Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, May 17, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 210

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Tributes

Helen Hughes

Hon. M. Dean

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)

S. Furstenau

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

G. Kyllo

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 15 — Low Carbon Fuels Act

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Labour Relations Code Amendment Act, 2022

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 15 — Low Carbon Fuels Act (continued)

Hon. B. Ralston

M. Lee

T. Shypitka

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Estimates: Ministry of Forests (continued)

J. Rustad

Hon. K. Conroy

D. Clovechok

R. Merrifield

J. Sturdy

Estimates: Other appropriations

TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2022

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Tributes

HELEN HUGHES

Hon. M. Dean: It’s with great sadness today that I rise in the House to honour

the work and the life of a leader from our community here in greater

Victoria. She was also a friend and a colleague of mine.

Helen Hughes passed away recently at the age of 89. She had

previously worked in the Ombudsperson’s office here in British Columbia

and served on the B.C. Council of Human Rights as well.

She was elected in 1990 to Victoria city council and served for 18

years in Victoria, but she was devoted to helping others throughout the

whole of our region. That was how I came to know her amazing

work.

She was the originator of Souper Bowls for Hope for the Victoria

Youth Empowerment Society, which has raised close to $1 million to help

to provide programs and services for vulnerable youth across our region.

She worked with medical health officers to organize the capital region

action team on sexually exploited youth.

She has a long list of awards and accomplishments that she has

very well deserved and was also named a member of the Order of Canada in

As Helen herself says: “A leader must have other people with whom

to work towards the goal, and Victorians have shown their concern and

compassion. Being involved in a diversity of activities and causes makes

life easier and better for all and leads to a better quality of life for

citizens of all ages in greater Victoria.”

Helen certainly made life easier and better for all.

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

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

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,

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

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.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 15 — LOW CARBON FUELS

ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 15;

D. Coulter in the chair.

The committee met at 1:34 p.m.

The Chair: Okay, folks. I hope we all had a good lunch. We’re considering

Bill 15, Low Carbon Fuels Act.

On clause 1 (continued) .

Hon. B. Ralston: Just before lunch, there was a question posed. We adjourned, and I

was going to answer it after lunch.

[1:35 p.m.]

We are dealing with

section 1, although the question appears to

relate to a concern that is being raised by the member for

Vancouver-Langara on behalf of a proponent of a possible project, which

doesn’t really relate to

section 1. Nevertheless, I will make a

few comments that may assist, and, perhaps, we can then move

on.

Under the current act, an Indigenous nation who is not a fuel

supplier is ineligible for

part 3 agreements. Under the new act, if a

First Nation is proposing to produce low-carbon fuels, they could be

eligible to receive compliance credits under an initiative agreement,

which is

section 15. We’re on

section 1, and we’ll get to

section 15 in

due course, I’m sure.

The member spoke of a meeting with staff of the ministry. The

staff were able to briefly assess the proposal. The assessment of the

diesel from Alberta that was discussed last week is that it would have a

very high carbon intensity. However, if the facility being proposed used

renewable natural gas, the carbon intensity could be much lower and the

fuel could then generate credits.

I hope that goes someway towards answering the questions, but I

would prefer to deal with

section 1.

M. Lee: Mr. Chair, just for your benefit, we’ve been having a discussion

relating to the challenges related to consultation, related to this new

act for First Nations. I think that the indication of a meeting with a

First Nation, by way of example…. I am raising questions at committee

stage about this bill for what is, across many pieces of legislation

that hit the floor of the Legislative Assembly, without proper

consultation. The member for Skeena and myself have talked about that

before the break. I’m just using one example when I’m doing that. But

that is an example.

In terms of the actual nature of that example, it was a meeting

that occurred after the legislation was tabled on the floor of the

Legislative Assembly. So that is not the kind of consultation you would

expect relating to a bill of this nature, which is changing the rules,

changing how natural gas, which can be utilized to produce clean diesel

fuel, is being treated under the current legislative regulatory

framework in this province.

I know that the member for Kootenay East will have lots of

questions to raise about

section 15 and appreciate the minister’s

comment about that. But when we come back to the base fuel definition

under

section 1 of this bill, I would ask, again, the minister to

clarify under this new definition of base fuel, meaning any of the

following: sub (a), fossil-derived diesel fuel.

Would that include a natural gas that has been turned into a

diesel fuel that is low in sulphur oxide, low in nitrous oxide, low in

particulate matter, and has been viewed to be, by the marine industry,

preferred as a clean fuel over what is viewed to be dirty diesel fuel,

which has only been lower in carbon content because of the addition of

biodiesel or some other bio-related fuel that lowers the carbon content

for maybe 10 or 20 percent?

