Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Finance.

In the Douglas Fir Room, Section A, I call committee stage on Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act.

In the Birch Room, Committee C, I call continued debate, until two o’clock, of the Ministry of Health esti­mates, then to be followed by the Ministry of Forests esti­mates.

[1:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 26: ministry operations, $318,847,000 (continued).

S. Furstenau: Once again, I’m delighted to have the opportunity to ask the minister some questions about her ministry and finances and all things.

I think I’m going to start with kind of a higher-level philosophical question about how the minister sees her role vis-à-vis responsibility to the public when it comes to transparency and accountability of how money is spent by government.

[1:40 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Osborne: I’m very pleased to welcome the grade 5 class today from St. Mary’s School in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway with their teacher, Ms. Ryznar. I hope that I have pronounced that correctly.

I want to welcome the students here and very briefly explain that we’re in a process called estimates. We are joined here today by the Minister of Finance, who is presenting a plan for government spending for the coming year and how we will provide the services that British Columbians depend upon and that make their lives better.

We are hearing questions from members of the opposing political parties. Right now we have the Leader of the Third Party, the Green Party, who is posing the questions, so you will witness some back-and-forth. The Minister of Finance is also joined by her staff.

We welcome you here. Thank you for coming.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the students. I can assure the members on the other side that there are indeed students up in the galleries. I invite them to pay close attention.

The member had asked a question. I don’t know if you were here for that question around the…. I think the way the member characterized it was as a high-level question of philosophy around my role as the Minister of Finance. I have a dual role. It’s not just the Minister of Finance but also the chair of Treasury Board. Both of those roles are to manage the public purse, to steward the public finances.

The majority of that responsibility does flow from several pieces of legislation, several laws that are here in British Columbia. One is the Financial Administration Act, as well as the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Those two laws guide me, guide government to engage in certain activities, the first of which — I’ll start, as well, at a high level — is around consultation with the public and how critical it is to engage the public to identify what their priorities are as British Columbians.

There is a cross-government group that goes out. Typically they go out Juneish, depending on whether or not we’re in a pandemic, I suppose. The idea is to go out a in June and to hear from the public, hear from various groups about what some of the needs are in our province. Then that gets fed into a budget process.

The other part that comes out of those two pieces of legislation is the timing for the budget, as well as what needs to be in the budget. Another piece that flows from that is making sure there are quarterly reports so that we are sharing with British Columbians, on a quarterly basis, about the status of what is happening on the revenue side of our ledger as well as our expense side as well as our debt so that the public can be regularly made aware of the status of the finances for the province.

Also coming out of those two pieces of legislation are service plans, how we’re spending the money. How are we spending the money?

I thank the member for her question, because one of my biggest challenges, I will say, as Minister of Finance is to really push an outcomes-driven reporting back, which I will say is not easy to do. It’s a large system, a large way, traditionally, of thinking and moving beyond outputs and moving into outcomes, which I know is the member’s passion. It’s mine as well.

[1:50 p.m.]

I think we actually met around this, what feels like a million years ago now, when we were both in local government. I want to let the member know that I am moving that as quickly as I can, but it is not an easy process.

The other thing I want to acknowledge is, as chair of Treasury Board, that I don’t make decisions alone. I have a Treasury Board of many ministers and a handful of folks who are part of our caucus that goes through a rigorous process to make sure that, as we make decisions on behalf of British Columbians about how their dollars are spent, we use a lens of what are the outcomes that we’re seeking here.

How that is going to be reported back is part of our questioning, because it’s very much a value of our government, and I look forward to seeing what other questions the member might have.

S. Furstenau: Thanks to the minister for that response. I appreciate the legal framework that she provided. I had been hoping for a bit more of her view of her role as an elected official, but that’s okay, because we don’t have a lot of time. There is a lot to cover.

I think a couple of things there. This government has had some challenges with being perceived as being secretive — the changes to the FOI legislation, the delegation of the powers of the Treasury Board into the chair and the vice-chair of the board that was passed in the legislation earlier this year.

Then the largest infrastructure project in the history of the province, which is Site C, really is shrouded in secrecy. Last year I asked the minister, in Finance estimates, about hoping for some more transparency around Site C. We know that the Premier was just visiting the site last week. He indicated that he didn’t ask the questions around budget, construction schedule or technical challenge. I think, in terms of the public’s right to know about public money being spent on a project of this size, that in order to maintain that sense of trust and accountability, the transparency piece is really critical.

Last year when I asked about the reports from Site C and, in particular, the report by Mr. Milburn, the minister indicated: “What I can say is that B.C. Hydro, under oversight of the project assurance board,” the project adviser board, “the special adviser, Mr. Milburn, and the minister responsible…. They’ve been releasing reports.” But as we know, the full Milburn report has not been released. Can we expect that report to be released?

[1:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Just so that the students who are watching here in the chamber know, I talk to my staff about making sure that I get all the correct information, so I can share it with the member opposite and with all British Columbians who are watching. We are televised. Next time you want to be riveted by the activities that are happening here in the chamber, be sure to turn on your legislative channel, and you can watch from the comforts of your own home. But it’s lovely to have you all here in the chamber.

The member knows that the Milburn report was released under the FOIable…. It complied with FOI legislation. That was released. Part of what came out of that report, however, I want to point out to the member, is that Hydro is required to deliver quarterly reports about all of their activities, all of their progress. The last report that we saw and that we reviewed was at the end of March or early April. The member can easily find that, and if she needs any help finding that report, I’d be happy to deliver that to her.

S. Furstenau: It’s interesting how long it took to get that short of an answer. We have really limited time in Finance estimates.

To be clear, what was released was a heavily redacted version of Milburn’s report. His entire report was not released — except recently, to West Moberly First Nations, by the courts. It was released to them, but the public has not seen the full Milburn report.

The public does not know what background information B.C. Hydro gave to the dam experts, John France and Kaare Hoeg. The public doesn’t know the cost of the giant steel pillars that are being used to address the geotechnical instability issues. The public doesn’t know a lot about the single largest infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. It’s really important to at least acknowledge that. That’s a part of just being straightforward.

[2:00 p.m.]

This is a project that has been increasingly shrouded in secrecy. The non-release of the Milburn report last year and then the eventual release of a highly redacted report and the fact that in the reports that are coming out, there’s a lack of information available to the public, to the members of the Legislature to really understand.

I’ll end on Site C on this. Hopefully, it’s a really quick answer. I asked it last year as well. Is there an upper cap on the cost of this project? It’s gone from $8 billion to $10 billion to $16 billion.

The Premier, again, was up there last week. He didn’t really indicate if he thought that the project would come in either on time or on budget.

Last year I didn’t get a really straightforward answer. It would just be, I think, important for the public to know. Is there an upper limit on how much will be spent on Site C?

Hon. S. Robinson: I can remind the member that Treasury Board and cabinet have approved a $16 billion budget.

S. Furstenau: Okay. I guess, for next year, we’ll see how that’s going and probably be asking the same question again.

Quite a different topic now. The Ministry of Finance, as well as other ministries in government, currently contracts out to a company called Maximus. I think, in the case of the Ministry of Finance, it’s to run the call centre for the speculation and vacancy tax. I understand that SDPR uses this. There are other areas.

Maximus is a third-party corporation. They have a reputation for some challenging treatment of the workforce — inconsistent hours, cutting hours of business to slow, inadequate training, limited supervisor support, lack of benefits.

This is specifically about this, but really more in a general way: when the government contracts work out to a third party, what oversight is maintained over those third parties that are contracted out to do government work?

Hon. S. Robinson: The question is about Maximus and how oversight happens. The member, I regret to inform her, will have to check with Citizens’ Services, as they hold the contract, and Finance works through them. So Citizens’ Services is technically the holder of the contract.

S. Furstenau: Okay. Thank you very much to the minister for that. We will inquire that way.

Housing property tax. We know, obviously…. I know the minister is well aware of how challenging it is for people right now when it comes to housing. We also know — this is also according to the budget — that there’s a great deal of revenue that comes into government from property taxes.

Is there any consideration of dedicating a share of property tax revenue specifically to non–market housing initiatives?

[2:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased to hear questions about housing. I know the member feels very strongly about making sure that we continue to build out on our plan. We have a $7 billion ten-year plan to roll out and build thousands of homes for those who can’t find homes they can afford that meet their needs. We’re continuing to roll out that plan.

In this budget, we delivered an additional $100 million that we earmarked to accelerate that plan so that we could move even faster on it. The Treasury Board does have the ability to earmark revenues from this tax to the housing priority initiatives special account.

As we have seen, we have done some of that, and the ability remains for Treasury Board to earmark more resources as we continue to build out what is probably the most robust plan to build out thousands and thousands of homes that are for those who can’t fully participate in the market — which has been particularly challenged, given the lack of rental and affordable home ownership.

It’s also why we added another, in the last budget, $2 billion in resources for the HousingHub so that they, too, can deliver different, more middle-income housing as part of the plan. We’re looking at rent-to-own, which is also a new action taken to find ways to help people get into the market.

It’s why, in this budget, we identified resources to actually hire more people to help move more projects out faster, because the response to build out for middle income from the private non-profit sectors was significant. There was a need for more bodies to make sure these projects would go so that we could continue to move quickly on a very challenging problem.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate that the minister recognizes that non-market piece is so critical. Ideally, we’re seeing steadier and clearer investments specifically.

[2:10 p.m.]

I know my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands asked about the HousingHub last year and that desire to see a guarantee that that really does look at co-op, not-for-profit, non-market housing, because that’s so critical.

I’m going to jump into another area. I’m jumping around very quickly, because we have limited time. But affordability is obviously something very significant. B.C. introduced carbon tax in 2008. A lot of the advocacy for carbon tax in its early days was for a program of carbon fee and dividend, it was called. It was meant to have two purposes, one which is a rising price on carbon pollution — that’s the fee part — and then a dividend to help people, really, during a transitioning economy, recognizing that that burden will become challenging as we move to, ideally, low- and then no-carbon economy.

