about the Broadway line. I think you mentioned $2.83 billion, I believe. This would be to Arbutus. I always like to call it the Millennium Line completion, not the extension. It’s always been called extension, and I always remind people that it was originally meant to be that. So we’re actually completing it after these many years.

My question, though, is on a general policy about lots of money going to municipalities. Immense amounts of money to go into transit, but generally, over the years, no real commitment required from the municipalities for density, for recognizing this incredible investment by the province — by taxpayers from all over the province and the country, in fact — and not requiring municipalities to have at least a certain minimum of densification. Can you tell me about your thoughts on that and your policies now?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member raises, I think, a good question. I mean, we know that transportation costs can take up a significant portion of a household’s income and that living near transit reduces — that’s the other part of what the member has said — a household’s expenditures. It reduces their costs. It actually will make life more affordable if there’s density right by transit so people don’t need a vehicle. As well, it would reduce congestion, and it’s better for the environment — a whole number of reasons.

[6:20 p.m.]

We’re committed to working with local governments to support the construction of housing near transit corridors. We think that that’s really important. The Broadway project, the Millennium completion — I think is what he called it; I appreciate that — and the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain will provide opportunities for new transit-oriented development and affordable housing in Vancouver and Surrey.

Certainly, coming from Coquitlam and having been a city councillor when we were anticipating the Evergreen Line, we undertook that work and have created significant density — certainly, in my community.

We are working very closely to implement agreements between TransLink and the cities to facilitate transit-oriented development, density and affordable housing along those corridors and avoid displacement of existing residents as well. That work is being undertaken.

S. Sullivan: While I’m influencing your terminology, I would maybe put in a plug for one other terminology change.

I’ve always thought that getting the completion to the Broadway corridor was always difficult because where are you going again — to a corridor? A corridor’s not a place. A corridor is something that kind of goes through something. It goes to a place. I’ve started to refer to it as BroCo, à la New York’s style of shortening these things — your second downtown of British Columbia. You can call it BroCo. Maybe you can start having that….

Hon. S. Robinson: I’ll work on it.

S. Sullivan: Okay.

Now, in Vancouver, I notice that the council has actually put a moratorium on rezonings for three years anywhere between Clark and Arbutus. I believe they’ve also extended that so it will go far beyond three years — possibly up to seven years — beyond Arbutus. I’m wondering if the minister’s aware of that. Does she believe that that will, in this time of housing crisis, affordability and supply…? By putting a moratorium on this most productive area, where we know we’re going to need a lot of density — is that a concern?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I am aware of the council decisions. I follow many councils fairly closely, in terms of what they’re doing. I want to assure the member that we are working very closely with the city, and with Surrey as well, to make sure that we are working together around these transit investments to facilitate transit-oriented development — the right kind of development — making sure that it’s happening with the right amount of density and affordable housing that come along with these investments. That work is ongoing with both communities.

S. Sullivan: There’s actually no requirement for a certain commitment to densification, but the ministry will be working with the cities. Is that…? So there is actually no policy on requiring the densification?

Hon. S. Robinson: I know that the member is well aware that land use policies are in the purview of local government, given his previous role when we would call him His Worship. He’s very familiar with that.

I want to assure the member that TransLink developed project agreements and supportive policy agreements in a negotiated way with Vancouver and Surrey for phase 2 rapid transit projects. These supportive policy agreements provide density, housing policy and other objectives for new transit lines. So there are agreements in place that will deliver the right kind of development along those investment corridors — what you called BroCo. Sorry, it’s not resonating just yet. And ministry staff participate in the monitoring committees to ensure progress and accountability on key performance measure indicators. So we’re well aware of the direction that the cities are moving in.

S. Sullivan: Okay. Well, as a mayor, we realize that the only time you really have leverage is when they need money or they need something from you. I guess, given that the provincial government holds a lot of leverage with providing the funding, the only time you can get their commitment — as you say, negotiate or come to a voluntary commitment — is when you have leverage.

A little bit of a sidebar in that I know that one of the discussions that I’ve heard at city council is that it would be a rental-only zone. There’s talk about that.

Now, we know that government has, whether intentionally or not, signalled to young people that the way you save is through owning property. There is only one investment vehicle that gives you tax-free capital gains, and that’s your primary home. That’s a powerful message by government that that is how we expect young families to look after their future.

I guess I’m thinking about the provincial role — leverage — of ensuring that young families have a chance to also purchase. There should be diversity of tenures in these new areas. Young families will not be able to afford a single, detached home in Vancouver, but they might be able to afford a condo.

I’m wondering if the minister has any thoughts about ensuring that there’s a diversity of opportunities for both rental and purchase.

[6:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s question, because I do know that he has a very keen interest in housing. I want to remind the member that one of the things that we did last year was we brought in a housing needs assessment requirement, legislation that requires all local governments — save a few, the very small ones — within their next five years, to put together the data that informs them better.

