Third Session, 41st Parliament

(2018) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 124

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 10 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment

Act, 2018

Hon. D. Eby

M. Lee

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment

Act, 2018

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

(continued)

J. Sturdy

Hon. S. Robinson

L. Larson

T. Stone

S. Bond

D. Barnett

P. Milobar

E. Ross

S. Cadieux

J. Thornthwaite

Estimates: Other appropriations

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family

Development (continued)

L. Throness

Hon. K. Chen

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2018

The House met at 4:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 10, the Family

Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued

estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE

ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 10; R.

Chouhan in the chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

section 1.

Hon. D. Eby: I just wanted to rise to recognize staff and representatives who

are here with me today. Chris Beresford is here, the director of

maintenance enforcement for the province of British Columbia. Darryl

Hrenyk, who is legal counsel with justice services branch, is joining me

here in the chamber.

M. Lee: To the Attorney General, I just want to ask about the form of the

notice of maintenance order that is going to be included in place of the

full order itself. I understand, of course, that this is done with a

purpose — to reduce the amount of information of a sensitive nature that

would be in the public realm. But just with the nature of the drafting

of 1.1, I would ask the Attorney General: what other information, if

any, would be included in that notice being filed?

Hon. D. Eby: Subsection (1.1) sets out the minimum information that would have

to be in there: the full name and last known address of each person who

is a party to the maintenance order; the date of the maintenance order;

the court file number and court registry location, if any, associated

with the maintenance order; and a description of the land against which

the maintenance order is to be registered. We don’t expect there will be

any other information required.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

M. Lee: In terms of

section 2, with the accelerated mechanism as a result

of the proposed amendments, I wonder whether, on the existing provisions

that provide for an arrangement under 29.2 to effectively be entered

with the director of enforcement, there are any considerations as to the

mechanism of timing that will be at play because of this amendment —

meaning this is not, anymore, going to be a situation where we’re

talking about renewal of a driver’s licence. We’re talking now about

cancellation, so obviously, that accelerates and puts forward the time

frame.

I’m just wondering if there are any concerns or considerations

around the opportunity that would provide the debtor to enter into

arrangements with the director.

Hon. D. Eby: At a minimum, a 30-day notice is required before refusing to renew

or cancelling a driver’s licence. This provision reflects that

intention. There may be a scenario where someone has a do-not-renew

notice already in place, and they’d received the 30-day notice. That

notice might be replaced by a new notice that it is the intention of the

director to cancel the individual’s driver’s licence, but that would

have to be at least 30 days before forwarding a notice to the Insurance

Corporation of B.C.

M. Lee: Thank you for that response. Given this mechanism, is there

increased volume expected in terms of how the director may need to deal

with these debtors because this is a mechanism that will be less

prolonged? I’m just wondering whether that 30-day notice…. Is that going

to provide a sufficient opportunity for the director to address all the

possible cancellation notices that he or she may need to

provide?

Hon. D. Eby: There are a couple of elements that I now understand the member is

asking about. The first is: under the existing legislation, there’s the

30-day notice. Then there’s the time period until the renewal of the

driver’s licence, which essentially gave someone a longer period of

notice before an action was taken — in this case, the action of not

renewing the driver’s licence.

[4:10 p.m.]

Under these amendments, there’s a 30-day notice, and then the

driver’s licence could be revoked if no action is taken by the debtor.

So you’ve lost that whole additional period until the renewal notice in

terms of notice to the debtor. That is, indeed, the intent of the

section. The intent of the

section is to ensure a more prompt response

from the individual who’s in arrears in excess of $3,000 and to provide

the director with an additional tool to use at his discretion in order

to ensure that somebody contacts the office and straightens out their

debts.

The other question that the member had was: is this going to

increase the volume of work or the demands on the director? Currently

the caseload will be the same. It’s the same now under the existing

legislation as it will be afterwards. I guess, theoretically, as people

find if this is more effective….

We believe that this will assist people to realize that they have

to at least make contact and make some arrangements about their

payments. If this is successful, it may cause an increase in caseload in

that people are like: “Oh, it’s working better. Now I’m going to pursue

with the director this kind of remedy for the situation I’m facing,

where my former partner is not paying child support.”

In that sense, it might theoretically increase caseload. But

currently the director still has to deal with all these cases and, in

fact, has to deal with them for a longer period of time, because people

are saying, “Oh, I don’t have to straighten this out until my driver’s

licence renewal comes up,” and that’s not for two years. So that leaves

the file on the books of the director, where they’re not contacting and

they’re not dealing with it for the extra two years. We want to get rid

of that time period.

This might actually…. I’m being optimistic; I don’t want to be too

optimistic. This is not projected to change the caseload for the

director. What it’s projected to do is encourage people who are existing

members of that caseload to be in contact with the director in a more

timely manner. These are people the director already has to be reaching

out to anyway.

M. Lee: I appreciate the answer from the Attorney General, to go through

those steps. Just one other potential scenario that I wanted to ask

about or test specific to this amendment. That is the possibility where

the debtor, for reasons of change of circumstance, may, through some

mechanism, apply to the court for an amendment to their maintenance

order.

If there are delays in getting that through the court process,

would this mechanism, again, be taking away, removing, something that

the debtor may want to be trying to adjust already in terms of the

payment

schedule that may be attached to the order? Whether there’s a

scenario there where…. We know that in areas of this province, there’s

been a challenge getting through the court process, including areas up

north, like the Peace River district. Is there a possibility that that

might occur under this provision as well?

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

The core of the director’s work is not to be in some job of

punishing people. The job is to encourage them to adhere to the judicial

order of payment that they need to make. That payment is determined on

the basis of submissions to the court, and the court makes the decision

about what someone can reasonably pay to support their child.

If the person’s circumstances change after those submissions

happen and the court order no longer reflects their ability to pay, they

do need to go back to court and get that order modified. And there is

certainly an amount of time required in order to take legal advice, to

prepare the necessary documentation, to serve the parties and so

on.

This can be amplified in rural situations where it may be more

difficult for someone to find a lawyer quickly or to get to the

courthouse — maybe employment obligations and so on. We can think of

1,000 reasons why it might take a while to get in front of a judge. The

key is that the family maintenance enforcement program needs to be kept

up to date on the status of the application.

[4:15 p.m.]

The person needs to be calling the enforcement officer and

advising them of where the application is in the court system. “I just

retained a lawyer. We’re setting a court date. We’ve set a court date

for this date. We’re appearing on that date. We’re filing. Here’s a copy

of the filings.” As long as the thing is moving along, then the

enforcement officer knows that the person, in good faith, is taking the

efforts to go to court and get the order changed and will give them time

to do this.

The problem that the driver’s licence piece in these amendments is

intended to address is where the person is just not responding to the

enforcement officer, is not responding to their former spouse, is not

responding to the court’s demands that they pay a minimum amount of

child support. This is meant to encourage them to get in touch and to

keep the office up to date. The enforcement officers provide people with

the time necessary to make court applications to refine or modify orders

to ensure that they reflect the person’s actual circumstance.

M. Lee: I just wanted to ask further about subsection 8(

d) under

section

29.1. That leads in with the words “within one year.” I would like to

ask just for an explanation from the Attorney General as to the

importance of that time period or whether that time period is necessary

for this provision to operate.

Hon. D. Eby: This

section refers to a shortened period of notice for someone

who has come into compliance after receiving a notice and has had a

driver’s licence issued — reissued because they’ve come into compliance.

It allows the director to provide shorter notice. So the notice period

that we canvassed earlier was 30 days. But this

section actually allows

a ten-day notice, where the person just recently came back into

compliance.

The reason for the shortened notice is that the person’s already

been engaged with the enforcement officers, has already understood their

obligations, has come back into compliance. But an additional 30 days….

Someone is unfair to their former partner, the person who’s supporting

their child. To say, “Well, now we have to wait for 30 days again for

them to come into compliance….” They do a shorter ten-day…. “Look, you

know what the situation is. We need you to come back into

compliance.”

The question of sub (

d) says that there is a point in time where

that shortened notice becomes unfair again, where you should go back to

30-day notice. So someone has come into compliance. They’ve done 11

months, 12 months of consistent payments, and then they miss a payment.

Is it really fair to say to that person: “Okay. We’re just giving you

ten days’ notice now”? So the idea was that the short notice should only

last for a year, and after that, the director should have to issue a

30-day notice.

There’s nothing stopping the director from issuing a 30-day

notice. This

section enables the short notice where the director is of

the opinion that that will facilitate a more fair resolution of the

situation. It’s just another tool available to the director, but a tool

that’s only available for a year after the person comes back into

compliance.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:20 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — FAMILY MAINTENANCE

ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 10, Family Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2018, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Housing.

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL

AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

(continued)

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

chair.

The committee met at 4:23 p.m.

On Vote 36: ministry operations, $196,910,000

(continued) .

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

in place here.

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

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

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

J. Sturdy: I wanted to come back just to update the conversation we had

yesterday. Perhaps the minister will recall that we had talked about the

phase 1 units in the RMOW, which are the units that allow for…. Nightly

rentals have a 215 covenant on them to allow for nightly rentals, and

that nightly rental option is actually encouraged, and it’s expected for

these units to be used in that way.

Typically, what would happen is these units would be used in a

nightly way, nightly rentals, for three or so months of the year, and

then the balance of it is put in a fixed-term lease, which, without the

vacate clause, has become impossible to do. So what’s happened is that

these units have defaulted back to nightly rentals.

What I wanted to update the minister on was that I was incorrect

in the number of units that we would be talking about here. I mentioned

several hundred. I did some checking last night, and I found out that

the actual number of units that are in phase 1 with the nightly-rental

covenant on them is 5,400 units in Whistler. This is a very, very

significant number.

If the long-term impact is that all of those units, or the vast

majority of those units, are no longer available for a fixed-term

tenancy, this will exacerbate an already significant problem in

Whistler. I thought it was important that the minister understood the

magnitude of that issue.

Hon. S. Robinson: I just want to express appreciation for the member getting more

detailed information. I said yesterday that staff are aware of the issue

and are continuing to do some work to identify how to best manage the

situation. But I thank him for doing the research and sharing that and

getting it on the record.

J. Sturdy: While I have the opportunity, I wondered if I could follow up on

two housing initiatives in the Sea to Sky, one being the Helping Hands

proposal in Squamish.

[4:35 p.m.]

Then I wondered if there is any update on additional initiatives

with regard to the Whistler Housing Authority and the next phase of

housing — specifically in Cheakamus Crossing, and if there are any other

initiatives that B.C. Housing is involved in at this point.

Hon. S. Robinson: Can the member just repeat the name of the group? He mentioned it

really quickly, and I didn’t get to write it down.