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: In a previous question, the member acknowledged that in the

proposal that he’s advocating for, the example that he’s chosen, the

carbon content of the fuel would be higher. The very purpose of the act

is to incent the reduction in the carbon intensity of fuels in order to

reduce the amount of greenhouse gas that’s emitted into the atmosphere.

It’s a significant contribution to the greenhouse gas regime and the

targets of CleanBC are to reduce the emission of GHGs across the

economy.

Let me quote. I have a number of people here who have spoken about

this. Carolyn Kim, senior director, communities and decarbonization at

Pembina Institute:

“For a decade, B.C.’s low-carbon fuel standard has successfully

driven down greenhouse gas emissions and established a market for

business investments in low-carbon fuel’s production as a zero-emission

technology. The Pembina Institute welcomes the government’s aim to

strengthen and expand the standard by increasing the stringency and

including new compliance opportunities. Once again, British Columbia is

leading the way to a real climate solution that will help Canada achieve

its long-term goals.”

That’s what the purpose of the legislation is, broadly. By the

member’s own admission, this particular example that he’s chosen

increases the carbon content of the fuel that’s being provided. It has

other attributes which are regulated under other statutes, but for the

purposes of the low-carbon fuel standard, it increases the carbon

content of the fuel that’s proposed to be provided. So that’s not the

direction that we are heading in. That’s not the purpose of the

act.

I wish I could be more…. I suppose I could be less direct about

it, but I think that is the reality of the proposal that he’s putting

forward.

M. Lee: To be clear, the discussion has been the challenges with this

ministry and this particular piece of legislation for the lack of

consultation with First Nations. We had, by notification, 204 First

Nations. I’ve heard the minister talk about the First Nations Energy and

Mining Council as being sufficient, but it isn’t.

So here we have First Nations that have responded — three:

Tsawwassen and Musqueam being two of the five. We’re talking about a

particular project, but the fact of the matter is, first and foremost,

the impacts of this legislation. Projects that First Nations want to

lead to move forward with in Prince Rupert, Prince George and the Lower

Mainland are being heavily impacted and jeopardized by this

legislation.

The project that I outlined for the minister, and the minister

should have this from his staff, as I understand it…. Again, the

opportunity to present the project came after the legislation was

introduced in the House.

I’m not here to go through all the details of that project

proposal, but I am here to express concern about the challenges

regarding the lack of consultation for a significant piece of

legislation that’s coming forward when the government has committed,

under the DRIPA action plan, to work with First Nations on clean energy

projects gong forward. That’s something, again, that the minister and I

had the opportunity to discuss during estimates.

I’m just trying to get a better understanding as to the impact of

the base fuel definition under

section 1 of this bill on that project.

It is an example of a First Nation that is working with other First

Nations in this province to bring forward three plants that will enable

the production in the future on phase 2 of fuel that will meet the

lower-carbon content that is being prescribed as far as we understand

under this bill.

We’re just talking about phase 1 though. Under the current

legislative regime, my understanding is that there is neither a penalty

nor an incentive for diesel that’s being produced from natural gas. Is

that correct?

[1:45 p.m. - 1:50 p.m.]

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me try this. Under the current act, fossil-sourced natural gas

that’s used to create diesel is not covered by the current act. That’s

because it wasn’t included in the previous definition in the previous

act of “petroleum.” The new act will use the term “fossil-based” to make

that clearer. Then it would be covered by the act.

That is the change I think the member is referring to.

M. Lee: Again, appreciating that the bill is quite technical in nature,

there is much to be determined by way of regulation, which makes this

unclear in terms of how it might operate. But there will be other

provisions that we can go through with the member for Kootenay

East.

My understanding is that that change, which the minister just

confirmed, does change the economics for the proponents that are looking

at projects that are looking to utilize natural gas to formulate and

produce cleaner diesel, which, again, has the qualities that have lower

sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides content, for example, which is better

for the environment, better for the marine environment, certainly, and

better for aviation fuels as well, in terms of the air

quality.

There are benefits, clearly, from that type of fuel product. For

the proponents that are looking at proposing projects that will do that,

this legislation, and the concerns around this legislation, are such

that it will make it less possible to move forward with a project of

that nature. And that’s the change that requires consultation. That is

the point that I was making to the minister.

I know the minister will talk more about the further capacity

funding that might be available on

section 15. I look forward to that

particular discussion, as well, to have a better understand