In B.C., our dividend is very limited. So if you have an income of $32,000 or less, then you qualify for the full dividend, which, my understanding is, this July, is $193. If you have an individual income over $42,000, you no longer qualify. So it’s a pretty small, little window in there. For families, I think it’s up to $60,000, at which point you don’t qualify. I would suggest that families making $60,000 and individuals making $40,000 are definitely feeling some pretty significant cost-of-living crunches. When we compare this to the federal model, which has been adopted in Alberta and Saskatchewan, for example, the yearly dividend for an individual is around $600 or $700.

The revenue coming in from the carbon tax in British Columbia is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, but it’s a pretty small portion of this revenue that is going back in a dividend, a rebate, to individuals and to families. Given that we can, I think, anticipate, for a while, these enormous pressures on people, with the cost of living going up — everything from gas to groceries to shelter costs — is the minister considering looking at what was in its economic, theoretical foundation of a carbon fee and dividend — this being a mechanism by which people can anticipate quarterly dividends that will help them through this affordability crisis?

I remember, when the carbon tax first came in, people got a cheque. It was great. Right? It was a way to say: “Yeah, here’s a mechanism for us to address climate change but also to help people navigate unaffordability.” So, again, my question to the minister is: of the $2 billion in revenue from carbon tax, is there consideration that this can be a mechanism to help people with affordability on an ongoing basis by returning some of that to people who are really bearing the individual brunt of cost of living rising?

[2:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to assure the member that we always look for ways to address affordability. I know that she’s heard the same stories that we’re hearing. We’re all hearing these stories of families under considerable pressure, given the spike in inflation that we are seeing and that we are experiencing, so we are always looking for ways to address affordability.

I also want to let the member know and let the chamber know that we are undertaking a carbon-pricing review that was announced as part of the increasing carbon taxes — again, looking at how we address that in a way that helps those who have the least ability to manage increasing costs. So that is also being undertaken.

S. Furstenau: I think one of the…. Again, back to the origins, the theory of the carbon fee and dividend was that those who have the means to use more oil and gas, more carbon will pay more, but those who use less — which is, typically, when you go along a socioeconomic scale — would benefit the most. So there is an addressing-inequality aspect to how this can be executed.

I think the other aspect of this that would be helpful is around the transparency. Of the around $2 billion in revenue that comes in from the carbon tax, can there be a commitment that it be transparent — how all of that money is being spent? Ultimately, I think a lot of people would recognize this is meant to be a way, a tool, for addressing climate change and also inequality. If there’s transparency about how all of that revenue is being spent, then the government is accountable for whether it’s using those funds effectively to achieve those, as the minister said, outcomes that she has committed to.

[2:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First off, I want to just draw attention to the climate change accountability report, which lists out spending that comes from this $2 billion. Just off the top of my head, I was asking staff to run a couple of numbers.

On our housing initiatives alone — we’re talking about inequality, as well as climate change and investing in climate change actions — we have over $1 billion a year that we’re spending just on the housing and homelessness file, which is helping people, in the moment, address housing challenges and dealing with inequities — social inequality, as the member had said.

In 2021, climate action spent $1.3 billion. That includes the tax credit. Just right there, in those two areas, we’re over $2 billion. So it’s being spent as it should. As well, additional tax dollars are being spent to deal with social inequality and deal with climate change activities.

S. Furstenau: As an aside, there’s a court case about that accountability act right now, but that’s in another’s minister file.

Staying with revenues — this specifically from oil and gas royalty revenues — in the provincial budget, there was an indication of actually increasing revenues from oil and gas royalties, as budgeted into the next several years by this budget.

[2:25 p.m.]

Specifically, it was indicated that revenue projections from oil and gas royalties were done without any consideration for the review process of oil and gas royalties that is underway — I believe we’re getting, hopefully, an unredacted report on that soon — but the anticipation was that there would be increased revenues because of increased production. So it’s another one of these kind of confusing and contradictory views of the future, in that we’re going to continue to increase our production of oil and gas, mostly fracking, rely on those revenues for budgeting and somehow square that with climate action.

Given that the budget relies heavily on oil and gas revenues, my question is: why were considerations for the royalty review not included in the revenue projections?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

[2:30 p.m.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you. Welcome, Madam Chair.

I listened carefully to the member’s question around the oil and gas revenues and the review that has been undertaken. It’s one of those times when it’s sort of like timing is everything. Until there is policy worked on, until there is an adoption of a new way to address revenues that come from the oil and gas industry, it’s sort of the old…. The status quo applies until such time as we have policy direction. Then we take that direction, as government, and incorporate it into our budgeting processes on a go-forward basis.

S. Furstenau: I look forward to seeing how that policy unfolds when we get the results of that royalty review. Hopefully, it’s not just minor changes. I think there needs to be some pretty significant overhaul, but we’ll see.

Last year I asked the minister about the Land Owner Transparency Act, the public registry. I had some very specific questions, which had been raised by the C.D. Howe report, on that legislation that came out — specifically about the ID verification of people in that registry, the $5 fee and the key-word search. Lots of discussion back and forth. One of the things the minister said in her comments was that there would be a lot of attention paid to details like this as the implementation goes forward.

A two-part question. How is that implementation going? Is it going as scheduled? Is the registry up and running and functioning, as one would hope it would be? On those specific items around ID verification, the consideration of the fee — in the U.K., for example, there’s no fee — and the key-word search…. Since we are, I know, all committed to combatting money laundering, just an update on those aspects particularly. The first part is: how is that implementation going?

[2:35 p.m.]

Hon. J. Osborne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. Osborne: It’s my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today a grade 5 class from St. Mary’s School in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding. Welcome to the students, to the teacher and the chaperones who have come with you today.

I also want to let the House know that these students are here to witness what takes place in the legislative chamber here, and for the students here, to let you know that we’re in the process of estimates, and we have with us the Minister of Finance. She is presenting government’s budget and spending plan for how we provide services for British Columbians, and she is being asked questions by members of the opposition.

Right now we have the Leader of the Third Party asking questions, and we’ll probably hear questions from other members while you’re here. Please make yourselves very welcome.

Will the House welcome them with me.

Debate Continued

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome to the students. Glad that you’re here.

The member had asked a question about the land owner transparency registry, and I think it’s important to capture a little bit of the story about how it has transpired over time. On November 30, 2020, the land owner transparency registry, the first of its kind in Canada, came into force, putting an end to hidden ownership of real estate in British Columbia.

The member knows — and I know that all members of this House know — that, for years, people were able to use shell companies and trusts to hide who really owns a property here in British Columbia. So the land owner transparency registry legislation came into force. The idea is to collect information on the beneficial owners of real estate to shine a light on who is using corporations, partnerships and trusts, and perhaps not really sharing their identities.

On April 30 of 2021, the land owner transparency registry became searchable by the public and by authorized regulators, including law enforcement and tax authorities. Then for November 30, 2021, it was anticipated that anyone who owned property prior to November 30, 2020, and hadn’t yet transferred it would file a report so that they wouldn’t be offside of the legislation.

We then subsequently heard from the legal community that they were behind on their workloads to assist their clients in getting the appropriate paperwork done. So listening to them and engaging with them, we are providing extra time to help people do their due diligence, get their paperwork done so that they’re not offside of the legislation. We are adding resources to educate and move that as quickly as we can.

[2:40 p.m.]

We did hear some of the same feedback that the member shared, around fees and such. Given that this is brand-new legislation and it’s a brand-new activity, we certainly have heard that and it’s registered with us. We need to see how this works as it goes, because it is unique and it is the first time that anyone is doing this here in Canada.

As a government, we always take in feedback and we always listen and look to see how things are working and make adjustments accordingly. At this point, we’re just hearing the feedback and seeing how this new and unique piece works and how it plays out in the real estate industry.

S. Furstenau: I look forward to this conversation next year too to see how that feedback is going. I think back to the outcomes-oriented, if it really is about ensuring that property isn’t being used in ways that wouldn’t adhere to laws and regulations and, also, our expectations — that that’s being addressed by this registry.

This will be my last question, then I’ll pass it back to my colleagues in their mostly blue suits to take over from here.

There was a recent comment from Business Council of B.C. worried about the way that Stats Canada calculates inflation on home prices. The concern is that StatsCan is underestimating housing price inflation, which then fuels monetary policy that sustains historically low interest rates, although I recognize those have gone up a little bit lately.

According to the Business Council of B.C., they state: “Reported changes in the shelter component of CPI likely understate the true shelter cost inflation facing many homeowners in B.C. and Canada.” I think back to the housing crisis. We see that this does absolutely seem to be the case.

My question — and, again, my last one — is what potential advocacy can the minister and the Ministry of Finance undertake to revise the role that inflation calculations play in addressing the accelerating B.C. housing crisis.

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to share with the member that we do consult with B.C. Stats through the Ministry of Citizens’ Services. This is a long-standing issue around how Stats Canada does the calculation. We have let them know that this is a problem, and we’re not alone in that as a jurisdiction. We’re challenged to sort that out. I can assure the member that we’ll continue to pursue that so that we have a better reading and a better understanding of how people are impacted.

P. Milobar: Just before I jump into some more questions, I’ll let the minister know I’ll be heading into the realm of the BCIB over the next little while.

Also, just yesterday the minister had mentioned how Charlotte and Beatrix were eagerly watching at home. Then it got passed on to me that another young lady in Kamloops, apparently, whose favourite pastime is to watch the legislative channel during afternoons, was eagerly watching yesterday and wondered why she wasn’t mentioned. I just wanted to say hello to Jasmine. Apparently, she likes to watch every day, so there you go — each to their own and a budding young politician, I think.