J. Sturdy: In Squamish, it’s the Helping Hands Society. There was another

proposal that seemed to have languished, as well, with the seniors

housing. It was a fairly significant one — I think 230 units in Squamish

that B.C. Housing and Polygon were working on. Then the last one would

have been any initiatives with Whistler Housing Authority in Whistler.

Typically, Cheakamus Crossing is the next focus, but there are other

opportunities in Whistler as well.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member taking the time to come and ask the

question. We don’t have our B.C. Housing staff here with us today, so I

can’t give him a direct answer today. But I can commit to the member

that we’ll be sure to get that information over to the member so that he

can follow up and can be made aware of what the status is of those

projects.

L. Larson: I just have one proposal I wanted to put in front of the minister,

and I do not expect an answer. I will follow up with the appropriate

paperwork.

A group of hotel owners in Osoyoos have formed a society called

the Osoyoos staff housing society. They have, in partnership with the

Osoyoos Indian Band, which has provided the land, arranged for 40 units

temporarily to house some of the 300-plus workers that they will need

just during the tourist season. This is not meant to be permanent

housing. These are units from, I guess, a fire camp or something that

they can move in onto this property. They will then be moved off again.

But they need another partner, somebody with a little bit of money just

to finish it off.

Like I say, the Osoyoos Indian Band has already put the land on

the table. The hotel group has put, I believe, more than $100,000 to

purchase, to be able to bring these units there, and they need it

serviced. I think it’s about $90,000. If I could leave you the

documentation so you could have a look through it, I’d really appreciate

it.

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, I want to thank the member for bringing such a creative idea

forward. Recognizing that there are partnerships here is always really

critical. It’s one of the things that our government is really very

focused on — recognizing that when we can bring people together with

various resources and assets, we can actually make something great

happen in communities right across the province. I look forward to

seeing some of the details. I’m sure the member will bring forward all

the information needed so that we can take a look at it and see how we

might be helpful.

T. Stone: I just wanted to ask a couple of questions of the minister with

respect to the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. I

want to preface my comments by saying that I very much appreciated the

Auditor General for Local Government reaching out to me not that long

ago. We had a really good sit-down face to face. He walked me through

the work that’s been done to date and plans for the forthcoming fiscal

year. I really do think that the province has an exceptional individual

in place in the office. Gordon Ruth is doing, I think, a very good job

with a small team of individuals that are working really

hard.

Just a couple of questions. My first question relates to capacity

in his office. I think he and his team are performing yeoman service

with the budget that they have that allows them to engage the complement

of staff that they have. I understand there are 13 FTEs, eight of whom

are auditors. As I said a moment ago, I have a pretty good sense of the

volume that this office is crunching through.

[4:40 p.m.]

Mr. Ruth did suggest to me quite clearly that there’s more that he

feels his office could do that would be of benefit to local government

if there was more capacity in his office. I’m wondering if the minister

could comment on whether or not she’s actively considering adding some

additional capacity to the Office of the Auditor General for Local

Government.

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the question. I just double-checked. There are

actually 14 FTEs out of this office. Mr. Ruth has done, I think, a

yeoman’s job in fixing an office that was in significant turmoil for

quite some time. I remember; those days weren’t too long ago. He joined

this office only two years ago and has developed significant momentum

and stability to an office that was, I think, floundering and rather

unstable.

Right now the work undertaken by the Auditor General for Local

Government is to take a look at some themes and do some work among

various local governments and develop prospective booklets so that other

local governments can learn from that perspective — for local

government. Now that it’s stabilized, it’s an opportunity to sort of see

how well it can function. I’m glad to see that that work is continuing

in the way that it’s moving forward.

T. Stone: My question related to capacity. I understand that there are two

topics that are currently being audited, water and emergency management,

and there are about, it looks like, seven or so sub-audits under those

two themes. The auditor general did indicate that there were some

additional themes that he would pursue, if he had some additional

capacity, that would add value to local government in this

province.

Is the minister open to or is she actively considering adding some

additional capacity to the Office of the Auditor General for Local

Government? If she is, could she provide some details as to what that

might look like?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure the member can appreciate that there are many places

where people would do more if they had more capacity — meaning that they

had a bigger budget. Typically, that’s what that means, in terms of

capacity. At this time, I’m just monitoring and making sure that they’re

able to deliver what they’ve been asked to deliver.

T. Stone: I think the point I’m trying to get across to the minister is that

the auditor general feels constrained in being able to respond to a good

number of the audit requests that come in from local governments that

are looking for the guidance and the kinds of help that the office of

the auditor general can provide.

[4:45 p.m.]

Mr. Ruth did indicate to me that they would be able to double the

capacity of their office and manage half to two-thirds of the incoming

requests that they’re not able to get to, to this point, with an

additional $400,000 investment.

He’s confident, or at least he conveyed to me that he was

confident, that half of that he could find from within his existing

budget, repurposing current dollars that they have available to their

office. But they would still need a couple of hundred thousand dollars

in funding, plus or minus, from government in order to be able to do

this.

When you look at the work that the office does and the results, I

couldn’t agree more with the minister. Certainly, over the last couple

of years, since Mr. Ruth has been there, very, very good work has been

done. I’ve certainly heard, as a critic for Municipal Affairs, from a

number of municipalities and regional districts that have been engaged

in those audits with Mr. Ruth and his team.

They have indicated that they feel there’s really good value for

the taxpayers’ dollars. They’re just not able to get to a lot of the

incoming requests from local governments for the kinds of support that

they would like to be able to provide.

A couple of hundred thousand dollars. I’m wondering if the

minister is aware of that request from the Auditor General and if that

is something that she would be willing to entertain in the forthcoming

fiscal year.

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I think it’s important to recognize that while this office

has been in operation or the AGLG has existed for the last five years, I

think, it’s only really been a functioning office for the last two years

under the guidance of Mr. Ruth. So as things stabilize, we’ll get a

better sense of what’s realistic to get accomplished.

Like I said in my earlier answer, there are many different

organizations and opportunities to do more. I can appreciate that there

are opportunities, certainly, for Mr. Ruth’s office, as the AGLG, to do

a tremendous number of audits. At this point, this is an office that is

just stabilized after a number of years of what I will characterize as

chaos. I’m looking forward to seeing more stability as we go

forward.

T. Stone: I will take from the minister’s response that continued stability

of this office in the forthcoming months and quarters may result in

favourable consideration on the part of the government. I can certainly

get back to Mr. Ruth and let him know that I put a good plug in for his

office here. I do appreciate that opportunity.

If I could switch gears now, I’d like to ask a few questions with

respect to the municipal and regional district tax, the MRDT, which I

will acknowledge at the front end is a tax. Therefore, the ultimate

purview of that tax, I assume, would be the Minister of Finance, working

in collaboration with the Minister of Tourism.

The tie-in, however, that I see that makes it a valid line of

questioning here today with the Minister of Municipal Affairs is the

suggestions and the decision by government, in the recent provincial

budget and in the companion documents to that budget, to announce that

municipalities and regional districts would be able to use MRDT revenues

for affordable housing projects in their respective

communities.

On the surface of it, it doesn’t necessarily sound like a bad

idea. However, the purpose of the MRDT is to generate revenues to be

used for tourism and marketing purposes. I guess my first question to

the minister would be: what is the minister’s understanding of the

purpose of the MRDT? It was created in…. I believe it goes back to 1987

and has been a pretty important source of marketing revenue for the

tourism industry.

What does the minister believe the purpose of MRDT really

is?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The MRDT is to be used for tourism marketing activities. Our

government…. Given the current housing crisis and, certainly, given what

we’ve been hearing from communities where they’re really struggling with

housing — particularly worker housing where tourism is a significant

factor as part of their local economy — having the ability to use the

MRDT to help with some of the housing challenges that they have has been

a game changer.

I can share with the member that the community of Tofino, for

example, their biggest challenge…. I met with their chamber of commerce

and their council, and they were literally pleading with me around the

challenges they’re having around housing, particularly in the summer,

when the tourist season is among them. They actually have a campground

designated for worker housing — it’s a campground for worker tents —

because they just don’t have enough housing. They just can’t manage it.

In fact, one of their chamber of commerce members said: “We sell the

dream and can’t service the nightmare.”

For them, being able to use some of these resources to provide

some worker housing that serves and services the tourist economy that

they are dependent on is a logical choice. They’re very pleased, as are

many other local governments we’ve been hearing about that have this as

an opportunity to help them manage their tourist economy a little bit

better.

T. Stone: I don’t think that I would quibble, or members on this side of the

House would quibble, with the suggestion that in communities like Tofino

and others that are very heavily focused and, in many respects,

dependent on the tourism sector, ensuring that there’s accommodation

available for those engaged in tourism is an important housing need in

their respective communities.

The quibble that I would have and that we’re certainly hearing

from a lot of British Columbians is why it essentially pits the tourism

industry against the housing industry in local communities by suggesting

that tourism revenues that are generated from MRDT be repurposed, to

varying degrees in different communities, for housing

projects.

[4:55 p.m.]

I’ll ask the minister this. She did acknowledge in her previous

answer that MRDT is there to generate a source of revenue for tourism

marketing in communities. Why, then, is the government encouraging that

those tourism revenues, to be used for marketing, should be invested in

housing projects in communities across the province?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, remind the member that this isn’t about

encouraging; this is about enabling. It’s about giving local governments

another tool, where they make the decision about how to best use and

meet the needs of servicing the nightmare in communities like Tofino.

It’s so they can make the choices for their local community and make

sure that they’re able to, like I said in my previous answer, service

the nightmare.

T. Stone: Could the minister indicate what analysis her ministry has done,

or she has participated in with other ministries, to determine how much

MRDT revenue is anticipated to be siphoned off from being focused on

tourism marketing initiatives to be used for housing

projects?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, our government certainly heard that in some communities

where they have been very successful at marketing and the marketing has

worked — because they sell the dream, and they sell the opportunity —

it’s created unintended consequences. It’s created other challenges for

these communities.

Being able to properly service what they sell is really critical.

Our government made the decision to enable local governments to use some

of these resources so that they could properly service the dreams that

they sell, the fun that they sell, the tourism that they sell. This is

an opportunity for local governments to make choices that work for their

local economies.

T. Stone: Is the minister, then, basically saying that as one of a series of

tools in the toolbox to address housing challenges and the need for more

affordable housing in different communities, she and government are just

fine with encouraging a redirection of MRDT revenue from tourism-related

initiatives — tourism marketing initiatives that are critical to the

tourism industries in communities in different parts of the province —

and that those dollars should be re-routed to affordable housing

initiatives in those same communities?

Hon. S. Robinson: What I am saying is that this is another tool that local

governments can use to respond to a housing crisis in the communities

where they have a challenge, particularly around worker housing and

tourism housing. They don’t have places; they don’t have

workers.