I don’t know what the member’s experience was like when he was on council, but I certainly remember asking questions, as projects would come forward, and saying: “So who is this for?” All I kept seeing, when I was on council, were 500-square-foot condos. That was it. That was all I saw, pretty much, for my five years on council. I was asking questions about diversity and variability. I kept being told: “That’s the market. It’s the market. It’s the market.” But it was a certain segment of the market.

It was the investor market and maybe some first-time homeowners, but it wasn’t meeting families’ needs. It wasn’t meeting students’ needs. It wasn’t meeting downsizers’ needs. And it wasn’t meeting the needs, I would argue, certainly, of seniors that I have met and that I have come across who said: “I no longer want to be a homeowner, because I don’t want to have to deal with the things that come with being a homeowner. I want to be a renter.” They’re divesting of their investment, and that product is not in my community at all. I appreciate, and I know that the member appreciates, the importance of having a diversity of housing to meet the needs of various stages of life.

The housing needs assessment is a tool that is going to be useful to all local governments in making the right kinds of decisions for their communities, based on who’s there — and anticipated needs as well. I know the member well knows that just because you need something now, it doesn’t mean you’re going to be able to deliver it now, particularly on the housing front. It takes years. Being able to anticipate what the needs are so that you can coordinate efforts is really critical. That’s why the housing needs assessment, I think, is going to make a significant difference for local governments.

The land use plans that local governments do ought to reflect and should reflect the housing needs assessment. I mean, that’s the tool that will inform the kinds of decisions that local governments ought to be making for the future.

[6:35 p.m.]

I think a land use planning exercise is really about what we are going to need going forward, not what we need right now in this moment. Five, ten years from now, what are the housing needs going to be as we grow and as we change as a community? All communities change. You cannot not change. So we need to anticipate that and be prepared for that.

The other thing I wanted to note — and I know that he knows this — is that Vancouver has a housing strategy. That looks across the spectrum, takes a look at homes for purchase, homes of different size for purchase and homes to rent — depending on what stage of life you’re in and whether or not you ever want to be a homeowner. I’ve come across people who never, ever, ever want to own a home. Their preference is to live life in a different way than a homeowner.

Making sure that there are those opportunities right across the spectrum is really critical. Part of the way we’re working with local governments around this and around the housing needs assessment is to make sure that our programs and our investments are working in tandem and can dovetail with the local government land use plans so that we’re all recognizing where we need to invest — in what kind of housing, in which tenure, in which form — so that we are all sort of on the same page, not working at cross purposes. We all have the same information and are operating from that.

The member, I know, likes data. The housing needs assessments need to be made public, so that we’ll be able to look. I know that the research community is very excited about this. I’ve met with a number of researchers, as well, who are very excited about having this. Data will really help them in their research and help, of course, inform the decision-makers and the policy-makers for years to come. This is a piece that, I think, will really make a difference in the city of Vancouver and right around the province.

S. Sullivan: Is it appropriate to ask about this effort right now? Do you have housing people here tomorrow, or…?

Interjection.

S. Sullivan: Maybe I’ll just ask, then. Are you finding much of a pickup? Are cities going to be coming in at the fifth year? I think they have five years to make this. Are we going to learn this information in five years from now, or in three or four years from now? Or are they starting to come forward voluntarily and being proactive?

[6:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It sounds like the member was really curious about local governments and the relationship with the housing needs assessment and what the sense was in terms of uptake. I just want to remind the member that we brought in the legislation last year. The regulations were established last month. There are at least 50 data points to be collected. So that there’s consistency, every local government will collect the same data.

Part of what we’ve done as government is that we’re going to be able to provide much of that at no cost to the local governments. It’s just about pulling the information together. We’re consolidating and getting the data from B.C. Stats, CMHC, StatsCan and other places so that they can just go in and pull the data and put it into a form that speaks for their community. Then they can add specific things that they might be looking for, and then they have to put it on their website so that we all have the same information and are operating from that.

We’ve also brought forward a $5 million grant program that is being administered by the UBCM to help, particularly, those smaller communities. I’m sure the member is well aware that many communities are already doing that because they see the value. The member may not be aware — well, he might — but the most interesting housing needs assessment that I’ve seen was from the village of Queen Charlotte. If you think of the village of Queen Charlotte, it’s a tiny, tiny place with, I think, five roads. They put their housing needs assessment on one piece of paper, but it was very instructive in terms of where their challenges were. It was very, very helpful.

So they’re already doing this, and I think there’s a lot of excitement about the opportunity to do a good job. Mayors and councils want to do the right thing for their communities. They want to make sure that they have the kind of housing that they need. No one wants to see anyone homeless in their communities, ever. For them to be proactive and for them to have the data, I think, is very exciting.

As I meet with local governments, we talk about the opportunity and how that’s going to help them. But it’s also going to help us in terms of our social housing programs. In terms of understanding what the needs are across the province, it will help us tailor it as well. They’re seeing the value, and I think we’re going to see some significant work. A lot of them, like I said, are already undertaking that work. For some, it might be new. We’re trying to provide as much support as we can so that we don’t get a rush of housing needs assessments. We’re doing our best to remind them that they need to do this and encouraging them to get on it.

Noting the hour, hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:44 p.m.