I’m just moving on, though. There has been a lot of discussion, obviously, over the last week now or five days around the museum and its announced redevelopment plan. There was mention that the museum — part of it would be funded through CleanBC. I just would like the minister to confirm whether or not any carbon tax or if CleanBC will play any part in the redevelopment of the museum.

Hon. S. Robinson: I believe what the member is referring to is our ESG framework for capital. We have an environmental, social and governance framework for capital supports of provincial infrastructure when we own the infrastructure. We implement these key government priorities into the capital projects.

The key priorities…. They are stated in my mandate letter, and they include things like consideration for child care spaces, the use of mass timber — which is going to be used in this project — as well as CleanBC objectives. Can we make sure that it’s going to reduce GHG emissions?

[2:50 p.m.]

If we’re going to be building it, let’s make sure it’s the cleanest building possible. I think that is a wise use of our dollars.

As well as labour objectives — are we making sure that we have a diverse workforce? Are they a local workforce? Do we have underrepresented groups having the opportunity to learn new skills and to skill up? I know members know that we’re expecting a significant labour shortage over the next coming years. Making sure that we have a skilled workforce is critical, so we want to use these dollars to make sure that we are building on those investments, getting a better return on our investment.

We believe that by building environmental, social and economic planning directly into our capital projects, into our capital investments, we help build a future where all British Columbians have an opportunity to thrive — like the young people who are just heading out now. I want to thank them for their rapt attention as we discuss the estimates of Finance. I, too, want to say hello to Jasmine and welcome. Glad to know that there are some people who are watching us. I want to thank the member for introducing us to Jasmine.

It is with all of these things in mind — the environmental, the social and the governance elements — that we are building into our capital projects so that we can deliver on a workforce, making sure that we’re reducing GHG emissions, having child care spaces built into our numerous projects, and that we are using mass timber wherever possible. That really helps our forestry industry.

P. Milobar: I’ll take that as a bit of a roundabout or extended answer around the museum specifically. A lot of the language in that answer seemed to reflect what we hear when a CBA is justified. So was the approval of the $789 million for the demolition and replacement of the museum contingent on it being a CBA construction?

Hon. S. Robinson: This is not a CBA project.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s interesting, because it’s $789 million. The language in the answer from the first question was very much in line with what are purported to be the CBA parameters. So why would this project not have qualified as a CBA, when other projects further down the road are still undetermined, whether they will actually be a CBA or not? It sounds like the final decision has been made that the museum will 100 percent not be subject to a CBA.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: A decision on whether a project will be completed using the community benefits agreement is made during the annual capital budget update. Major projects like this one are assessed based on the geographic location, the timing and the labour requirements. It was determined that this would not work — given the amount of work that the CBA is doing — in terms of the timing of when we were doing this work. Making sure that we could deliver it as a CBA project did not make sense.

P. Milobar: That makes, frankly, no sense. First off, it sounds like the museum is much further along than we’ve been led to believe to this point, and obviously, there has been much more discussion at Treasury Board around this project. But one of the fundamental selling points of CBAs from this government, all along, has been the local-hire requirement, the ability to train up apprentices and use those government projects.

Can the minister point to, within this construction timeline of eight years, what major projects are currently under CBAs in this geographic region that would be restricting a CBA to be in place on a $1 billion project when they’re in place, all over the Interior — $150 million here and $200 million there — on projects? How wouldn’t there be the need to engage Indigenous communities and women and every other type of construction aspect on a building project, for a CBA, if the whole premise of the CBAs is for that?

To be clear, I’m not a supporter or a fan of the CBAs. I think they add cost. Probably the reason this isn’t subject to a CBA is that it’s the only way to try to keep the cost somewhat under control. But it seems completely contradictory and nonsensical, as an answer from the minister, to say that for geographic reasons, a project that’s not slated to be done for eight years wouldn’t match, when I’m hard-pressed to find any CBA agreement on any major capital spend in this geographic region of the province right now.

[3:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m pleased that the member clarified his feelings about CBAs. I thought maybe he’d converted and become a fan of them, based on his questions.

I want to let the member know that when we review a project…. We take a look at the whole list of CBA projects. We do look around the region — Cowichan Hospital, for example, is on the Island — and we look at the timing of projects. We do have to move the labour force around to the various projects, as they continue to get their apprenticeship hours in.

This is all part of the consideration — where we are looking at capital projects, what is already in the pipeline, where it’s going to be and our ability to move folks around in order to deliver the project.

It was decided that this project would be a good candidate for a CBA. Having said that, we are also working on a number of projects, which we are delivering, where we have project labour agreements, where we do a local-hire policy with the proponents, so that we do make sure that people have the opportunity to get in some hours. It’s not in the formal sense of working with a CBA.

The value of this government is to maximize the dollars that we are spending, making sure that we are skilling up a workforce wherever we can. So whether it’s a CBA project or not, we continue to drive our values. Let’s make sure we’re hiring Indigenous people. Let’s make sure we’re hiring underrepresented people. Let’s make sure we’re hiring women. Let’s make sure we’re helping people skill up.

I know the member well knows that we need to be ready for the next generation, where we’re going to see significant job vacancies. We need to have a skilled workforce, and we’re using our capital dollars to help fill that gap.

[3:05 p.m.]

P. Milobar: Well, it’s been no secret that this side has characterized the CBAs as nothing more than the Premier’s chosen 19 unions. So it’s a little astounding to me that, on what has been dubbed the Premier’s vanity museum project, those 19 favoured unions have had their backs turned on them by the Premier and by this government, and they’ve walked away from CBAs.

The minister references the Cowichan Hospital. That’s $840 million, scheduled to be completed in 2025. If you look at the timeline of the museum as buildings finish commissioning, there are stages of when people work on buildings of this size and scope and magnitude. So the people that would’ve been putting the major concrete works and things of that nature in at the Cowichan Hospital are not the ones running around and doing the finishing work in the last year. That would actually line up with when the museum would be under construction, for that skillset that started the Cowichan Hospital.

The question to the minister is…. She referenced that it doesn’t fit the geographic needs at this time. What are the geographic needs for a community benefit agreement in the Victoria region?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I think it’s important. I want to read into the record the value of these CBAs in terms of what it’s delivering. I know the member is not a champion. He has certainly made that clear.

We have, to date, 12 projects that have been approved to be delivered by CBA. We have one completed. That’s the Illecillewaet brake-check project. We have seven that are underway: the Pattullo Bridge replacement project, the Broadway subway project. And we have several Trans-Canada Highway program projects: Kicking Horse Canyon, phase 4; Chase east; Chase west; Salmon Arm west; and Quartz Creek Bridge.

We have four in planning and procurement. We have BCIT trades and technology complex; the Cowichan District Hospital replacement project; and two Trans-Canada Highway projects, Fort to Tappen and Bruhn Bridge.

Of course, the timing for doing all of these is one element. The geographic region is another element. The opportunities that lie ahead in the region are also part of the consideration.

What I want to say — what I think is critically important — is in terms of understanding the impact, the real impact that these projects have had on people’s lives. We have doubled the number of women on these projects. So whereas industry has 6 percent women on these projects, we have 15 percent women. I’d like to see it go even higher, Madam Chair, as I’m sure Madam Chair would like to see it go higher. We’re continuing to do that important work and provide the opportunities.

For Indigenous workers, industry has about 5 percent Indigenous workers, and on our projects, we have 14 percent Indigenous workers. We have about 65 percent local hires, which is generally about 100 kilometres. What that means is that these people are earning a good living, and they’re spending money in our local businesses and supporting their local community.

We are moving the dial on these employment opportunities and changing people’s lives. I think that’s what’s critical here. I continue to be disappointed that the members opposite don’t think this is a good idea. We’re proud of the opportunities we’re providing for British Columbians, and we look forward to doing more.

P. Milobar: I also wish we had equal pay legislation, but that doesn’t seem to happen either.

The minister can wish a whole lot of things, and she can try to characterize our lack of support for the CBA process. It’s not the process that you can get with a local-hire process; it’s the fact that it’s 19 favoured unions with a government-run hiring hall that is impacting private contractors as well — and, in fact, driving up the cost of projects with a smaller scope — that we take issue with.

[3:15 p.m.]

The fact that the museum has been singled out to be not part of the CBA means that at least the museum will have a savings of anywhere from 7 percent to 23 percent, because the Cowichan Hospital is 23 percent over budget from when it first started and was first being talked about. The highways projects are over budget. The Pattullo is over budget, with a scale-back, on the Surrey side, of the Scott Road interchange. That’s being left for the municipality to pick up the tab, because the government walked away and scaled back the project of replacing a four-lane bridge with a four-lane bridge for more money.

That’s what we oppose with CBAs — not hiring more women, not training more Indigenous community members.

I’ll take the minister back to the actual question, which wasn’t answered. She referenced, in her first answer about whether this was subject to CBA or not, that for geographic boundary reasons, it wasn’t. What are the geographic boundary reasons that disqualified this project?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I want to correct the member. His numbers are inaccurate. We’ve done, actually, a recent analysis of a cost of CBA, and it’s 1 to 4 percent of total project cost. The member’s numbers are completely inaccurate.

Again, I’ve provided this answer. When we take a look at a capital project, it goes through a rigorous process to identify if it makes sense for it to be a CBA project. The analysis looks at trades availability. It looks at size of project. It looks at timing. It looks at geographic area. We make the determination based on whether or not it makes sense for it to be a CBA project. It went through that analysis, and it was decided and recommended that it not be considered for a CBA project.

P. Milobar: Well, a couple of things. I still haven’t got the geographic parameters, but that’s fine.

I will point out to the minister that she wanted to try to characterize that we don’t support Indigenous employment and training of women on these jobsites.