[5:00 p.m.]

I met with the Tofino Chamber of Commerce. They were telling me

stories of not having the ability to keep restaurants open in the

evening because they didn’t have staff. There was no place for staff to

live. While they’ve been quite successful in marketing as a tourist

destination, they were no longer able to service. They were no longer

able to maintain their staffing so that they could actually create the

dream that they’d worked so hard to sell.

This is an opportunity, an optional opportunity, for local

governments, where they need to, to make sure that they can have a

successful tourist economy.

T. Stone: Then could I ask the minister to provide the opposition with a

sense of what analysis has actually been done to project just how much

MRDT revenue the ministry expects to be redirected from tourism and

marketing initiatives to affordable housing? How many units of housing

does the minister anticipate will actually be built in communities as a

result of redirected MRDT revenue?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, remind the member that this is a choice it’s

enabling for local governments. There’s no policy or no direction coming

from government. It’s just an opportunity for local governments to

respond to crises that they may be experiencing in their own

communities. But if the member has questions about the design of the

tax, that was work done by the Minister of Finance.

T. Stone: My question was: what analysis has been done? Obviously, I would

hope that some analysis was done in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

in conjunction with Tourism, to determine in part how much revenue the

ministry is anticipating will be siphoned off of the MRDT revenue stream

and be redirected to Housing and what that translates into in the form

of units of affordable housing.

The minister didn’t answer specific questions yesterday about the

allocations of her ministry’s affordable housing targets, which is

disappointing. But perhaps today she would be willing to provide some

sense to British Columbians as to how many units of affordable housing

she anticipates this policy choice of government to redirect MRDT

revenues is actually going to generate.

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

Like I said earlier, this is the choice of local governments. They

get to have the opportunity to respond to local needs. That’s what we

expect them to do.

T. Stone: I’m wondering if the minister could answer this question. Does she

feel that it’s fair and reasonable to ask a municipality, to ask a local

government, to essentially choose between investing in tourism marketing

initiatives within their respective communities or affordable housing

projects?

[5:05 p.m.]

Does she feel that that’s a fair and reasonable choice that

communities should be faced with — essentially, tourism opportunities or

affordable housing opportunities in a respective community?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, it’s a very interesting dichotomy that the member is

choosing to speak to, because I don’t see local governments behaving in

that way at all, actually. I’ve spent a considerable amount of time in

local government. I’ve been the critic for local government, and now I’m

the minister responsible. I pride myself on the work that I’ve done over

the years with local governments around how they best work and meet the

needs of their citizens, of their communities.

I have a lot of respect for the work that local governments do.

They’re always managing various challenges, whether it’s engineering of

local roads and building sidewalks or building more sports facilities or

libraries or whether it’s affordable housing or how to market and build

their local economy. Local governments do that work all the time and are

making choices all the time about how to best meet the needs of their

constituents. I have tremendous confidence in their ability to balance

all of those and make the choices that best meet the needs of their

communities.

There are 189 different local governments. I have certainly had

opportunities over the years to go to area association meetings all over

this province — unfortunately, I don’t get to leave this place very

often, so I haven’t been able to get to many — talking with mayors and

councillors and regional directors about what’s going on in their

communities, hearing about the challenges that they have and the tools

that they need in order to be responsive to the needs of their specific

community. I have tremendous confidence in their ability to make the

decisions that best meet the needs of their constituents.

T. Stone: I concur insofar as…. We have every confidence in the ability of

local governments to make choices that are right and reasonable for

their respective communities.

What we’re talking about here is a provincial government policy

that essentially forces a choice in a community between continuing to

see the direction of MRDT revenues to tourism marketing initiatives,

which is a very worthy and important area of investment in a community,

or redirecting those revenues to affordable housing projects, which are

also very worthy and important in a particular community. Communities

are being asked to choose one or the other with respect to MRDT revenue.

We don’t think that that’s just, that that’s reasonable.

I’m wondering if the minister could indicate for this House, or

just outline for this House, her understanding of how the MRDT actually

works, how it’s actually collected and how it’s actually structured.

Then perhaps we could go from there in terms of what the impacts are of

the policy choice government has made in allowing a redirection of MRDT

revenues. Is the minister aware, and could she explain to this House,

how the MRDT tax piece actually is structured and how it

works?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to point out that there’s nothing about this

enabling legislation, this enabling change, that is forcing any local

government to do anything different. Our government has made a $7

billion commitment to housing affordability so that people have the

kinds of homes that they need, so local governments are not alone in

addressing housing affordability.

However, some local governments have significant pressures and

want some flexibility that would allow them to address some of the

housing challenges they have around the tourism piece. The mayor from

Tofino is so grateful for this change, because it allows her to be

responsive. It allows her to make the choices that she needs, in the

moment, so that she can address significant challenges that are

happening in her community.

But again, no one has to do anything different. They can continue

doing whatever it is that they’ve been doing. It’s just an opportunity

that’s available to them, should it make sense for that community to

make use of these additional resources.

T. Stone: The question was, actually: does the minister understand how the

MRDT actually works, how it’s structured? So I’ll ask it a different

way. The success of the MRDT revenue stream rests entirely on the backs

of hoteliers, who agree to collect the revenue. You can correct me if

I’m wrong, Minister, but my understanding is that these are five-year

contracts. It’s different time frames in different parts of the

province. But hoteliers have to agree to collect the tax.

They do so on the basis of an understanding as to what those tax

revenues are going to be actually utilized for, and that understanding

is that those revenues would be utilized for tourism marketing

initiatives. What the government is doing through this policy decision

here is saying that if you want to continue to use it for tourism

marketing initiatives, fine, but we’re going to facilitate the ability

of MRDT revenues to actually be used for affordable housing

projects.

Now, I’ve asked: what analysis has been conducted to give any

semblance of context to this decision, insofar as MRDT revenues that

might be redistributed to affordable housing projects? Get no answer on

that. What analysis has been done on how many units this would actually

build? Get no answer on that.

The minister talks about the affordability crisis. I agree with

her: more needs to be done there. But there’s a tourism crisis brewing

in this province as well. There’s a cumulative impact of Family Day and

the rising minimum wage — and now the decision that the government has

made around the MRDT.

What can the minister say to answer the question: what if

hoteliers say no? What if hoteliers say: “No, that’s not what we signed

on for. We didn’t sign on to collect this revenue stream so that it

could be repurposed for affordable housing projects”?

What does the government do then, in that scenario? Is the

minister prepared to change the legislation, to force their hands? What

is the minister’s message to the tourism sector and to hoteliers, in

particular, who have in good faith negotiated the terms that exist in

how MRDT is collected?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, local governments…. Giving them this enabling opportunity

to be responsive to their communities includes working with everybody in

their community. That includes their local tourism sector that’s in

their communities. They need to work together in order to benefit their

local economy and their local communities.

Really, in this case…. When I think about those that I’ve met who

talk about the challenges of where their workers can live and the

challenges that that presents, whether it’s people who clean the rooms

in their hotels, people who work in restaurants, people who service the

tourism sector, that’s a real struggle. They can’t sustain their

businesses because of that. So providing this additional tool among all

the other tools that our government has committed and is delivering is

about making sure that there are opportunities for the sector to grow

and to grow responsibly.

[5:20 p.m.]

Like I said before, we certainly heard about: “We sell the dream,

and we can’t service the nightmare.” That really drove that home for

me.

S. Bond: Thank you to the minister. We should be clear about this question.

It is not about local governments. This is not about this side of the

House questioning local government’s ability to make decisions and to

work with people in communities. This is about the collection process

for the MRDT.

Let’s be clear. Communities work very hard to gain approval from

hoteliers in British Columbia to actually earn the right to collect the

MRDT. When hoteliers, often after very difficult discussions…. The

minister, I’m sure, is aware that in some communities, there may be

three hotels and you have to gain approval of two hotels. So a pitch is

made to those hoteliers to say: “We need to collect this so that we can

build the tourism sector.” Nowhere in that discussion was there an

approval by hoteliers based on affordable housing.

We have every confidence in local government as well. I’m very

proud of mine. They do a great job. The issue here…. The minister talks

about an additional tool. The minister is providing a tool that was not

agreed to in discussions between the tourism sector in their communities

and hoteliers.

Can the minister tell this House whether, before adding this tool,

anyone went and talked to the hoteliers, who are a critical component of

any community even collecting the MRDT?

Hon. S. Robinson: As the minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, I spend a

considerable amount of time talking to local governments about their

needs. I want to, I guess, remind the member, who I suspect knows, that

when it comes to the collection of the tax, that’s actually the work of

the Minister of Finance, and that comes out of her office.

S. Bond: It’s interesting that suddenly it’s the work of the Minister of

Tourism, yet this is the minister who has added the flexibility for

municipalities to use this as one of their tools. So we should be clear.

The minister has changed the rules of the game. Tourism marketing was

the intent of the agreement by hoteliers across British Columbia — in

many communities, hard fought to earn the right to collect the

MRDT.

The minister has, in these estimates, referred to this issue, so

I’m going to pursue this line of questioning. Does the minister know on

what basis hoteliers approve the use and collection of the

MRDT?

[5:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, while I appreciate the question, it’s the Ministry of

Finance that designed the tool and the collection.

S. Bond: Let’s talk about the tool, then, since the minister isn’t going to

have a discussion about the fact that the government requires hotels’

approval to collect the MRDT. In fact, it is contingent upon this being

used for tourism marketing. I can’t imagine that there are many

hoteliers in British Columbia who today would say: “Yes, I’m absolutely

happy to sign on to the MRDT proposal, because it’s going to build

affordable housing.” That is not what the MRDT’s purpose is.

As much as this minister wants to pitch it as, “Well, it’s just

another tool,” it is fundamentally flawed when it comes to the purpose

of the MRDT. This is a way to either find another source of funding for

housing, and the minister…. We certainly have acknowledged that there

have been investments made by this government. But we should be clear

about the purpose of this tax and exactly how hoteliers today are

justifiably concerned — and so is the tourism industry.

Let’s talk about the tool. The minister talks about this now

giving some communities, or communities that have expressed concerns,

the ability to deal with affordable housing “particularly around worker

housing related to the tourism sector.” Will this tool, then, be

restricted, by regulation or in some way, to deal with the issues that

are linked directly to the tourism sector?

Hon. S. Robinson: Once again, the member…. I know that she’s passionate about this

subject. She’s asked again about the design of the tool, and again, that

came out of the Ministry of Finance.

S. Bond: The minister’s responsibility is affordable housing. She’s had

several comments about that previous to this debate. The question was if

this will be restricted to use for affordable housing related to the

tourism sector, which the minister referenced earlier in her

remarks.

