HANSARD

NOVA SCOTIA HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

COMMITTEE

ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Wednesday, June 11, 2025

LEGISLATIVE CHAMBER

Halifax Infirmary Expansion Project and June 2020 Report of the Auditor General - QEII New Generation Project: Halifax Infirmary Expansion and Community Outpatient Centre-Phase II

Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
 

Public Accounts Committee

Susan Leblanc (Chair)

Marco MacLeod (Vice Chair)

Hon. Brian Wong

Tom Taggart

Tim Outhit

Dianne Timmins

Lisa Lachance

Hon. Iain Rankin

Hon. Derek Mombourquette

In Attendance:

Kim Langille

Committee Clerk

Philip Grassie

Legislative Counsel

Kim Adair
Auditor General
 

Robert Jewer 
Audit Principal

WITNESSES

Build Nova Scotia
 

David Benoit - President & CEO
 

Paul Martin - Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Plenary Americas

 

Department of Health and Wellness

Dana MacKenzie - Deputy Minister
 

Geoff Gatien - Associate Deputy Minister

 

Nova Scotia Health Authority
 

Karen Oldfield - Interim President & CEO
 

Derek Spinney - Chief Financial Officer & Vice President, Corporate Services
 

PCL Constructors Inc.
 

John Volcko - Vice President, Corporate Development, National Operations

HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2025

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

9:00 A.M.

CHAIR

Susan Leblanc

VICE CHAIR

Marco MacLeod

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I’m going to call the meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. My name is Susan Leblanc. I am the MLA for Dartmouth North, and my pronouns are she/her. Before we begin, I’d like to remind everyone to put your phones on silent, and if there is a need to leave the building, we will leave through the Granville Street doors and meet up at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia courtyard. I think I’m in the right direction.

I’m going to ask the committee members to introduce themselves first, please, with your name, constituency, and pronouns. I’ll begin with the member here on my left.

[The committee members introduced themselves.]

THE CHAIR: We also have officials with us from the Office of the Auditor General, the Legislative Counsel Office, and the Legislative Committees Office. On today’s agenda, we have officials with us from Build Nova Scotia, Department of Health and Wellness, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and PCL Constructors Inc. Before I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves, I’m going to just remind folks how the committee works. When we get into the questioning, I will call on people. You need to allow me to say your name before you begin talking. If you need to, if you’re in question, the red light on your microphone will come on. You don’t need to adjust your microphones.

Also, please don’t be offended if I cut you off. I have to call order at the end of 20 minutes, 20 minutes, 20 minutes. It may feel abrupt, but I will try to massage it. I will ask the witnesses to introduce yourselves with your name, your title or your role, and your pronouns. We’ll begin here with David Benoit.

[The witnesses introduced themselves.]

THE CHAIR: Ms. Oldfield, I just want to say that it’s difficult to hear you in the room, because there’s a lot of ambient noise. If you could just be sure to speak right into the microphone, that would be helpful. I will invite Mr. Benoit to begin making opening remarks, and then we’ll call on the next people. Mr. Benoit, if you’d like to begin.

DAVID BENOIT: Good morning. Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be here. I want to start by acknowledging that it’s my honour to lead an incredibly talented public-service focused organization. I have the joy of working with an innovative, creative, and responsive team every single day. Being trusted to deliver on some of the most complex and challenging projects that bring great value to Nova Scotians today and for years to come is a responsibility that I and my team take very seriously. Value for Nova Scotians is where we’re focused day over day.

I am delighted to be joined with the Department of Health and Wellness and the Nova Scotia Health Authority in welcoming our construction partners, PPH, or the consortium of Plenary Americas and PCL Health. It’s within this context that I am privileged to speak with you about the QEII Halifax Infirmary Expansion Project and the July 2020 report of the Auditor General.

On behalf of the dedicated health care infrastructure teams at Build Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Health Authority, I am proud to share with the committee that all five of the Auditor General’s recommendations are either in the process of being addressed or completed. The outstanding recommendations cannot be implemented until 2027 or when the construction is complete. I assure the committee and Nova Scotians that these will be addressed just as they were with the opening of the Bayers Lake Community Outpatient Centre.

With the QEII Halifax Infirmary Expansion Project now in the main construction phase, Nova Scotians are another step closer to a new, modern acute care tower with more beds, operating rooms, and a new, larger emergency department. Two weeks ago, the first two cranes arrived with two more arriving this Summer. In May, crews started pouring the foundation, and by December, the concrete structure will rise to the main floor, marking a significant milestone.

With construction accelerating, so is the demand for skilled trades to deliver the largest health care project ever undertaken in Atlantic Canada. In addition to leveraging the trades from the local Nova Scotia market, we are working with our partners to develop apprenticeship opportunities. We are also expanding the Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion program that we launched in Cape Breton, working to ensure we simultaneously build the workforce. This project reflects our unwavering commitment to rapidly develop and deliver strategic infrastructure that provides service and great value to all Nova Scotians.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you. Merci.

THE CHAIR: Merci, Monsieur Benoit. I will move to Deputy Minister MacKenzie, please.

DANA MACKENZIE: Good morning to the committee members.