I’ll point out the Trans Mountain pipeline project — you know, that one that they were going to use every tool in the toolbox to oppose and that we were adamantly saying we needed. Now that we see our fuel further constrained and the prices skyrocketing, it becomes more apparent why. They were at 18 percent Indigenous employment and 21 percent women employed, and that’s before the feds stepped in. So we’ve always supported that type of training opportunity in the job force. That side seems to actually oppose projects that can do that.

I’m wondering, though. This obviously must have had Treasury Board approval. So if this doesn’t qualify for CBA moving forward because of geographic constraints and work and labour market constraints, and the only project that we can find is the Cowichan Hospital — which is completed in 2025, according to the budget book, so maybe 2026 at the latest, hopefully — that seems to me that that would mean and indicate that there’s no capacity for this general geographic region, from Cowichan through to Victoria, for any CBAs to be granted on any government projects between now and the end of the museum renovation.

Is that what the analysis by Treasury Board and the government was when they determined that this should not qualify for a CBA — that, in fact, there’s no capacity for any more CBAs until well after the Cowichan Hospital is completed and the museum is completed?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: Every project, of course, has its own assessment and goes through its own rigorous assessment, by Treasury Board staff and by Treasury Board, to determine if it makes sense if for it to be a CBA project. There will be, certainly, more opportunity on the Island, and it’s determined every year, as we take a look at the projects in the capital plan and we make that determination accordingly.

Now, I was pleased to hear the member talk about the desire of members opposite to have local hires, Indigenous hires, women hires. But I want to say that BCIB takes a slightly different strategy than what I would call a traditional industry strategy. While there might be a desire and a willingness to hire Indigenous people and women, we are also seeing that those underrepresented groups tend to leave the worksite. They tend not to stay in the industry. They tend not to stay to get properly skilled up. That means that they lose an opportunity.

What BCIB has done is to develop a respectful on-site initiative that is not only creating cultural safety for women, Indigenous people and underrepresented groups, but what’s really interesting, I think — and I want to applaud the leadership of BCIB for what they’re doing — is that they are now pitching this initiative beyond our projects. Local governments and municipalities are very interested in this training; the private sector is interested in this training.

It’s making a difference in their worksites because it’s more respectful. I’m sure that members around this House…. Not that I’ve spent any significant time on worksites, but I do remember visiting places of work that were male-dominated, only to find that pinup of women, barely dressed, in the back office. That was insulting and disrespectful of women. I’m not saying that that is currently what we see, but sometimes that attitude can prevail.

While a contractor might have a handful of women or a handful of Indigenous people, if the worksite isn’t safe, if the worksite isn’t respectful, then those people tend not to stay. They lose out, and we lose out, frankly. I want to say that I think that there’s certainly a lot more here that BCIB delivers that benefits these underrepresented groups, that hadn’t been done before and that is making a difference in people’s lives.

P. Milobar: Madam Chair, this is going to be a long afternoon if we cover everything but the question that was asked.

The question was really if there’s going to be any…. Does that mean that there are no more CBAs until these projects are done, if this doesn’t qualify because of local geographic and labour constraint issues? The minister referenced that the recommendation was to not have this be part of the CBAs. So a simple question is: who recommended it, and who ultimately approved that recommendation?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: In terms of the member suggesting that I didn’t answer the previous question, I did. I just said there would be more opportunities on the Island, but that this particular project was not…. It was determined not to make sense for it to be a CBA. The way all decisions are made on any capital project is it goes through a review process. Options are presented to Treasury Board, and Treasury Board makes a decision.

P. Milobar: No, it wasn’t. That wasn’t part of the answer. It was all of the other superfluous narrative, especially around respectful workplaces. I would point out that all workplaces have respectful workplace in this day and age. In fact, my understanding is that with the CBAs, they actually only have a 60 percent completion of the respectful workplace program at this point. So I’d say there is still a little bit of work to do on those CBA worksites, too, while the minister wants to slag all the other construction sites around the province.

In terms of Treasury Board approval, just recently, the minister brought forward Bill 6. It gave her the ability and the authority and the power to potentially just make unilateral decisions without the full input of all of Treasury Board.

Was the museum one of those decisions or was it the full Treasury Board discussion that approved the museum vanity project for the Premier?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome back.

The legislation that the member refers to just passed, and the decision on the museum was made some time ago.

P. Milobar: The minister is saying some time ago. When exactly was the Treasury Board approval of the museum project?

Hon. S. Robinson: The decision was made in March.

P. Milobar: That certainly is convenient timing, I guess, and would explain why it’s not in this budget.

[3:35 p.m.]

I thought I’d read somewhere that there was a move to try to have, within 30 days of decisions that are made outside of the budget book being created…. In this case, it was December for expenditures. I think this would count as an expenditure. If it was made in March to try to make those public and update people on an updated budget, why was that timeline not met? Why was it mid-May if the Treasury Board decision was in March?

[3:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said in my earlier answer, it came to Treasury Board in March, but the member, I suspect, well knows that before anything can happen, it has to go back to cabinet for review before I would convey a decision to the ministry.

If the member has more questions about that — around the project approval process, around the ministry’s respon­sibility to report out — I would encourage the mem­ber to ask that ministry.

P. Milobar: Well, unless there’s been a major change, Treasury Board minutes should go to cabinet for approval fairly quickly — within a week, two at the most. Has something changed where decisions at Treasury Board and minutes from Treasury Board are delayed in making their way through to cabinet?

Hon. S. Robinson: That is the process, but it also is year-end. It’s March. It’s a busy time. Not everything gets moved as quickly as it does at other times of the year. It’s an incredibly busy time.

Again, I want to suggest that the member check in with the minister responsible if they have further questions about their responsibilities around reporting out.

P. Milobar: I think we canvassed this pretty extensively in Bill 6, where it was made very clear who the chair of Treasury Board is, and that’s the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister sits at cabinet, so I am asking the minister responsible.

I’m asking the minister responsible for the Treasury Board if minutes from a Treasury Board meeting — that has staff dedicated to Treasury Board to type up said minutes, regardless of how busy government is…. Government is always busy. Can’t use the pandemic this time. The question was if the process has changed.

Typically, Treasury Board minutes would go to the very next cabinet meeting; if not, the following one at most. This was in March. It only got announced mid-May. Yet the minister is being very evasive about when Treasury Board minutes would have gone to cabinet — not what the Treasury Board minutes said, just when they went to cabinet.

Has something changed where Treasury Board minutes are so far behind that they’re not getting to cabinet in a timely fashion like they’re supposed to?

Hon. S. Robinson: They do go in a timely fashion.

P. Milobar: So we have a project that went to Treasury Board. Minutes of Treasury Board go to cabinet in March, beginning of April. Assuming there was a business plan that Treasury Board looked at…. According to the Minister of Tourism, it’s thousands and thousands of pages. That’s what she said yesterday. I’ll give her a little creative licence for that. Perhaps it’s not thousands.

[3:45 p.m.]

One would hope it’s a complete business plan. We heard today it’s still a work-in-progress for its release, yet Treasury Board and cabinet dealt with it in March. We might see it a week after a public announcement is made, possibly.

We’re a little cynical around this, because this is the most secretive government in Canada, who doesn’t want to seem to give just straight, clear answers as something as fundamental as the Premier’s vanity project that he stood up on Friday to announce unexpectedly, out of the blue. It’s not in the budget. It wasn’t rumoured.

Why did Treasury Board and cabinet not authorize the release of the business plan to coincide with the announcement? Why is it being looked at and worked on? The expectation is that the full and unredacted business plan will be released. It obviously exists, if Treasury Board has dealt with it. Why is it not released?

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s my understanding that the RBC Museum, the redevelopment, was in the minister’s mandate letter. I don’t know why the member is so caught off guard, or perhaps their critic wasn’t paying close attention. It’s in her mandate letter from 2020, and she’s been doing the work to deliver on that mandate.

In terms of the specific request of the member around the release of the business plan, that’s a question that’s appropriately answered by the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

P. Milobar: Well, I’ll again address the question to the Minister of Finance, who is also the chair of Treasury Board, who approved this project. Was there a full and costed and detailed business plan that Treasury Board looked at when they approved the museum?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The answer is yes, as we do with all of our projects.

P. Milobar: Was there a value-for-money analysis as part of the business case that Treasury Board approved?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m wondering if we could take a bio break.

The Chair: We will take a short recess, five to ten minutes. Thank you, everyone. See you shortly.

The committee recessed from 3:52 p.m. to 4 p.m.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: For any business case, there’s a process that is undertaken and an analysis that’s undertaken. We have a team that looks at the scope of the project. They look at the schedule; they look at the budget. They look at the risks; they do a risk analysis. They look at procurement options.

They do a quantitative analysis that puts down the numbers to it, but they also do a qualitative analysis, recognizing that sometimes you can’t put numbers on the value of something. I’m thinking about whether it’s building another school and, qualitatively, what that means for children to have a safe school; or protecting seven million documents of history and what that looks like. That has value, but how you actually monetize that…. We generally don’t do that, but we recognize that it is important.

We always look at more than one option. It’s also part of the analysis that happens. As well, it also looks at government’s capital asset management framework as part of the overall analysis. Of course, market sounding goes into making sure that that’s considered. That goes for any project that government is undertaking.

P. Milobar: I asked the question about value for money, because obviously, people were pretty stunned by the price tag when they saw it. We started to look for what would be representative examples of current museums being built — at least within North America, even — to get that context.

The most recent one, which is actually under construction right now, that we can find is the Obama presidential museum. It broke ground in 2021, and it will be open in 2025 — built in Chicago, which is an expensive real estate market. It’s fairly comparable, with North American building standards, North American building wages.