Perhaps I will ask another question. The minister has referred to

the communities that have made it clear to her that affordable housing

related to the tourism sector….

We should be clear. MRDT is revenue generated to support tourism

marketing. The changes that this government is suggesting have been

captured under the umbrella of: “It will give the municipalities an

ability to use it for affordable housing.” I’m not sure how that

connection was made, but it is a significant concern to the tourism

sector, to the hoteliers who, in good faith, agreed to collect the MRDT.

That has been a significant struggle in many communities. Opening this

door, which this minister has referred to numerous times today, is

causing significant concern.

Can the minister tell us and tell British Columbians today what

other communities came to her and said, “Open the door to other uses of

the MRDT,” aside from Tofino?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the concerns expressed by the member, but again, I

have to say that local governments don’t work in isolation. They don’t

just sit in city hall and make decisions without talking with their

local folks. So in those communities where they realize that they have

really built a significant local economy that is dependent on making

sure that there are staff opportunities to have the housing that they

can afford on the wages that they’re paid, it’s really very

critical.

Local governments work with their communities to determine how

best to respond to some of those challenges. In some communities, it

might make sense to use the MRDT portion of it to help them respond to

what’s happening on the ground.

Again, this is one of those tools that is just available. It’s not

a requirement. It’s not an expectation. It’s just another tool available

to local governments that want to be responsive to the needs of their

local community.

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

minister.

I think the key point that continues to be missed here is that

this discussion is not about local communities and municipalities. It’s

about how the MRDT approval process works and what that agreement with

hoteliers is based on. It is based on the fact that the money will be

used for tourism marketing. So while local governments have the

opportunity, as the minister points out, to use this tool, that’s not

what hoteliers signed up for. It is not what the tourism industry

expects.

[5:35 p.m.]

I would like to point out that there are very different

circumstances across British Columbia related to housing for seasonal

workers or tourism workers. It has not diminished the concern of tourism

organizations across the province, including in my own region. There

have been letters directly to this government asking for consultation

before this decision was made — with TIABC, the main organization that

speaks on behalf of tourism operators across the province. Yet here we

find that this decision moves forward, despite significant concerns by

the industry.

Did the minister…? First of all, before I ask that question — my

last one; I know other colleagues have questions to continue — I want to

recognize that letters have gone to the Minister of Finance and others

expressing significant concerns, particularly from regions which are not

experiencing the kinds of issues that Tofino might be, about the fact

that they worked hard to find approval for MRDT, based on a certain set

of expectations which this government now has randomly

changed.

I’ll tell you. There is significant concern about hoteliers’

reaction to the fact that they have to agree to collect this tax. And if

isn’t going to tourism marketing, this decision might significantly

negatively impact the tourism sector, because hoteliers will simply say:

“Not doing it.” Certainly, we’ve heard from Tourism Prince George and a

variety of other organizations across the province that this is a

concern — deeply concerned about the opportunity to even consider use of

the MRDT for some form of affordable housing.

Big concerns ask for discussion. So could the minister tell us:

was there a cross-ministry approach to making this decision? Did the

Minister of Finance sit down with the minister who’s conducting these

estimates today, along with the Minister of Tourism, to actually

contemplate what consequences there would be, across a variety of

sectors, of simply saying: “Yup. We’re going to give local governments

another tool”?

[5:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In response to the member’s question, I can assure her that I meet

with my colleagues on a range of issues all the time. We talk about our

various files, the interoperability and the interconnections between the

work that we each do. I also note that the member is aware that tax

policy does come out of the Minister of Finance.

D. Barnett: Minister, the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association has

struggled for years to get the operators to come to the table. After two

years of hard work, finally the CCCTA was able to have the operators

come to the table and agree to get into this MRDT taxation process. It

was just approved by your cabinet a month or so ago.

I have a letter here that I received today from the Cariboo

Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association that I am going to read to you. It

says:

“Dear MLA Barnett,

“As one of the newest and largest MRDT collection areas in the

province, we are very concerned about the proposed regulatory changes to

the MRDT — namely, including any language around ‘affordable housing’ or

‘non-tourism expenditures.’ I have personally heard concerns from

several of our accommodators who feel ‘betrayed and deceived,’ as this

was not within the allowable use of funds when they provided their

signature of support.

“As a regional tourism organization, we are supportive of affordable

housing for both British Columbia residents and seasonal tourism

employees. Innovation is required to find solutions to our labour and

housing challenges in British Columbia. However, under the current

two-tiered approval for MRDT, accommodation signature and local

government approval, the proposed regulatory change would have negative

effects. In our region, the accommodators have been very clear that if

the MRDT funds are to be provided to any local government or used for

anything other than tourism marketing, they will withdraw their support

— effectively, an elimination of visitor investment in rural B.C. of $1

million in marketing.

“Will the government be providing alternate funding programs to

replace this investment? We agree that there could be some regulatory

changes to the MRDT — namely, eliminating the need for local government

approval for an application — but are hearing strongly from our industry

that affordable housing should not be placed in regulation.

“If you have any questions on this matter, do not hesitate to

contact me directly. We look forward to a response from government on

this matter.

“Kindest regards, Amy Thacker, CEO, Cariboo Chilcotin Coast

Tourism Association.”

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to encourage the member to provide the letter to the

Minister of Finance. I’m sure she would appreciate reading

it.

P. Milobar: My family has a bit of history with the MRDT in Kamloops. We were

hoteliers. My mother was the first female president of the B.C. and

Yukon Hotels Association. We fought against the MRDT being implemented

in Kamloops, when it first came out, because the structure that was

going to be used locally actually wasn’t very good. Several years later,

after much negotiation, the program changed, and we actually championed

the implementation of the MRDT coming forward.

[5:45 p.m.]

The question I have for the minister is very straightforward.

Given that the hotels are the ones that decide whether to collect the

tax or not, and they come up for renewal periodically, if a municipality

chooses to start using the tax revenues collected for affordable housing

— a very clear question here, and we’re hoping for a very clear answer —

and the hotels decide to withdraw from collecting MRDT as a result, is

the Minister of Housing prepared to make up the difference so that a

community that starts down the path of affordable housing is able to

continue to provide the affordable housing when the MRDT revenues

disappear?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I want to talk about the role of local governments here,

because they’re on the ground. They know what’s going on in their

communities. They are in many ways…. I know that the member comes from

local government. One of the things I love about local governments and

appreciate about them is that they really know what’s going on. They

know what the lay of the land is, right in their communities.

I know that local governments work with their local communities,

including the tourism operators, a whole range of tourism operators, to

make the decisions that best meet the needs of their communities. With

189 different local governments, all with the different kinds of

challenges and with the different opportunities, giving them this

additional tool allows them to be as flexible as they can be, to make

sure that their communities thrive. That’s an expectation that I have

just as a person who values local government, and I know that that’s how

local governments want to be operating as well. I have confidence that

they’ll take that responsibility very seriously.

T. Stone: We’ve all been listening with a great deal of interest as the

minister has provided responses to, I think, some very specific

questions. What we’ve learned in the last half hour or so is that when

it came to this decision that government has taken with the MRDT, there

appears to have not been any serious discussion, cross-ministry, on this

particular initiative.

[5:50 p.m.]

There appears to have been no analysis done as to what the impact

of this decision would actually be on tourism marketing revenue that’s

generated from MRDT, no analysis as to what the projected number of

units of affordable housing would actually be through the redirection of

MRDT revenues.

Now we learn that there clearly is no plan should hoteliers say no

to this plan and indicate that they will have nothing to do with this,

considering that they signed agreements to collect the tax on the basis

of the revenues being directed to tourism marketing initiatives. There’s

no definitive indication from the minister as to the rationale for

essentially pitting affordable housing advocates against tourism

enterprises and tourism advocates in a community with, essentially, a

local government being stuck in the middle.

This has never been a question of: does one feel that affordable

housing projects are more or less worthy than tourism marketing

initiatives? That’s not at all what we’re trying to get at here. What

we’re trying to understand is: where did the rationale come from, inside

of government, to think that it was a good idea to essentially — as a

tool; the minister consistently refers to this as yet another tool in

the toolbox for local governments — pilfer MRDT revenues, which are

there to invest in tourism marketing initiatives?

What we’re hearing from communities is that they don’t want to be

in the middle of this discussion. If the government is serious about

making affordable housing investments — and I believe that they are, to

an extent, and we have acknowledged recent initiatives related to

affordable housing stock in the province — that’s one thing. But to

suggest that it makes sense to encourage affordable housing projects in

certain communities on the backs of tourism-related revenue generated

from the MRDT, which is collected in good faith by hoteliers who have

signed on to collect this revenue on the basis of the revenue being

invested into tourism marketing initiatives, is simply, I believe,

grossly missing the mark here.

As my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson tried to point out in

his question: what if the hoteliers say no? Where do the tourism

operators make up the difference in terms of reduced MRDT

revenue?

I think the two final angles on this that I wanted to…. First, I

wanted to make sure it was clearly understand in the record that as the

member for Prince George–Valemount indicated in the context of Prince

George, as we’ve heard from the member in the Cariboo-Chilcotin in the

context of her tourism operators….

In Kamloops, Tourism Kamloops — very, very worried about losing

MRDT revenue. A letter that was sent to the Minister of Finance and, I

believe, copied to the minister and myself — February 28, 2018 —

highlights very clearly that the tourism industry in Kamloops employs

2,600 people. It generates $449 million in economic impact, with 1.8

million visitors annually. It’s thriving. It’s growing.

They go on to say in their letter here: “A key reason for our

success is the partnership between the province, the local commercial

accommodation sector, Tourism Kamloops and the city of Kamloops, who

invest revenues from the municipal and regional district tax, the MRDT,

into sales and marketing initiatives that generate results.” They credit

this revenue source as being an integral component of their ability to

meet their performance objectives and to generate revenues for tourism

operators and key stakeholders. They’re very, very concerned about the

repurposing of MRDT revenue.

[5:55 p.m.]

Subsequent conversations with a number of hoteliers in Kamloops….

They want to pull out if this is the government’s intention, which means

less revenue for tourism marketing initiatives, and of course, that

money will not be flowing through to affordable housing projects. So

it’s a lose-lose — very poor policy choice.

My last question on this would be as follows. Back in February,

the Finance Minister, when she was introducing the Airbnb tax, said:

“The PST money goes into general revenue, and we will utilize it for

housing measures that you will see coming in the budget.” We did see

some of those housing measures, but she goes on to say: “The MRDT is a

tax that will go to municipalities for tourism. So they will be able to

utilize those dollars for tourism, just as they do with the hotel tax.”

That was the Minister of Finance on February 7, 2018.

My final question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does she

agree with her colleague the Minister of Finance, who, again, said: “The

MRDT is a tax that will go to municipalities for tourism. So they will

be able to utilize those dollars for tourism, just as they do with the

hotel tax”?

Hon. S. Robinson: Well, first of all, I want to respond to the member’s comments. He

talked about local governments “pilfering” from the MRDT.

I don’t know what his experience is with local governments, but I

have a tremendous amount of respect for them around making the kinds of

responsible decisions that they need to make to meet the needs of their

communities, including the tourism operators. I don’t see them as

pilfering anything. I see them as being responsive and responsible with

their obligations to make life better for their constituents.

Again, our government brought forward a number of tax initiatives

in our budget. These are all the responsibility of the Minister of

Finance.

T. Stone: My comment and the use of the word “pilfer” are in reference to

this government. It’s this government, through this policy choice, that

is essentially pitting, in communities across this province…. Because

she can’t name any communities beyond Tofino, we don’t know who she

actually consulted with. It doesn’t sound like there was, actually,

engagement or consultation with local government or the UBCM.

[6:00 p.m.]

We’re saying she’s pitting…. Through this policy lever, the

government is making a conscious decision to pit affordable housing

advocates and their worthy cause against tourism operators and the

importance of tourism as a critical economic generator in communities

across this province. The government, through this policy, is pilfering

MRDT revenues. Let’s be very clear about that.

With that, I’m going to turn the time over now to my colleague

from Skeena, who has a couple of questions on a completely different

topic.

E. Ross: The Resource Benefit Alliance. There was an announcement made by

the government on April 10, 2018, in relation to $300,000 in support of

RBA communities’ continued efforts to strengthen economic development in

the region.

I just want to know: in terms of the minister’s responsibilities,

what is the minister’s action plan to achieve the RBA communities’ goals

of revenue-sharing?

Hon. S. Robinson: I thank the member for his question. Our government is pleased to

have been able to meet with the Northwest B.C. Resource Alliance over

the last number of months. We continue to meet with them to see how we

can help them achieve their goals.

E. Ross: It’s pretty specific, what the RBA wants. They want

revenue-sharing. The announcement talks about $300,000. It talks not

about revenue-sharing but a fund that’s put in place to “build

relationships with First Nations, labour, major project proponents,

local business and the non-profit sector.”

Aside from that announcement on the funding, there have been a

number of different formulas and possible sources of funding that have

been discussed that could basically achieve the goals of the RBA. Have

these formulas and possible sources of funding been discussed with the

RBA to date?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s actually the kind of work that we’re doing with the RBA on

a regular basis, in terms of looking at how to help them best meet their

needs.

E. Ross: Yeah, okay. Is there any opportunity to see the possible formulas

or any types of sources of funding to achieve this? Because I get it all

the time. I get asked about the way this is going to roll out and which

pot of funding it’s going to come from.

[6:05 p.m.]

The biggest discussion point seems to be on future funding from

future resource development coming from the northwest. Is that where

this government is leading?

Hon. S. Robinson: Our government is committed to continue working with these

communities to identify ways to help move this forward as things grow in

the northwest.

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

think.

In relation to the $300,000 that was given as funding to the RBA,

is there a mechanism that the government will employ to measure the

success of this funding? How will you measure whether or not the RBA has

built relationships with First Nations, labour, major project

proponents, local business and the non-profit sector? And will that be

reported not only to the RBA but, as well, to the communities in general

that are represented by the RBA?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure that the member is well aware that there are 21

communities across the northwest that have formed the RBA. That, in and

of itself, is a bit of a miracle, so congratulations to those

communities, because I know that’s not easy work, in order to bring

people together for a common purpose. So providing them with some funds

to help them continue to build relationships, to help them continue to

engage, particularly First Nations and others, so that they’re working

in healthy relationship and with collaboration is critical to being able

to move forward.

We have asked them to report back periodically to make sure that

things are still on track. That’s an expectation that we

have.

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

TransLink….

Interjection.

S. Cadieux: Yeah, new hat.

Minister, there has been explosive growth, to say the least, in my

constituency over the last number of years and in Surrey generally. But

the majority of that growth has fallen in the Cloverdale and South

Surrey area — hence the new riding.

There has been a commitment by the previous government and now an

additional commitment by your government to rapid transit programs that

includes LRT in Surrey, which is terrific. It’s great. But none of the

planning to date seems to take into consideration the rapid growth in

South Surrey.

[6:10 p.m.]

I have been receiving repeated calls from constituents, and now

businesses that cannot get workers, because there’s no transit to this

rapidly developing area, an area that has had more than 1,000 new homes

in the last couple of years and 10,000 slated for development over the

next few. There’s, I think, three million square feet of retail space

and no transit in the area, at least nothing that serves the needs of

the workers in the area, which means later schedules and so

on.

As well, down at the Summerfield area, where there is also

increased development — which is the area down by the Pacific Border

Crossing between 176 and 172, between Eighth Avenue and the border —

there is an elementary school, lots of housing, some seniors sort of

retirement housing and yet little-to-no transit access.

The communities have been putting those needs forward to TransLink

for some time, but it seems to be a relatively slow process to see

progress in addressing those issues. Can you explain, Minister, how

TransLink will address those issues in emerging communities while the

vast majority of funding is going to the large rapid transit

projects?

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member’s concerns and commitment to her

constituents, but I also want to remind her that it’s the Mayors Council

that determines the plan. The plan, beyond the LRT investment, does

include significant improvements in bus service across the region, but

TransLink makes those decisions about how that gets dispersed and how

the decisions are made.

I’d like to encourage the member to speak directly to her mayor,

because that is, at the local level, where they’re making the decisions

around that.

J. Thornthwaite: I have a question for the minister. As she’s probably well aware,

the number one issue on the North Shore is actually traffic and

transportation. Last year when we were in government, we announced the

$198 million investment for the Lower Lynn four-phase interchange

project, which is going very, very well, and the constituents are very

pleased about that. But that is definitely not enough.

Subsequently, a few of us got together and put together a neat

plan, including a map, of SkyTrain to the North Shore. We feel that this

would definitely help to alleviate traffic congestion in the entire

North Shore and help to get people out of their cars — and, obviously,

alleviate congestion in the long term.

My question to the minister is: has she considered SkyTrain to the

North Shore as part of the major plan for the North Shore

region?

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I appreciate the member’s query. I know that my colleague

the MLA for North Vancouver–Lonsdale has been very integral to pulling

together the leadership on the North Shore, recognizing that it gets

pretty bogged down. I appreciate that.

But again, the mayors create the vision for where to put

investments going forward. I would certainly encourage all members of

the House representing North Shore communities to make sure that their

voices and their concerns are heard with the mayors and make sure that

it gets included in the mayors’ vision as they continue to move

forward.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for that answer. Yes, I know that one of the current

mayors in the North Shore, from the city, has actually suggested his own

idea for a SkyTrain in a different area. My focus was on the area along

the Second Narrows Bridge, the Iron Workers Memorial Bridge, because

that’s the choke point coming from the Port Mann, particularly

considering that the tolls were removed. Even people that are coming

from Coquitlam or Surrey, etc., get stuck in North Vancouver traffic as

they’re heading west. That’s why my focus was on the Iron

Workers.

I appreciate the comments from the minister to keep up the work

with the mayors, but I do know that at least one of our mayors is

actually supportive of the idea.

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

T. Stone: I recognize that we’re rapidly running out of time for today.

TransLink — its operations, its planning, the partnerships with the

federal government and local and provincial funding sources — I would

say, is a huge topic and warrants more discussion than we will have time

for in the next five to seven minutes.

I did want to ask the minister if she could first provide an

update for us here today on where the government is at with phase 2 of

the mayors’ plan insofar as the investment side of it goes. It was good

news recently that the region, the Mayors Council and the region, did

come to a place of agreeing on how to generate its share of the funding

required to move forward with the province and the federal

government.

I’m wondering if the minister could provide me with a current

breakdown. Is it still a 40 percent cost share for the province, 40 for

the feds and 20 for the local? What is that breakdown for phase 2, and

what does that translate into in terms of total dollars? What is that

financial contribution in dollar terms going to be from each of the

three levels of government towards phase 2 of the mayors’

plan?

[6:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to acknowledge the good news about the coming together of

three levels of government. That has been, I think, a struggle for a

significant amount of time. I think how pleased British Columbians are,

as I think everybody in this House is, that we’re going to be able to

move forward with a significant investment — and getting people out of

their cars and home to their families sooner. I’ve never met anyone who

likes to be in traffic.

The cost share. We’re still operating on the cost-share

arrangement, the 40-40-20 that the member mentioned. Right now the

business cases are being reviewed by the federal government, so it’s

premature to actually note exactly what the actual dollar cost is, as

the business cases are still working through the systems as they are

required to.

T. Stone: I have to note that there have been a number of, obviously,

reports and articles that I think flowed from the regions, coming to a

place of certainty on the regional cost contribution. These articles and

reports have suggested that the project would likely come in, around

phase 2, at about $7 billion. The region has also indicated in their

work — through the combination, I believe, of three different levers,

the biggest one being a projected fare increase — that they’re looking

at generating about $2.5 billion in new revenue.

The federal government, if I understand correctly, in terms of

their 40 percent cost share in dollar terms, had indicated that the max

that they would contribute is $2.2 billion, looking at the agreements

that have been signed. I just want to make sure that all of the math

adds up here.

Does the minister…? Is she able to speak to an overall, global

project estimate at this point? Is the $7 billion number accurate? Is

the provincial share going to still be in at around that $1.197 billion

amount? Are the feds still in for $2.2 billion, and is the region

expected to raise some amount up to $2.5 billion?

[6:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: TransLink is working on their ten-year investment plan. We’re

expecting that in June. The business cases for these projects are

currently under review, so it’d be premature to get into specifics until

we have that work done. But I expect it all to come together over the

next number of months, and we’ll certainly have an opportunity to see

the specifics, then.

T. Stone: This last question just has a few different parts, but I won’t

expect the minister to answer verbally today. Perhaps she could commit

to getting back to me in writing.

Just a final follow-up on the phase 2 funding of these TransLink

projects in the Lower Mainland. I’m wondering if the minister could get

back to me as follows. When is government anticipating to actually have

shovels in the ground on the first project?

Perhaps that could be broken out in terms of Surrey LRT and the

Broadway project. What are the current projected completion dates for

the different phases of these major projects? And is the government

contemplating, as part of their business planning process, entering into

any public-private partnerships for the delivery of these

multi-billion-dollar projects that are so desperately needed in the

Lower Mainland?

With that, I want to thank the minister and her staff for, I

think, a thoughtful exchange on these TransLink matters as well as the

broad range of other issues that we canvassed today in the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing and TransLink estimates.