It’s on 19.3 acres and has a 235-foot tower, which will house the museum with his archives and displays in it. It has a public forum, a public plaza, an athletic and recreation centre; it has a new branch of the Chicago Public Library as part of it; and it even has a play area with, yes, a sledding hill, which will actually have to be built — it doesn’t exist, but it will be built — all for $700 million.

Again, the question around the value analysis is critical. What was the tipping point for Treasury Board that they felt that $1 billion was an appropriate use of funds in that business case?

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: As we’ve seen over the last day and a half, sometimes the member gets carried away on his numbers. I do want to correct the record that this project is $789 million and that it did come before Treasury Board with a comprehensive business case. Treasury Board made the decision.

The member wants more details. He’ll have to speak to the appropriate ministry.

P. Milobar: Did the Tourism Minister present to Treasury Board, or was it the Premier’s office that presented to Treasury Board?

Hon. S. Robinson: Ministers present their projects to Treasury Board.

P. Milobar: That’s concerning, because today in question period, it was a little unclear what exactly the answer from the Tourism Minister was about the status of the business plan, but yesterday on the radio it was very clear when she said that they just finished reviewing the business case. That’s what the minister said yesterday — the Tourism Minister, who the chair of Treasury Board just said was the one that presented the business case in March.

So which is it? Was the business case presented by the Tourism Minister in March, or was the Tourism Minister just finishing reviewing the business case yesterday?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, if the member is insinuating that somehow I am not telling the truth in this House, and I have some serious issue with that, then I would suggest that the member perhaps redact and not suggest somehow that I was misleading this House. I already answered the question.

P. Milobar: I wasn’t suggesting that the minister is misleading this House at all. I asked the minister which timeline is accurate. It’s up to her to clarify which timeline is accurate.

We have two competing timelines for the business case presented to this chamber. We have the Tourism Minister who just yesterday, on radio, said the business case just finished reviewing.

[4:10 p.m.]

And we have the Finance Minister, who is the chair of Treasury Board, saying that the Tourism Minister presented the full business case in March to Treasury Board. I’m simply asking this minister to confirm, as chair of Treasury Board, that she was presented, in March, the full business case for the museum project from the Tourism Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: I already answered that question.

P. Milobar: And they wonder why they win the award for the most secretive government in Canada. Straightforward question, no answer. But we know the answer, I guess.

Let’s review what we’ve learned. We’ve learned that in March, a business case was presented to Treasury Board. Treasury Board approves that. Treasury Board advances those minutes quickly to cabinet. Yet no mention, no discussion moving forward of this project, even as we’re seeing budgets being presented and discussion.

We then get an announcement of a project with no design, no plans, no concept shared with the public.

Fast-forward a couple more days. We hear from the Minister of Tourism that they have, in fact, just finished reviewing the business case, and it might be released on Friday of this week, if the public is lucky enough to actually have the government share any information with them.

Will the chair of Treasury Board commit that Treasury Board will release the full and unredacted business case for public review?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m sure the members can appreciate that there is information in any business case that could potentially jeopardize procurement when you’re going to any sort of project. I am sure the member would agree that protecting the public interest to make sure we can get a good deal would be very important on any project that we move forward.

My understanding is that that’s the process the minister was referring to that is being undertaken. If the member has further questions about that, I would encourage the member to ask the minister directly, because that’s all the information that I have.

P. Milobar: Well, with this amount of tap dancing, it should’ve been a performing arts centre that’s getting built.

Business cases need to have some sort of values put to them to come up with a dollar figure. It’s been noted by many — not the opposition, by many — that $789 million seems like a pretty exacting number for an eight-year-out project with a yet-unseen business case.

Now, for museums, depending on the climate controls and things of that nature, I can understand that side of the bidding process might be a little complex. But I’m assuming the minister, as chair of Treasury Board, who reviewed and ultimately moved the project along, would be able to share with us some very broad stroke things that were in the business case — things that most certainly would not be considered problematic to the public interest, in terms of bidding or competitive bids. We know it will be a competitive bid, because it doesn’t qualify for a CBA.

The business case to replace the current museum must have referenced, to come up with a $789 million price tag, the square footage of the new complex. Can the minister share with us, as chair of Treasury Board, what square footage was in the proposal that had been approved by Treasury Board?

Hon. S. Robinson: As Minister of Finance and chair of Treasury Board, it is my responsibility to move things through the process. I’m happy to share with the member how the process works and how it moves through, but in terms of specific project details, he really does have to speak to the minister responsible.

P. Milobar: Well, we’ve tried, and minister responsible won’t answer questions. We’re trying to ask the chair of Treasury Board, who ultimately approved and chairs the committee that approved and moved on to cabinet, for approval, a very expensive project that has garnered a lot of public interest — a lot of public dismay, but interest nonetheless.

We’re simply trying to get some quantification of what was actually in that business plan. It’s not asking what the composition of each of those floors would be or the square footage of the floors and how much each attraction would be and what the overall theme of each floor will be. That wasn’t the question.

[4:20 p.m.]

The question was: as chair of Treasury Board, how many square feet did Treasury Board approve in the business case for the new reconstructed museum?

Hon. S. Robinson: I had already answered this question. I’m happy to answer it again.

There are a multitude of projects that come across Treasury Board. I’m happy to speak to the process that it moves through, but each minister is responsible for their projects. They have the details of the projects.

I would invite the member to direct his questions to the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport in order to get those questions answered.

P. Milobar: We would have loved to if the estimates hadn’t been rushed through so quickly for the Ministry of Tourism. They were demanded to be the first ones up, so we’re done with them. We have the chair of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, that’s responsible for all the expenditures in the budget.

I want to read the minister’s quote from the radio yesterday. This is the Minister of Tourism.

“Well, there are some indicative designs that are out there, but part of this process is to engage British Columbians, to hear what you and others think that a new modern museum should look like. There are some components that are must-haves. They will be built, as much as possible, with mass timber. It’s going to be up to accessibility standards.

“We really needed to bring it up to the 21st century. It’s going to have the sustainable values that we care about — passive house, LEED gold certified. So there are lots of different moving pieces, but we’re working as quickly as we can.

“We just finished reviewing the business case, and I committed, the last time we spoke about this, that the government would be transparent about the process so that British Columbians are aware of our plans for the museum.”

That doesn’t say: “We’re just editing the business case for release.” It says they’re just reviewing it, because there are a lot of moving parts, and everything is up in the air. It’s an open canvas, the minister has said. Yet we have the Minister of Finance confirming the Minister of Tourism presented it to Treasury Board in its entirety in March.

I know the minister feels she’s answered the question, but she hasn’t answered the question. These are very basic questions I’m asking that aren’t going to jeopardize the bidding process.

If it’s truly been a full business case, something like, “Was there even a drawing, on the business case, of what a concept plan looks like,” should be easy to answer. It’s a pretty easy yes or no. I’m not asking what it was; I’m asking: was there a concept design? How much square footage was approved for the new museum? It’s a pretty simple question.

Treasury Board ultimately approved it, because they approved the budget, so I’ll combine the two. Was there any concept design attached to the business plan whatsoever, and how much square footage was approved in the funding envelope of $789 million that Treasury Board approved?

The Chair: If I might remind the member, the member doesn’t have to agree with the answer the minister gave, but the minister did give an answer. Repetition of the same question again and again will likely get us the same answer.

I would remind members that repetitious questions can tend to take the time of the House up that can be used asking other questions, so take that in mind, please, Member.

[4:25 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I can appreciate that the member has a series of questions that he’s looking for answers, and it is most appropriate that they go to the minister responsible for the project.

P. Milobar: Let’s try this a different way then. I appreciate the Chair’s guidance; however, just refusing to answer does not equate to time to move along. This is the opposition’s time to try to get an answer out of the minister.

I’ll try this a different way. The minister won’t confirm how much square footage was in the business plan. Can the minister confirm there was any concept of square footage in what was approved to be a $789 million project?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I had answered earlier, any business case for a project like this would have in it the scope, the schedule, the budget, risk analysis, procurement options, the quantitative analysis, a qualitative analysis, several options, an alignment with government’s capital asset management framework as well as market sounding.

In addition, part of that would be functional programs analysis — like we would have, as well, in hospitals and schools — that would look at square footage, activities that would happen in the space as well as indicative designs to give a sense of how to best cost. That goes for all of the capital projects. A building like this would go through this process.

P. Milobar: I’m not sure why that took four or five questions, but thank you for the answer. Square footage was considered. Don’t know what it is, but at least it was considered.

If I look at page 63 on this year’s budget, under “Other,” there’s a little No. 2 which denotes that it includes B.C. Pavilion Corp., Royal B.C. Museum and other service delivery agencies. In this year’s, budget there’s $227 million, which I am assuming the lion’s share is for the Colwood facility; in ’23-24, there’s $176 million; in ’24-25, there’s $188 million. I am assuming that’s for ongoing works with B.C. Pavilion, likely to do with potential bids around FIFA and things of that nature with B.C. Place.

Can the minister confirm that none of these moneys are for the announced rebuild of the museum that was announced on Friday by the Premier?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: It’s not yet in there because it wasn’t approved prior to budget.

P. Milobar: I’m just curious. The spend for the Colwood facility is fairly significant. Of course, people would support the fact that artifacts need to be properly maintained and preserved. That goes without saying. I’m just wondering. Given that its cost — $224 million, I believe it is — is significantly more expensive than some highways projects that qualify to be part of the CBA program, why was the Colwood facility not part of the CBA? Or is it?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, every project goes through a decision-making process around whether or not it makes sense for it to be a CBA project.

[4:35 p.m.]

It was decided that the collections and research building wouldn’t be a project for this kind of procurement and this kind of process.

P. Milobar: Well, those 19 favoured unions of the Premier must be disappointed they got left out of a billion dollars of work down in the capital regional district.