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

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

ESTIMATES:

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

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

approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to just take a moment to thank all the members on the other

side who took the time to ask questions — ask questions about their

communities, housing, local government and TransLink. I appreciated the

exchange and the opportunity to talk about some of the great work that I

believe our government is doing.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report completion of

the resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:28 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported resolutions, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); R. Kahlon in the

chair.

The committee met at 4:05 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,792,612,000

(continued) .

L. Throness: We’re continuing on our discussion this morning about market-based

operators in particular. I wanted to point out to the minister that the

latest round of capital funding that was announced on December 4…. There

was a press release and a notification of all who applied and received

funding, along with the spaces they created. This was when market-based

providers were still eligible for major capital funding.

We got our excellent B.C. Liberal researchers to take apart that

press release. We found that equal funding was given to the non-profit

and market-based sectors — about $6 million each. But the market-based

sector cost, per space, was about $6,000, while the non-profit-sector

space cost was $14,000, more than double the cost of the market-based

sector.

Would the government admit that market-based providers provide a

bigger bang for the taxpayer’s buck and that market-based providers are

the engine for generating new child care spaces? And would she restore

major capital funding to them?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: To be clear, we have not. I’ve mentioned that already during the

past few days. We have not released the details of our new major

capital. It’s going to come in the coming weeks and months. We’ll be

happy to share that information with the member opposite when the new

major capital details come.

In terms of the past program, the most recent major capital that

we announced last year, which the member had mentioned, did allocate

funds for both non-profit and also what the member has called

“market-based providers,” the private providers. So it did have

allocated funds.

If the member opposite is looking at the difference of different

types of child care and how much it does cost to create those child care

spaces, as the member already knows, this is the first time a government

is putting together a comprehensive strategy to address child care

issues. That also includes looking into the sector a bit more. That is

the work that we’re doing. We’ll be more than happy to share our

findings as we look into this very diverse sector and see how much it

does cost for different types of child care services.

Again, because we’re really providing affordability relief,

include a lot of things. I’m pretty sure we’ll continue to look into the

sector, to work with the sector and also get more information. We’ll be

more than happy to share any information we have in the coming months

and days.

L. Throness: I want to ask a few questions about the employer health tax.

First, how many providers in B.C. will be subject to the employer health

tax, and what would be the total cost to child care providers in

B.C.?

Hon. K. Chen: Based on the result of the most recent 2017 annual provider

profile survey, approximately 100 licensed group child care facilities

may be subject to the new employer health tax, which will come into

effect January 1, 2019. But for further questions or details about the

employers health tax, I think it would be better for the member to

redirect it to the Ministry of Finance.

L. Throness: I appreciate that information.

[4:15 p.m.]

In the past few months, we’ve had a quintuple whammy. We’ve had a

minimum-wage increase. We’ve had increased inflation. Fuel is going up.

Hydro went up on April 1. Everything is going up, and the employer

health tax, for some, will be the last straw. One market-based provider,

a large one, told me that she will likely go bankrupt because of

it.

Has the minister met with the Finance Minister to express the

concerns of the providers, to talk about exempting child care from the

employer health tax? If she hasn’t met with the Finance Minister, will

she do that right away?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes, I do have regular conversations with the Minister of Finance,

who is very supportive, of course, of our child care plan and has

allocated a $1 billion historical investment to create a child care

system here in B.C.

Further details about the employers health tax should be

redirected to the Ministry of Finance.

L. Throness: It is within the minister’s purview to calculate reasonable fee

increases. So will the minister, at the very least, take into account

the new employer health tax in her calculation of a reasonable fee

increase?

Hon. K. Chen: Yes.

L. Throness: I want to go on to the fee reduction program now and ask a few

more questions about that — probe a little bit. Under the fee reduction

program, millionaire families will get $350 a month as well as

low-income families. Why would the government give money to those who

don’t need it? What’s the rationale?

Hon. K. Chen: We have two initiatives. One is the fee reduction initiative,

which the member opposite has mentioned, which is an across-the-board

fee reduction, working with licensed child care providers to help

families to make child care more affordable, which is consistent with

our principle of creating a universal child care system that will

benefit all families, regardless of where you’re from, your income, your

background, who you are or where you are in B.C.

[4:20 p.m.]

Every family deserves the fair opportunity to have affordable,

quality and accessible early learning and child care opportunities. That

being said, we do have the second initiative that is income-tested,

which is based on the parent’s application. That affordability relief

will come out later this year. So the two affordability measures will

help all families, many families, in the coming years, in B.C. to get

better services and quality, affordable child care.

L. Throness: I would think that the rule of the taxpayer is that government

benefits go to those who need them.

I have another question, though. Group reductions for infant care

are $350 per month, but family category infant care gets only $200 per

month. Infants typically require double the staffing as older children,

whether they’re in group or family care. The costs are the same for

both.

Here’s what a family care licensed provider wrote to me: “For some

reason, our work, programs and commitments are valued at a lower rate.

Parents get a financial break — less if they have children enrolled at a

licensed in-home daycare than at a group centre. Many licensed in-home

daycare givers are ECE trained or have been doing it for many years,

like myself, and are considered professionals.”

Her question, which I would put to the minister, is: “Why have you

disregarded us?”

Hon. K. Chen: We definitely value the important work of family providers and

also in-home, multi-age providers who have that extra, additional ECE

credential.

The fee reduction is really based on the actual fees charged. That

is the information we get — the market-decided fee charges. I can

explain that to the member opposite. The intent of the child care fee

reduction initiative is to reduce cost for parents. Based on the

information we have, on average, parent fees at licensed group

facilities are higher than those at licensed family facilities. As such,

the fee reduction amount available for each child care type is scaled to

reflect the actual cost of the care to the parent.

I’m really glad that the member mentioned in-home, multi-age

providers, because we do recognize that those providers and family

providers need support. Also, we need to work with them to continue to

enhance and support their services.

[4:25 p.m.]

For the first time ever, for example, we have opened up the minor

capital to allow family providers to apply and maintain and help them to

keep their operation and keep their services. We are also looking at

increasing operating fund support to in-home, multi-age providers later

this year to recognize their credentials and their service.

L. Throness: The government is favouring large daycares over family daycares,

and they should be neutral in that regard.

Family providers are often the choice of parents, because they

provide a warm environment similar to a family in which some children

thrive. They often provide long continuity of care with the same

provider for a number of years. A provider told me that she attends

graduation and wedding ceremonies of the children that she cared for.

They offer places where siblings of different ages can attend together.

Parents value this.

Why do parents get penalized and providers not have equal access

to all that larger group providers have?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: We definitely recognize the importance of family providers and the

services that they are doing.

I’ve personally engaged with many family providers since we became

government last year. We’ve been having meetings and hearing their

stories. I’ve also met with parents who have shared with me how some of

them prefer family providers because they love the small centre. They

love the personal connection. We want parents to have choices. Some

parents want to choose group centres. Some parents want to choose family

providers, or some parents want in-home, multi-age.

We want to make sure that B.C. families, that parents — because we

have a very diverse province, a very diverse child care sector — have

that choice to be able to choose from the best services that they think

will work for their family. Family providers and in-home multi-age

providers have been really crucial in serving B.C. families’ child care

needs. They’re really the backbone. They’re a very important part of our

child care system. I’ve met with many, many passionate family providers

and in-home multi-age providers.

Our government is definitely working hard to make sure we have

enough support, to work with a diverse sector of providers. I know the

member opposite has questions about the fee reduction and the amount.

Really, the fee reduction amount is based on what we see, based on the

information that providers are providing back to us, and then the amount

that we see is fair to reduce parent fees.

We’re really happy to work with providers in the coming months and

years to continue to work together to make child care more affordable

and also at the same time to work with different providers to look at

their needs and how we can support them.

For the budget, currently we have a lot of plans to support family

providers. For example, if you look at the fee reduction initiative,

family providers, in-home multi-age providers or group centres have the

same amount of increased operating funds. The 10 percent operating fund

is across the board to all providers when they opt in to our program.

They have an even, level playing field.

Again, for the first time, we also opened up the minor capital to

allow family providers to apply for funding to help them maintain their

services and their spaces. We are increasing the operating fund for

in-home multi-age providers to recognize their credentials.

We also have a start-up grant to work with licence-not-required

family providers who want to expand their service to help them become

licensed providers and expand the number of spaces that they

have.

We are also working with local child care resource and referral

centres. The member opposite should know that local child care resource

and referral centres are very important in our communities, serving

local families and connecting with local providers, mostly family

providers and in-home multi-age providers, to help them with educational

training and support and in providing the resources that those providers

need.

We have many other initiatives that are looking at how we can

support family in-home multi-age providers, when it comes to education,

training and the other needs of their operation. There’s more to come,

and I definitely want to take this opportunity to thank all providers,

especially the family in-home multi-age providers who have been serving

our communities. A lot of them are small operators, and they do very

important work to serve our children and families in B.C.

L. Throness: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

I want to pass on a complaint that many providers talk to me

about. Perhaps the minister has heard of it as well. If a provider owns

a centre and their own child is in that centre, even if they pay for a

spot for their own child, they don’t qualify for the fee

reduction.

The government is forcing those parents to send their own kids to

be cared for by somebody else in another centre, which doesn’t make

sense to them or to me. Why discriminate against the providers who

themselves have children who care for their children using daycare

resources and should be considered eligible for the fee

reduction?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I’m not so sure if the member opposite is actually aware that it

has been a long-standing policy when it comes to a provider with his or

her own child in the same centre — then the provider is looking after

his or her own child — that they have not been covered for the child

care operating fund, nor the child care subsidy. That policy has been

there since before we became government and has been there for a long

time.

However, that being said, since we became government, we are

actively listening and working with providers. We’re putting together

comprehensive strategies to look at how we deal with this child care

crisis that has been there for so long. This would be a good example. We

have heard from many licensed family child care providers who realize

the forgone revenue when enrolling their own child in one of their

available licensed spaces.

We are actively looking at this issue in order to decide if more

should be done for providers in this case, because we definitely want to

look at different scenarios. As I have mentioned, the child care sector

is very diverse. We’re looking at different situations, different

scenarios, and how providers operate their centre. This is definitely

something that we can look at as we continue to engage, listen to

providers and work together and also address along the way.

At the end of the day, we share the same vision: to make child

care better, more affordable, more quality and accessible. Our

commitment is to continue to work with providers and make the system

better. I really appreciate the member raising this question.

L. Throness: Thank you for that answer. I want to move on to talk about the

squeeze in personnel, which is a huge issue in the field right now, as

the minister well knows.

One provider said to me that the program the government has

created is actually backwards. First, the government is funding parents

fees, which causes demand for new spaces to explode, and we know that

there’s a political rationale for doing that. Then they want and expect

providers to open new spaces. After that, they would work on improving

the workforce.

Why didn’t the minister not start by paying the workforce better,

instead of just studying the matter?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to thank the member opposite for the very important

question about supporting the workforce. I would like to make a

correction. Actually, ever since day one, ever since we got the budget,

we have been working on initiatives to support the workforce. There are

many, many things that we are doing at the same time, and I’m happy to

list them out.

[4:45 p.m.]

As the member already knows, we’ve got the budget. In the budget,

there’s $136 million that will be going into supporting the workforce,

enhancing quality and supporting early childhood educators when it comes

to training, education and fair compensation.

That work started on day one, as soon as we got the budget to look

into the labour market. Before, as the member will know, there was very

little of a comprehensive plan or strategy when it came to dealing with

the child care needs of B.C. families. So of course, we have limited

data as well.

That is something that we and staff are working hard on and also

working with the sector on. People are working hard every single day to

make sure we have more information, to ensure that there’s

accountability when we’re doing this very significant investment. So

$136 million is there. That’s our top priority — to ensure that we can

fund the sector.

Many other things have already been happening. I know that the

member has been focusing on some of the issues that have been talked

about a bit more publicly, but there are many initiatives happening,

including the $16 million that’s going into investment for two years,

through our federal early learning and child care agreement, to support

the work of recruitment and retention of ECEs and support the ECE

bursary.

There’s also money that’s set aside to make sure that we’re

working with the Ministry of Advanced Education, which is $7.4 million —

that work has already increased — to work with post-secondary public

institutions to fund seats for ECE training and programs.

There are also many other things we are doing, including working

with the University of Victoria’s community facilitators program to

provide support and mentorship for early childhood educators. As the

member opposite would know, a lot of early childhood educators work in

silos, or they may be small family providers or multi-age providers who

are working alone with young children. So we want to make sure there’s

enough support in the very diverse sector for different types of

providers.

We’re also reviewing and enhancing the role and responsibility and

budget for the child care resource referral program. So there are many

initiatives that are already started, from day one of our plan, to make

sure that when we are addressing affordability and also creating more

spaces, we’re also creating that very important work to support the

whole system. Some of the work is already happening since the budget

came out. The $136 million will definitely be a support to the sector.

We are happy to release more details once we have more

information.

L. Throness: Thank you for that answer. For $136 million, the government could

have given a $2 raise to every ECE worker in the province through their

providers. Instead, they’re using it to gather information. They’re also

using federal money, $60 million, to gather more information. That’s

$200 million to gather information instead of paying one ECE worker a

dime more. To us, this makes no sense.

Here’s a quote from an email sent to me by a provider.

“Despite our centre being well regarded in the community and in the

ECE field, located in a beautiful new building, offering wages that are

higher than average for our area, offering paid sick days and paid

vacation, benefits and matching RSP contributions, we are still not able

to keep people in the field. In the last two years, I have attracted and

subsequently lost six very good staff members, who loved educating young

children but left the field for jobs that offered better

compensation.”

The crisis is in the field right now. What will the minister do to

rectify this problem, not years from now but now?

[4:50 p.m.]

[N. Simons in the chair.]

Hon. K. Chen: We definitely recognize that it’s very important to support the

work of early childhood educators. They’re the backbone of our plan.

Ever since we became government, I’ve personally been engaged with

hundreds of early childhood educators. Many of the educators have been

supporting our government’s plan as well. We definitely need to continue

to work with them. It is very important to make sure that we have the

ability and the funding available to support the sector.

It seems like the member opposite has a lot of misinformation and

misunderstanding of our budget. So to answer the member opposite’s

question, let me clarify a few things. When we talked about the $136

million — the provincial funding that’s going into the sector to support

education, training and fair compensation — not a penny has been spent

on doing the research or the data, because that’s being done internally.

The $136 million, the provincial dollars, are focused on investing

directly into the sector when it comes to training, education and fair

compensation. Please let me clarify that.

[4:55 p.m.]

In terms of the federal dollars, which the member opposite also

seems to have misinformation about, the federal $16 million are going

into the ECE bursary. That money is going directly to early childhood

educators through a partnership that we have with Early Childhood

Educators of B.C., ECEBC.

To address some of the member’s question, I’m sure, the member has

during the past few days talked a lot about evidence-based learning,

which is exactly what we’re doing. We need to make sure that there’s

enough information about the sector. This is the first time ever that

the provincial government is putting such a significant investment in

funding into the child care sector.

We want to make sure that the funding is going to create the

biggest impact, the most important impact. That is why, ever since the

budget was confirmed, our ministry staff and many educators and

professionals in the sector have been working together every single day.

We’re working hard. This is our priority — to make sure that we collect

information and enough data to understand what the best way would be to

roll out this funding. This is our top priority. We’re working hard on

that, and we’re hoping to get the result in the coming months, in order

to make sure that the funding will be rolled out.

The $136 million — again, to clarify and to make sure that the

member opposite now gets the correct information — will go to supporting

the sector when it comes to training, education and fair

compensation.

L. Throness: Perhaps the minister could further clarify — appreciate that — who

among ECE workers will get a raise out of the budget.

Hon. K. Chen: That is exactly what we’re doing at this moment. The funding will

be rolled out based on the information we’re learning.

L. Throness: The minister has simply confirmed that no one will get a raise, at

the moment, from the budget. Of course, we wait for more information on

that.

Now, I hear anecdotes of wait-lists all over B.C. The government

has greatly increased parental demand through the budget. One provider

told me that her waiting list of parents tripled after the budget. Of

course, there are no new spaces for them.

The minister has access to a lot of information across the

province. What is the overall picture of waiting lists in B.C.? Has she

any information on that?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I totally echo the member opposite’s concern about wait-lists. As

soon as we became government, I’ve been hearing from parents who have

been struggling with long wait-lists and not being able to access child

care spaces.

For example, I once heard from a mom from Vancouver that when she

was a few months pregnant, she put herself on the wait-list of 12

different centres. She waited for a year. After her child was born, she

was still waiting. By the time I met with her, it was almost a year, and

she still has not got a call. So it is high pressure.

Parents in B.C. have been struggling to find child care spaces for

many, many years, and that’s definitely a concern. That is why our

government is committed to making sure we accelerate the creation of

child care spaces and to work with communities, municipalities and

partners and providers to make sure we are able to accelerate those

spaces. And that is why we set aside $236 million to address this

When it comes to the information on wait-lists, there’s no central

data that we have. But we do have utilization rates, which we collect.

It’s also in our performance report, which I believe the member opposite

would have and which is something that the ministry uses.

The child care utilization rate shows where there is a need for

new child care spaces in B.C. The data shows that there is a need for

child care spaces across the province, particularly for infant-toddler

spaces.

Our goal is to reduce the utilization rate in the community. A

lower utilization rate would mean that there are vacant child care

spaces available to any family who needs them. A high utilization rate

of 80 percent, if it’s about 80 percent or more, means that there is a

challenge to find child care spaces.

Rates for infant-toddler spaces have actually steadily risen since

2003 and now stand at about 85 percent of utilization rates, which means

it’s very difficult to find infant-toddler spaces throughout B.C.

communities.

Child care for children aged three to five is almost as high — at

around 75 percent, which is also getting to a really high pressure

point, as well.

I hope the information will be helpful to the member.

L. Throness: The ECE registry requires a full ECE certificate for a worker. It

won’t accept equivalent or even higher qualifications, like a nursing

degree, for example. Allowing people with a degree like that, like a

nursing degree, a full licence for a full year, while they gather their

ECE credentials, would help to ease the labour shortage.

Would the minister commit to doing that?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I would like to thank the member opposite for this question. That

is exactly one of the many reasons why we are working hard to look into

the sector. This is the first time government is putting together a

comprehensive plan. We want to know what would be the best way to

support the sector, to recruit more quality early childhood educators

and, also, to ensure that there are quality services for our young

children.

We are working actively with the Ministry of Advanced Education on

what would be the creative way, and the best way possible, to support a

lot of professionals who would like to join the sector, including early

childhood education assistants or responsible adults who are already

working in the field in different ways, to make sure that we can find

the best way possible to support their learning and their

education.

We are really looking for people who have that experience with

young children in order to enhance and support the early learning needs

of our young children. We definitely are working hard on that. I’m happy

to say that there’s a lot of partnership in the sector — along with the

Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Education and also many

early childhood educators in B.C. who are working on this

together.

L. Throness: Thanks to the minister for that answer.

I’ve heard from many providers and talked to them face to face or

on the phone. Providers are burnt out. They are desperate. They are

exasperated. They are ready to quit. The minister needs to know that —

many of them.

This is another example of an irritation that is common. If a full

ECE worker leaves and an assistant temporarily takes that worker’s

place, the substitution has to be approved by the ministry, and that

temporary, 30-day approval can only be extended with another approval

and further delay. All of these approvals are subject to weeks of delays

and even further information requests, which result in further delays.

What will the minister do to streamline this simple process?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I thank the member opposite for the question. I’ve actually been

personally engaged with hundreds of providers since we became government

Facebook and Twitter — and have heard their stories firsthand. Among our

ministry staff…. Thanks to all of our hard-working ministry staff.

They’ve also been engaging with thousands of providers through this

whole process.

Providers. The member opposite is correct. Providers are a

passionate group of people. Many of them are passionate about the work

they do. They want to do their best to serve the child care and the

families and children that they serve. They have been really struggling

for many, many years, since way before we became government. They have

been struggling with high costs of child care, high costs of operations,

and families have been really struggling with the current system, the

child care crisis.

That is the reason why our government is setting aside a

significant investment, a significant $1 billion, to make sure that we

can create a better system together, working hand in hand with

professionals in this sector. I really want to thank all the

professionals and providers in this sector for their hard work. We want

to continue this work together.

For the question that the member opposite has raised…. Those

questions are to deal with licensing, so the questions would be better

directed to the Ministry of Health, which will be able to provide more

detailed information.

L. Throness: Well, the minister can fob it off on to the Ministry of Health if

she wishes, but she needs to take the bull by the horns and contact the

Minister of Health and fix that problem on behalf of

providers.

I want to make a suggestion for the minister. We have a huge

problem with worker shortage, but I have a simple suggestion to reduce

that pressure for thousands of ECE workers. Some parents would prefer to

stay home with their children but are driven into the workforce because

of affordability.

To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to pay an ECE worker to take

care of a child instead of paying their own mom or dad to do the same

thing. If the government were to create a child care option for

lower-income parents, as they do in Finland, to support the parent in

their preference to care for their child at home, we would relax the

pressure for thousands more ECE workers.