Is the museum project that has been announced, that we’ve been canvassing for the better part of the afternoon…? Does it qualify for or will it be subject to a special project needs agreement?

Hon. S. Robinson: As I said earlier, for all projects we seek ways to achieve labour objectives for specific details on any specific project. The member does need to ask the minister responsible for that particular project.

P. Milobar: Well, this is about Treasury Board approval and whether Treasury Board approved a project that would be required to be part of a special project needs agreement. So that’s the question to the chair of Treasury Board.

Hon. S. Robinson: As chair of Treasury Board, who works with a team at Treasury Board, this is a query that we make of all of our projects in trying to pursue project labour goals, making sure that we have opportunities for underrepresented groups to skill up and to train up. That is a process that Treasury Board undertakes for every project.

The member is asking specifics about a specific project, and the appropriate place to take that question is to the minister responsible for that project.

P. Milobar: Does the OCIB advise on whether or not a project should be deemed a special project needs agreement or not?

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: So for any project there’s, I guess, a standard process that’s undertaken. There is consultation with Infrastructure B.C., with BCIB and with market sounding. So they check with the market. There’s consultation with Treasury Board staff. Within that sort of consultation frame, they look at geographic needs, trade requirements, the timing of the project, the specialized nature of the work and the capacity of skilled trades as well as the size of the project. So all of these things are taken into consideration, and then a variety of options are presented.

P. Milobar: Well, the question was whether the OCIB advises whether or not a project should be deemed a special project to have a special project needs agreement. The minister didn’t want to answer the question the first time, and now has come back with an answer that regurgitates what a CBA is. Frankly, the minister had no problem, when we started all of these questions, acknowledging that this project would not be subject to a CBA. She came up with that answer very fast and very definitively.

The question was: is the museum subject…? Has it been deemed that it needs to have a special project needs agreement?

Hon. S. Robinson: I thought that I was pretty clear, and I believe that the member is speaking about BCIB. If he’s referring to some other organization, I’m happy to hear what that is. But I believe it is BCIB that he’s referring to.

As I’ve said, every project goes through a process to make determinations about how to best proceed. Part of that determination is a consultation with a variety of different experts in the field, who know the field, who know what the opportunities are, who understand the geographic challenges or opportunities, who understand what the trade requirements are and who understand what the timing of a project is needed as well as the specialized nature of the work, the capacity of the skilled trades and the size of the project.

So as part of that conversation, there is consultation that is done with BCIB, with Infrastructure B.C. and with the market in general for any project. It goes through that process. The determinations are made based on the information that is gathered through that process.

[4:45 p.m.]

P. Milobar: So, again, the minister made it clear that for this project, on a direct question of whether it needed to have a CBA attached to it, the answer was no. The question is: the museum project — is it needing to be subject to a special project needs agreement?

Hon. S. Robinson: The appropriate person to answer that…. The appropriate ministry is the Ministry of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport.

P. Milobar: Respectfully, no, it’s not, because that wasn’t the answer on a CBA. This minister had no problem answering the exact same question with the term “CBA” attached to it, with the same rationalization for geography, labour pool, everything else — and advice, from the exact same organization that advised her on the answer on the CBA. She’s still the Treasury Board chair this whole time we’ve been here.

I’ll ask again: has this project been deemed to need a special project needs agreement?

Hon. S. Robinson: Again, I shared this before: if a project is not designated a community benefits agreement project at that time, major projects are expected to consider the use of project labour agreements and/or procurement and contract terms to achieve the province’s labour objectives. That’s for all of our projects.

P. Milobar: Since the minister has the organization that advises on these types of projects and designations, could the minister please advise us what the difference is — the fundamental difference, the major difference — between a community benefits agreement and a special project needs agreement?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: So a CBA and a PLA are really both project labour agreements. The CBA, however, is like a master PLA. It has a specific, defined and targeted approach for growing a diverse and skilled workforce. A PLA, on the other hand, is really terms and conditions for a very specific project.

P. Milobar: I’m just curious, then, how one gets ruled out completely and the other not necessarily when they’re very similar and why one would be ruled out and the other seems to still be in play.

[4:55 p.m.]

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. S. Robinson: Welcome back to the chair.

I’m going to go back to an answer that I provided. I think it’s about two hours ago. I went back through my notes. As I said earlier, every project goes through its own assessment to see if it makes sense. It’s part of the consideration of a team of experts. They look at geography, trades availability, size, timing. It goes through rigorous assessment to determine — whether or not a CBA project — what kind of contract terms should be considered. Every project is unique. Every project has its own opportunities, its own risks, its own benefits, and all projects go through this process.

P. Milobar: When Treasury Board approved the overall concept and budget for this, what was the level of contingencies that was baked into the $789 million?

Hon. S. Robinson: That’s another question related specifically to this project, and I invite the member to ask that question of the appropriate minister.

P. Milobar: I have to say this is the first time I’ve ever heard a Finance Minister try to deflect this many questions to other ministers. The Finance Minister is responsible for revenues. The Finance Minister is responsible for expenditures. As soon as Treasury Board approves something that the Finance Minister is the chair of, the Finance Minister becomes responsible for that project, not the minister.

I’ll ask again, with that as the backdrop, what was the contingency amount built in, if any, to the $789 million price tag that has been approved by the chair of Treasury Board?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to set the record straight about the role that I have as Finance Minister and chair of Treasury Board.

I am responsible for overseeing the process for capital projects, setting the corporate capital planning framework, you know, within how capital plans are developed and how they’re assessed. I set the direction around, for example, the ESG framework for assessing projects, making sure that projects follow policy, helping to develop policy about how they should be assessed, by what criteria.

The member asked a very specific question, a very specific project that the minister is responsible for in terms of the planning and the delivery of that project. Again, I invite the member to ask specific questions about specific projects to the minister that is responsible for the planning and delivery of that project.

P. Milobar: Well, I’m asking the minister responsible for the overall expenditures of the province of British Columbia, who has at her availability all of the financial staff from all the various departments and all the ministries, if she so chooses.

[5:05 p.m.]

Again, to the public at home, it’s not just the five staff we see on screen, which are all very great at their job and professional and do great work, but they have whole teams of people sitting and watching the proceedings on TVs and computers as well.

It’s a fairly straightforward question to the minister about a business plan that apparently was presented in March to Treasury Board with no other details provided to the public other than $789 million. The question was quite simple. Were there contingencies in that $789 million, and what was the value of them, including if there were any management contingencies?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to, I guess, correct the record that the member suggests that I have access to all staff in government. I actually don’t. I don’t have access to the staff at the TACS Ministry, the Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport Ministry. They’re not my staff. These are my staff, who work at the Ministry of Finance, so I think it’s really important to acknowledge that.

I appreciate the member’s frustration. I mean, I can see him. I can see his frustration. It’s apparent. I can appreciate that. I really do. I also hope that he can appreciate that it’s not my role as the Minister of Finance to answer specific questions of projects of other ministers.

If someone is asking a question about a particular hospital capital project, that question belongs to the Minister of Health, who’s responsible for delivering the project. It’s the same thing on schools. If there’s a question about a school being delivered or how it’s being delivered, then it’s appropriate, and those questions get directed to the minister responsible for delivering on those projects. That is where we direct those questions.

I’m going to be consistent. The member knows that I have been answering the questions about my role and what we do in my ministry and how we oversee our processes that I’m responsible for, but in terms of the specific details of this project, the member clearly has questions he wants answered. I can appreciate that. It is appropriate for those questions to go to the minister responsible for delivering this project.

[5:10 p.m.]

P. Milobar: One would think that if standard practice is being followed, the easy answer would have been: “Yes, there are contingencies. I’m not going to offer up a dollar value, because we don’t want to expose our hand as we go out to tender and get bids.” That would’ve been the open and transparent answer.

As for access to other staff, I’ve been in estimates with the Minister of Environment where Finance staff have been called to come down to provide an answer. So if the person in charge of the whole treasury doesn’t have the ability, through various staff channels, to reach out to various ministries to get an accurate answer based on financial questions, that’s pretty scary for the province of British Columbia.

I guess the question I have around the overall project, Treasury Board process–wise, is why would Treasury Board approve a project to proceed that will see a building that receives almost one million visitors a year, tourists, coming off of a pandemic — approve a project that will see that building, that attraction close in 3½ months, when there’s no architect design team ready to go? There’s no concept. It’s an open canvas, as the Minister of Tourism says.

All of that will take, by experts’ accounts, anywhere from two to 2½ years. That’s an extra two million tourists that could have gone through that facility, as it currently stands, waiting for final design, tendering and the assembling of demolition strategies.

Why would Treasury Board approve a business plan to move forward that would unnecessarily harm the Victoria tourism industry for two years extra, when there’s no actual discernible plan and process in place to move this in an expedient fashion?

Hon. S. Robinson: I want to acknowledge that it’s a good question. It is appropriate to ask that question of the minister responsible for developing the plan and responsible for delivering the plan.

P. Milobar: Were there any preliminary discussions ahead of the full report coming to Treasury Board?

I guess the confusion the public tends to have on this project right now…. It’s a pretty major, fundamental change. It’s going to impact tourism unnecessarily for an extra couple of years. That’s why people have deemed it the vanity museum project for the Premier, because it seems like it just wants to be closed and demolished long before even an architect is selected so that there is no choice but to rebuild something in its place.

[5:15 p.m.]

It’s been in the minister’s mandate letter, apparently, for five years, not this minister but the Tourism Minister. Yet it didn’t show up in this budget. It didn’t show up in next year’s budget, and it hasn’t shown up in next year’s budget.

So I’m just wondering, to the Finance Minister, when exactly we’re going to see it show up. Will it be in a quarterly update? Where exactly will it be accounted for in the budget moving forward? Because it appears that the museum is slated for closure in September. There’s no money in the budget. So it’s going to close. It’s going to be demolished with no money in the budget. I don’t quite understand how that timeline fits.