Would the government consider this option — that is, liberating

parents to choose the kind of child care they prefer?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I think the important question is that parents should have the

choice. Parents should have the different types of choices to choose

what types of early learning and child care options that they need and

they want. Currently, if you look at B.C. communities, so many parents

have been really suffering and struggling with not being able to have

that choice, because life has been getting so unaffordable during the

past years. Things are getting more expensive, and parents just simply

do not have that choice.

Many parents have been sharing with me that they have been really

struggling with affordability. That’s why our government is committed to

create opportunities, to create more options for families. Affordability

is our government’s biggest commitment. That includes affordable child

care. My mandate letter has tasked me to make sure that we can create

the early learning and child care services opportunities available to

all parents who want it or need it.

L. Throness: I would simply point out to the minister that I agree that parents

should have choice, but the minister and the government is not providing

that choice in the way I’ve just described.

I have a question asked to me by a female provider. In fact, it

was brought up by several female providers. Over 90 percent of

market-based providers are women. Why is the ministry making it more

difficult — through its infamous controlling contract and other

policies, such as the bureaucratic hassles that we’ve been talking about

— for market-based businesses run by women to be viable?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: Just to be very clear to the member opposite — and I feel like

we’ve been repeating some of the answers and questions — this plan, if

the member opposite is referring to the fee reduction initiative…. The

providers are not getting anything less. The fee reduction initiative

only provides more to providers.

When providers opt in to the program, they will get an increase to

the operating funds that are given to them for the spaces that are

eligible. Even if providers do not want to opt in to this program — it’s

a choice; it’s the provider’s decision — they will continue to receive

the current funding that they’re receiving, the operating funds that

they’re receiving. So no one, no provider, is getting less. The fee

reduction initiative is only providing more to providers.

Again, our comprehensive strategy…. When it comes to dealing with

more supports that we are giving to providers. The member is correct

that the majority of providers are women. There are many supports we’re

giving them, especially focusing on smaller providers such as in-home

multi-age providers. We are looking at increasing the support to their

child care operating funds to support their operation later this year.

That amount will be increased.

We have, for the first time, expended minor capital for family

providers — again, mostly women — in the workforce, to apply to support

their operation, to enhance their service to young children.

We’re working with local child care resource referral centres to

make sure that they have the resources and the services that they need

in order to support many small providers in their communities. Many of

them, again, are definitely women.

There’s the $136 million that I mentioned earlier on about

supporting the workforce when it comes to training, education and fair

compensation.

There’s a start-up grant that we are giving to

licence-not-required providers to, if they wish, expand their service

and create more spaces. There’s a start-up grant to support many small

business people to enhance and expand their service.

There are new applications coming in to our child care operating

fund program to receive more government operating funds and also to opt

in to our fee reduction initiative.

If you really look at a lot of the strategies and the plan that

we’re doing, this plan really is supporting parents, especially a lot of

mothers, who are struggling with tough decisions on whether to return to

work, to continue their education or to look after their young children.

It also supports providers, and many of them are definitely women. We

are providing more choices. It’s a plan that’s giving more choices to

families and professionals in the sector.

L. Throness: Thanks to the minister. The minister is setting up providers for

failure by funding all operating funds in its fancy model prototype

centres and government-funded child care centres, which will poach ECEs

from market-based providers because they’re able to pay union wages.

I’ve already heard this complaint. It’s already happening.

[5:25 p.m.]

This will actually restrict parental choice, because the only ones

left standing will be the government-funded ones. What is the minister

going to do about the imbalance in compensation between centres, as

caused by the government?

Hon. K. Chen: I think I have emphasized many, many times that our government is

committed to work with the very diverse sector of providers, because

families want different choices.

[5:30 p.m.]

Through our engagement process, starting summer last year, we’ve

met with providers, families, professionals, early childhood educators

and academics — many, many people in this sector — to know how important

and how we need to celebrate this diversity in our province.

Our families want different types of services. So our investment

is definitely going into a diverse sector of providers, and there’s

flexibility. There’s diversity in our investment.

If the member opposite is referring to the prototype centres — and

I’ve mentioned that — the funding is going into existing providers and

supporting the existing child care workers. It’s only a very small part

of our $1 billion investment. Our $1 billion investment in the coming

three years covers a lot of many other areas. Again, the investment will

go to support this very diverse sector.

That is why, when we talked about compensation, we’re working on

this labour market strategy. There’s also the labour market partnership

strategy that we are working on with ECEBC to ensure that we’re doing

our best with evidence-based information to fund the sector when it

comes to educators’ needs for education, training and fair

compensation.

L. Throness: Just to clarify from the minister. So the prototype centres won’t

create any new spaces? They will only deal with current

spaces?

Hon. K. Chen: For the prototype site, we are working with existing facilities.

So it’s mostly current spaces. If there are opportunities within that

existing facility, then there could be new spaces.

L. Throness: I want to move on to talk about the new spaces that the government

promised. The government promised 22,000 new spaces. How did the

government decide on this number? Was there an independent analysis that

suggested this number, or did they just crib it, as they lifted the rest

of their program, from the Coalition of Childcare Advocates of

B.C.?

[5:35 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: It’s really based on the needs of our community. We know that B.C.

families have been struggling to find child care spaces that work for

them. We definitely need to accelerate the creation of child care

spaces, and 22,000 may not be enough to address the total needs of

families’ child care needs. But that is the number that we believe we

can fund and can accelerate their creation.

It is an ambitious target. If you look at the previous

government’s record, in three years, only about 4,000 were funded. So we

need to work hard with community partners and groups and municipalities

to continue to work together to accelerate the creation of child care

spaces.

L. Throness: Continuing on with that, the minister mentioned the other day that

90 new CCOF applications have been received since the budget. How many

of those 90 applicants were providers before, providing spaces, perhaps

no-licence-required spaces before they applied for CCOF?

Hon. K. Chen: The providers have to be licensed providers in order to apply for

the child care fee reduction initiative.

L. Throness: Okay. Let me try and clarify further. I’ll just probe a little

further. When the government says it plans to create 22,000 new spaces,

will the ministry include as new spaces those that were

no-licence-required before, as well as unlicensed, unlawful providers

who decide to license their day care for the first time?

Many of these should not be included as new spaces. That’s what

I’m getting at. They will simply be converted from unlicensed to

licensed spaces.

Hon. K. Chen: The 22,000 are new licensed child care spaces. There may be a very

small portion of the license-not-required providers who are becoming

licensed spaces so they can increase the number of spaces. There are

still going to be new spaces. But I would say pretty much all the 22,000

new licensed spaces will be licensed new spaces.

L. Throness: If the minister could clarify, then. The minister is defining a

new child care space as a space where there was no care provided before.

Is that correct?

Hon. K. Chen: Again, there will be new licensed child care spaces. A very small

portion of it will be a conversion, also providers adding new spaces,

but the vast majority would be new licensed child care

spaces.

[5:40 p.m.]

L. Throness: Let me ask this, then. Will government officials ask the question

of each new applicant: “Were you previously providing an unlicensed

space that will now be licensed, whether an unlawful space or a

no-license-required space?” And will it make that information public so

that everyone can see how many incremental new spaces are actually being

created where there were not spaces before?

Hon. K. Chen: We will be doing regular reporting on new space creation, for

sure.

L. Throness: With its big goal of creating 22,000 spaces, does the government

have a target for the number of non-profit versus market spaces to be

created?

Hon. K. Chen: No. It’s really based on providers’ applications.

L. Throness: I hear anecdotes that there are unfilled spaces throughout the

Lower Mainland already because of a lack of qualified early childhood

educators. Can the minister tell us to what extent this is true? Has the

ministry attempted to quantify this?

Hon. K. Chen: Thanks to the member opposite for the question. That is exactly

why we’re looking into the labour market strategy, to have a better

understanding. Before, no government had ever done this comprehensive

plan and looked into the sector and invested into the sector.

Our government is very committed to making sure we have more

information from the sector — to look at, for example, how many early

childhood educators we need or how many spaces we need to fill. And

we’re not only looking at today’s needs. We’re also looking at future

needs, as communities continue to grow and there are diverse needs from

our community.

[5:45 p.m.]

L. Throness: Part of creating spaces is help to do that. Let me read from the

ministry’s own documents. Current no-licence-required providers “looking

to become licensed will be able to apply for start-up grants” to cover

costs associated with meeting licensing requirements. Could the minister

give us a dollar range for these grants? How much will they be? What

kind of grants will she offer?

Hon. K. Chen: For the specific start-up grant, more details will be released in

May.

L. Throness: Will a no-licence-required provider be required to have an ECE

designation before being licensed?

Hon. K. Chen: The providers will have to meet the basic licensing requirements

of the Ministry of Health. Currently being an ECE is not a requirement

to become a family provider.

L. Throness: I want to pick up a few miscellaneous questions that I’ve skipped

over before. One is about the overpayment. In

section 4.5 of the

contract, the penalty for an overpayment is double the amount overpaid,

and no provider is able to negotiate this amount out of their contract.

It’s the government’s way or the highway.

Previous to this year, providers had full freedom to adjust their

rates to keep solvent. Now the government is taking that control out of

providers’ hands through a coercive funding model and topping it off

with big fines. Why the punitive penalties to providers?

Hon. K. Chen: The cost that the member opposite is referring to when it comes to

the fee reduction initiative that providers are choosing to join is an

accountability measure. I would assume that providers, when they choose

to join the fee reduction initiative, also want to work with our

government to pass on savings to parents.

If a provider, for example, gets $350 for an infant-toddler space

for fee reduction and ends up not passing that saving on, of course that

would be an accountability concern. That is why the cost. Because it is

a contract between our government and providers, we want to make sure

there’s an accountability mechanism.

L. Throness: Certainly, a provider can choose to opt in or not. They can also

choose to go bankrupt. So it’s really not a free choice for the

provider, and the government needs to know that.

In limiting fee increases to the bone, the government has assured

that no capital will be able to be saved or accumulated by market-based

providers. Therefore, they’ll be unable to create new spaces without

government help.

Why would the government make providers dependent upon government,

instead of allowing them to do what they do best, which is to save and

accumulate and fund new centres themselves?

[5:50 p.m.]

Hon. K. Chen: I don’t understand why…. Unfortunately, the member opposite seems

to have a lot of misinformation about our program. With all the funding

that we’re rolling out, this is the biggest investment in B.C. for the

child care sector.

With the fee reduction initiative and with our other programs, no

provider or professional in the sector is getting less. The funding that

we’re investing into the sector is to ensure that parents can benefit

from affordable, quality, accessible child care, and providers are also

getting more. That is why, when they choose to join, for example, the

fee reduction initiative, they will be getting an increase to their

operating funds. That is the funding that we’re also looking at to

continue to increase in year 2 and year 3.

Again, let me please be clear that no provider is getting less.

Providers and parents are getting more from our investment, and we