Perhaps the minister could steer me to where, in this budget, since it’s her budget, the money for the demolition between September 6 and March 31, the end of the fiscal, is actually going to take place. Or is the demolition in ’23-24? Because the money is not in the budget either. Or is it happening in ’24-25? Because that’s not in the budget, not even for demolition.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: We’re just doing a little bit of research. This minister, who received in her mandate letter to do a redevelopment of the Royal B.C. Museum…. That was in 2020 that she received her mandate letter.

For all plans…. I know the member knows this, but I think it’s important to be reminded, and for anybody who’s watching. For all of our capital projects, there’s a concept plan that needs to happen so that we get a sense of a bit of the scope and what the general idea is. That can take six to 12 months in order to get a concept plan developed.

Then once the concept plan goes through its process and it’s agreed that it will continue to move forward to the next stage, it goes through a business case process. That can take anywhere from 12 to 18 months, depending on size, scope, complexity of the project. There has been a significant…. It’s two years since the previous election, and here we are with an announcement and a business case that will be released imminently.

In terms of the member’s question, it doesn’t show up in budget until the business case is approved. We will see — he will see; the public will see — the release as part of the financial and economic review. It gets released around the same time as the public accounts, which is before the end of August, so members will see that in there. Then again it will be seen in the first quarterly early in the fall.

P. Milobar: Well, surely, the minister must have had to have approved some sort of expenditure for this year’s fiscal — I’m assuming it would come out of contingencies — for demolition. The museum closes September 6 of this year. Fiscal doesn’t end until March 31. I sure hope that we’re not just going to have it sit dark, instead of having an extra quarter million or so visitors, in that time frame, come through. Surely, there must be money that needs to be coming forward in this fiscal, through contingencies, for design and to make sure that architects are secured.

[5:25 p.m.]

It’s very specialized, building museums, specialized work: (a) they’re in high demand, (b) it’s not going to be easy to find, and (c) they’re probably going to be expensive. They’re probably going to want some money up front. It’s going to be a lot of work for their firm to have to front a lot of costs.

Can the minister confirm that any of that type of work in this year’s fiscal is going to have to come out of contingencies, and how much money has she approved as the Finance Minister, as the chair of Treasury Board, in this year’s budget out of contingencies for the work on the museum that was announced on Friday?

Hon. S. Robinson: If the member has a copy of the blue book, he will see on page 195…. I will draw his attention to Vote 48, capital funding, that lists a number of places, a number of ministries, where we have identified some operating expense for the year ’22-23. It includes the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training; Attorney General; Minister of Education and Child Care; Minister of Health; Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport; and the Minister of Finance. There’s a list of capital projects there.

If the member wants to take a look on page 195, he’ll see the Royal B.C. Museum, Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport — that there’s almost $56 million set aside in this budget out of the capital budget for works to be done this year.

P. Milobar: In terms of process on announcements, typically, something of this magnitude would usually have federal funding announced at the same time, a federal partnership announced at the same time. Noticeably absent was any federal participation at all. The feds are usually hesitant to jump into a project after the fact, much like the province is hesitant to jump into a municipal project after the fact if they’re not on stage to begin with.

[5:30 p.m.]

Our understanding is that it was considered by the province to be put forward to the feds for some federal money, on a long list of projects to potentially submit, and that in fact it dropped off for one reason or another. One version going around is that the business case wasn’t deemed to be strong enough to qualify for federal money.

Why is there no federal money as part of this announcement for something as significant as the heritage of our province?

Hon. S. Robinson: Of course, we welcome federal dollars for any project that we have on the go. We have a number of partnerships with the federal government, and they’re welcome to partner with us on any number of additional projects.

As to the federal government’s decision-making around what projects it selects to support or to partner on, again, I can’t speak to the decision-making process of the federal government. I don’t have any inside knowledge about how they make their decision on which projects to support and which ones to not support.

P. Milobar: Sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear with the question. I guess I’ll be more blunt with it.

Did the province submit this for consideration by the federal government and then retract the request to the federal government, or is it still outstanding as a request to the federal government?

Hon. S. Robinson: I’m prepared to answer the question, but I’m wondering if we could take another bio break — five minutes, if that’s okay.

The Chair: We’ll take a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:35 p.m. to 5:38 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. S. Robinson: I appreciate the member indulging me in taking a bit of a break.

The member asked about how priorities get communicated to the federal government and what happens to those priorities. The Premier, as the one responsible for government here in British Columbia, has a relationship with the Prime Minister, and he is the one who conveys priorities of our government, looking for and seeking partnership with the federal government on those priorities. I can’t speak to the specifics of their conversations and of the list that gets shared with the federal government.

I know the member is not going to be happy with me, but at least those estimates are forthcoming, and there will be an opportunity to check with the Premier. But I can’t speak to the conversation about lists and what conversations happen with the federal government. I don’t have that information to share with the member.

G. Kyllo: I appreciate the time that my colleague is providing me to ask a few questions of the Minister of Finance.

Last year during the estimates process, I had an opportunity to ask the Minister of Transportation with respect to some of the construction projects — the CBA agreements and some of the cost overruns associated with it.

[5:40 p.m.]

At that time, the minister had encouraged me to actually ask the questions to the Minister of Finance, so that’s why I’m here today. I’m certainly hoping you might be able to shed a little more light on the entire process and the rationale and the reasons for the CBAs, community benefits agreements.

Can the minister share, specifically, what the difference is between a PLA and a CBA? It’s certainly my understanding that project labour agreements can establish a significant number of criteria when it comes to hiring ratios, local hires, specifying specific spends for First Nation or Indigenous communities. So I’m just trying to get a better understanding of what CBAs provide that are not provided by a project labour agreement.

Hon. S. Robinson: We had canvassed this question before. I’m happy to repeat the answer for the member. I recognize he may not have heard it.

They’re both project labour agreements, but they are different in how they achieve their goals. The CBA is like a master PLA. It has a very specific, very defined and very targeted approach for growing a diverse and skilled workforce. It’s not about ratios; it’s a continuous process. A PLA, on the other hand, is really a terms-and-conditions agreement for a very specific project.

G. Kyllo: Maybe I would preface the question this way. Is there anything afforded under a CBA that could not be achieved under a project labour agreement?

I’ve certainly seen that, in the past, project labour agreements would be able to set forth hiring ratios for Indigenous, for women, for minorities. They’d also be able to establish apprenticeship ratios. They also, typically, would establish local hiring ratios. In addition, they quite often would specify a specific spend, or dollar amounts that would be expended, with local First Nation companies.

I’m just looking for, specifically, what is contained and provided by a CBA that is not afforded or available to any other form of a project labour agreement.

[5:45 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: The member does ask a good question in terms of understanding the distinction. A generic PLA, for example, might have some labour objectives that are…. They’re tied to the project. People come in. They might learn a piece on this project, and then they have to wait until they can get hired on another project to take their skills through to the next level. We’re talking about skilled trades, and you don’t necessarily become a master at the skill on your first project, or maybe not even on your second or your third project. It might require many more hours.

With the CBA, which is a kind of project labour agreement, the commitment really is to see people through the beginning of their skilled training, right through, so that we can build out a sophisticated, talented and skilled workforce — particularly targeting those that are underrepresented. The member, I think, is sort of appreciating that value.

But it’s more than just how many people that are underrepresented are on the projects. It’s more than that. It’s the level of skill development that they can attain, and it’s through CBA that we can see people through a sophisticated skill development that this province frankly needs. So this is our government’s way of helping to deliver that skilled workforce that we know we’re going to need in the years to come.

G. Kyllo: Well, the Industry Training Authority is responsible for skilled trades delivery. They provide the education. I appreciate that a significant portion of apprenticeship training is on the jobsite, and that would either be attained through an employee’s continuous employment with a company or, potentially, being part of a union hall.

[5:50 p.m.]

I still have not yet heard from the minister what additional benefits are afforded by a CBA other than what would alternatively be available through a project labour agreement.

The opportunity for workers to obtain apprenticeships through the Industry Training Authority, as well as to have a long-term employment arrangement — either with a private sector corporation, company or contractor, which may or may not be through a union hall — that opportunity for the ongoing work, the work experience, is available regardless of whether there is a CBA or not.

I’m just trying to have a bit better understanding what specifically a CBA offers that is not available through the typical project labour agreements.

Hon. S. Robinson: There is a real clear distinction here. With a CBA, the employer is BCIB, and they can better support people through the training process. It’s not as simple as just going to the jobsite. There is certainly much more involved.

As well, we need to remember that the workplace culture has a tremendous influence on whether or not people stay. They may stay on the project, but they may not stay in their career or may not stay focused on their training if they don’t feel welcome or if they feel bullied or harassed or in some ways intimidated. So making sure that people are successful in their training is another piece that the CBA brings.

I have a number of testimonials from people who’ve clearly benefited from working on a CBA. This one is from Christine Johnston, who is a rock truck driver on the Illecillewaet project. This is what she had to say.

[5:55 p.m.]

“I’ve never worked on a BCIB site before. I had no idea what it was when I came here. But our guys on site…. They are fantastic. I feel like there is so much support from the BCIB supervisors, on-site representatives and other staff. You can go to them with any issues and any questions, with solutions found right away. There’s a lot of support for the employees, which makes work easier.”

So Christine certainly shows the benefit of having others on the worksite who can support her in her efforts to learn a new skill and learn a new trade.

We have a number of others, from Ken Carlin, who is the owner-operator of the Highway 1 Salmon Arm project, and he says: “BCIB is different because they hire local and First Nations people first, which is really good to see.”

Mark Jefferson, a rock truck driver from Illecillewaet, said: “I think diversity definitely matters. It’s necessary to give everyone an equal chance to work and equal opportunity for men and women of all walks of life.”

So there is real appreciation for working on these projects. We have another one, a traffic control person who is on the Broadway subway project, and here is what they had to say: “Diversity on BCIB jobsites matters because it brings new ideas and experiences to people where they can learn from each other. The value of diversity is something important in my culture.”

The last thing I want to point out — one more that I want to read into the record because I think it’s really telling and it speaks to the point I made about continuous learning, the opportunity to continue to develop — is really about the rehire process that happens through BCIB. This is from Dawn Purvis who worked on the Kicking Horse Canyon project on Highway 1. She was BCIB’s first female foreperson. Here’s what she had to say: “At BCIB, you have the opportunity to work on lots of different projects.”

I think what’s so telling is that the opportunity to get rehired and to get really skilled up and to have different experiences, so that they can be skilled up is really crit­ical.

Here’s what else she had to say: “You’re on the board as a rehire, and you get calls. It’s not a dead end when this job is done.” I think that’s what a lot of women had experienced or First Nations people or underrepresented groups. They just felt like if they didn’t get rehired, then what was the point? She said: “It’s exciting. You take what you’ve learned from this project, and you move on to the next one. That’s pretty big.” That’s what Dawn Purvis had to say about her experience.

This is the tangible difference, the qualitative difference, that comes with a CBA project and the benefit that BCIB brings to making sure that we have a workforce of tomorrow. It’s not just enough to do….

I’m not saying the more traditional PLAs that the member might be looking at have no value. It has value, but there is an added value here in terms of making sure that people continue to grow, continue to learn and supporting them in the workplace so that they can maximize their learning. I know the member is well aware of the anticipated workforce challenges around the million job openings that we’re anticipating over the next decade or so and the impact that’s going to have.

By investing today, by making sure that capital dollars are not just building projects, but they’re building people, they’re building a skilled workforce and building one that considers diversity and equity as part of that, as well as reconciliation — it’s really all of government’s values coming to bear as we build out these important projects.

G. Kyllo: I do appreciate the minister’s response. I certainly didn’t hear any significant benefit that is provided CBAs over and above some of the deliverables that are attainable under a typical project labour agreement. The CBA recently completed a study that estimated an additional $4.8 billion in cost associated with CBA programs.

The minister referenced the Salmon Arm west project. That was a project that I was very proud to announce with my colleague then, the Minister of Transportation, MLA for Kamloops–South Thompson. It was announced in the fall, September of 2016. At the time it was $162.7 million, and that was for 6.1 kilometres of four-laning. So 6.1 kilometres for $162.7 million. That project is now estimated, with the last update I was provided, at $20 million over budget, which is not a lot. But the sad part is that they’ve cut the project in half, 3.3 kilometres for $20 million more than the original budget.

[6:00 p.m.]

So there is a significant cost that’s associated with the CBAs, and I appreciate some of the hiring ratios that the minister has shared with this House, especially when it comes to Indigenous peoples. But the minister indicated, in an earlier response to our critic, that the hiring ratios for Indigenous people on CBA projects is only 15.6 percent, I believe she said. Let’s call it 16 percent.

The Trans-Canada Highway expansion project from Chase to Hoffman’s Bluff was put out to tender and was constructed, I believe, from 2015 to 2017. It achieved a 30 percent hiring ratio for Indigenous peoples, almost twice the hiring ratio that this minister is indicating and touting as being such a wondrous opportunity under these CBA agreements.

I was having a look at a report recently. This is for total employment in the construction industry. For B.C. construction employment for Indigenous peoples, in 2015, 7,800; in 2016, 12,000; and in 2017, that increased to 13,000 — a significant increase in the hiring of Indigenous peoples on construction projects without a CBA agreement, without the extraordinary and high cost of CBAs.

There was a report that was commissioned by Infrastructure B.C. I know that the minister has referenced Infrastructure B.C. in some of her earlier responses to our critic with respect to their role in managing large capital projects in the province of B.C. I was fortunate enough to get a copy of a 363-page document that was completed by Partnerships B.C., where they actually evaluated the true cost associated with a CBA project with respect to the Cowichan Hospital.

Now, this is not work or estimates that were undertaken by the private sector. These were estimates that were undertaken by Infrastructure B.C. Infrastructure B.C. is one of the entities, one of the Crown agencies that actually provides advice to the Minister of Finance. I know that the Minister of Finance is as concerned as the rest of us in the province of B.C. about having respect for taxpayers.

It’s interesting. This particular document was completed, I believe it was December of 2019, assessing the true cost of going to CBA on the construction of the Cowichan Hospital. Now, there were two options that were considered. One was a typical design-build-finance, and the other one was under a community benefits agreement.

What they found…. Largely this has to do with there is not a lot of interest by many of the private sector contractors to bid on CBA projects. They want to have control of their workforce, and under a CBA agreement, a lot of that control is diminished. As the minister has shared, anybody working on a CBA project — their employees actually are the employees of BCIB. The corporation loses direct control and ability to manage their workforce, so many corporations don’t bid. As we all know, economics 101, it’s supply and demand. When we see fewer companies bidding on a project, it drives up the cost.

Infrastructure B.C., in this 363-page, very detailed report, established and identified that the total capital cost for a typical design-build-finance for the Cowichan Hospital was $718 million. I’m sure that the minister has likely seen this document. If not, I certainly encourage her to have a look at it. The estimated cost expenditure by taking that contract and going to a CBA, $882.2 million. That’s $163.4 million of additional spend. That’s a 23 percent increase.

The only benefit that the minister has been able to share with us today that is afforded by a CBA versus a traditional project labour agreement is some nebulous rhetoric around how somehow these employees have a better opportunity to go from one construction job site to another.

[6:05 p.m.]

Well, that’s exactly what happens in the real world. A construction project might be a year or two. When that project is finished, those workers then have an opportunity to work with that company on other projects around the province.

I’m certainly not seeing, hearing or understanding, for a project like the Cowichan Lake hospital, any justification for an additional $164.2 million spend. That’s the equivalent of another six or seven schools. I know there’s a shortage of funds out there for many needs around the province, whether it’s expansions of operating rooms…. Shuswap Lake General Hospital is an example which is in dire need of expansion. There’s no shortage of needs around the province.

It’s interesting. For the Minister of Finance to move forward and approve, for the construction of the Cowichan Lake hospital, an additional $164.2 million, a 23 percent additional spend…. The benefit that is flowing from that is nebulous at best. The hiring ratios that the minister has touted are not anywhere even close to some of the hiring ratios that were achieved prior to CBAs even being made available.

I think I’ll digress, hon. Chair. I’m going to go back to the whole concept of the CBAs.

As we know, when government made the big announcement, there were 19 handpicked unions that were agreed and identified by government that could participate in the CBA program. Any of the progressive unions — Canada West, Christian Labour Association of Canada…. Those unions were specifically precluded from participating.

My question: can the minister share with this House what the specific criteria was for government to make the determination on which unions had the opportunity to benefit and participate in these CBA agreements?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Robinson: First of all, I think it’s important that the member understand that the contractors control the worksite. BCIB provides labour, HR services, and payroll so the contractor responsible for actually doing the building can do what they do best. There is a lot of appreciation for having access to that talent.

I have to say how disappointed I am that the member suggested that the people whose lives are changed and transformed as a result of participating in a workforce where they get skilled, where they get supported…. Calling it rhetoric is really disrespectful of people’s hard work to learn a new skill, to participate in the economy.

The member suggested that somehow it’s not having significant impact. The industry average of Indigenous people working in construction is 6 percent. He’s identified a project. He’s saying it was 30 percent from a number of years ago, but that includes people working in the office, people that may not be actually learning the skilled trades. We’re paying attention to the skill, the people on the jobsite using skills, learning skills. The average in the industry is 6 percent. We’re talking, you know, 13, 14, 15 percent of what we’re delivering on our projects. That is transformational.

Before I take my seat, I want to read one more testimonial into the record because I think it really speaks to how transformational this is for people. This woman, Farimah Shekezenal Abedini, a carpenter apprentice on the Broadway subway project, had this to say:

“I moved to Canada at a young age over seven years ago. I am thankful to be in this country, as there are more opportunities for me as a woman. I’ve always wanted to create things with my hands but wasn’t sure I would get the opportunity until I gained the confidence to start a job in the trades.

“I recently started to work with BCIB to start my carpentry career as an apprentice, so I can get the proper skills and also go for schooling. I’m really happy working for BCIB as a carpenter apprentice. They’re really patient with me, teaching me all these skills that I need to be successful.

“They inspire me to improve my talents, and they’re also really professional. I feel comfortable and safe working with them.”

That’s the implication here.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:13 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS ACT

Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

[6:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call third reading, Bill 10.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 10 — LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Mr. Speaker: The question is third reading of Bill 10.

Division has been called.

[6:20 p.m. - 6:25 p.m.]

Bill 10, Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 50
Alexis	Anderson	Babchuk
Bailey	Bains	Beare
Begg	Brar	Chant
Chen	Chow	Conroy
Coulter	Cullen	Dean
D’Eith	Dix	Donnelly
Dykeman	Eby	Farnworth
Furstenau	Glumac	Greene
Heyman	Horgan	Kahlon
Kang	Leonard	Ma
Malcolmson	Mercier	Olsen
Osborne	Paddon	Popham
Ralston	Rankin	Robinson
Routledge	Russell	Sandhu
Sharma	Simons	Sims
R. Singh	Starchuk	Walker
Whiteside		Yao
NAYS — 25
Ashton	Banman	Bernier
Bond	Clovechok	Davies
Doerkson	Halford	Kirkpatrick
Kyllo	Lee	Letnick
Merrifield	Milobar	Morris
Oakes	Paton	Ross
Rustad	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Tegart
	Wat

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:29 p.m.