The QEII Halifax Infirmary Expansion Project is a game-changer for Nova Scotia. For patients, it will provide more access to care, more services, and a larger emergency department. The expanded HI will include a 14-storey tower, 216 beds, 16 operating rooms, a 48-bed intensive care unit and an emergency department that is nearly twice the size of the current one. For staff, it will be a modern, state-of-the-art facility to work in, and some staff and services from the aging VG site will move into the new facility. For recruitment, we know health care staff want to work in a collaborative, contemporary, high-tech facility, so the HI has the added benefit of being a recruiting magnet for doctors, nurses, and other health care staff.

For the economy, the project will be a significant boost. The Province’s agreement with Plenary PCL Health includes the construction of the 14-floor tower and its maintenance over 30 years. This will provide construction employment for hundreds of trades and construction workers, and it will increase the staff complement at the HI once complete.

Today, the site is bustling with workers pouring concrete, breaking and removing rock, and looking up as cranes swing into action as the main construction phase gets under way. It will get busier and busier as the project proceeds over the next six years with nearly 1,000 workers on site at its peak.

We look forward to our discussions today and your questions.

THE CHAIR: Thank you, Deputy Minister MacKenzie. We’ll move on to Karen Oldfield, please.

KAREN OLDFIELD: Thank you. Can you hear me? Great. Just making sure.

For the 2025 fiscal year, the QEII Health Sciences Centre saw more than 1.1 million people. On any given day, there were over 1,000 in-patients, roughly 2,800 people visited on-site clinics, and over 200 people arrived at the emergency department. This is specialized, complex care. It’s often life-changing and certainly can be lifesaving, but many of our facilities there supporting this care are ready for renewal.

The project represents a major step forward. The new acute care tower will expand in-patient and surgical care, add more efficient diagnostic and treatment facilities, and house a larger emergency department which is built for today’s and tomorrow’s volumes. We’re now approaching 75 per cent completion of the design, and that work is being shaped by those who use the spaces every day. We’ve engaged with physicians, nurses, allied health professionals, and support staff. It’s their insights that are shaping everything from the way patients will move through spaces, to the placement of outlets in operating rooms, to the design of staff break spaces. It's these conversations that help us build a workplace that attracts and retains the people whom we need, one that fosters collaboration, innovation, and pride.

The bricks and mortar are important and can’t come fast enough, but what matters most is what happens inside. The new acute care tower will support the ongoing evolution of health care, making space for the tools, the tech, and the systems that help care teams do their best work. Things like One Person One Record, robotic surgeries, expanded hyperbaric treatment, and systems that track and manage surgical instruments. All of this will support safer, more efficient, and more connected care for patients.

We are shaping a space that reflects what matters most to our patients and to our providers. That includes forming a joint working group to guide the naming process for the new tower. That’s an exciting step forward, making this space feel real and rooted in community.

A project of this scale takes commitment and collaboration. We’re very fortunate to be guided by the voices of care providers and supported by local, national, and international experts. Together, we’re building a system that supports the well-being of both those who receive care and those who provide it, and that future is coming into view now.

THE CHAIR: We will begin questioning, but I first want to welcome MLA Wong. Can you please introduce yourself?

HON. BRIAN WONG: Yes, thank you, Chair. Brian Wong, MLA for Waverley-Fall River-Beaver Bank. Welcome.

THE CHAIR: We’ll begin questioning with MLA Lachance, please.

LISA LACHANCE: Thank you very much, everyone, for being here. As I know someone referenced, this is for all Nova Scotians. It will also probably be a really important place for all the Maritimes, really, in terms of expertise and services. I get to see it built every day. Whether I’m walking, biking, or driving by, I think I see it every day at least once - maybe twice, maybe four times. It is a busy spot. Lots is happening. That’s very exciting, and I know lots of Nova Scotians have lots of questions about it.

When we look back at the 2020 audit, the redevelopment plan - the business case - didn’t include a stakeholder engagement plan. I appreciate Ms. Oldfield’s comments about the engagement of care providers and folks on that side of the system, but when I look at Recommendation 1.1 from that 2020 audit, I really think about what stakeholders mean - it’s actually users; potential patients. It’s folks actually in this community and my community. It’s also people who come from all over Nova Scotia to seek care.

My understanding is that currently there’s no plan to undertake that sort of broader community engagement - a stakeholder engagement plan. I’m wondering - perhaps, Mr. Benoit - you referenced being on track for all of the recommendations from the audit. Can you talk a bit about what you’re doing in terms of stakeholder engagement? Maybe we’ll have a difference of opinion on what that constitutes, but I would love to hear more about the work that’s happening.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: Thank you very much for the question. I think if I could just start by saying that “stakeholder” is a very broad term. We tried to apply it as broadly as we could as we started to develop this plan and as we started to look to see how we would implement it. I think Certainly one of those groups would be the care providers. One of the consistent lessons learned from across the country, especially around health care infrastructure, is that the providers never seem to be engaged enough and they never seem to have their voice there and they never get a chance, or rarely, or it’s haphazardly that they get engaged.

This project took a different approach. It said, “Okay, we’re going to go ahead and we’re going to get user groups.” There are 42 user groups. That’s not 42 people; that’s 42 user groups. Of those user groups, there are many, many more people, mainly on the clinical side, who provide service and who we have engaged throughout the process. We continue to engage.

I’ll tell you a little bit about that, because it’s really exciting stuff that we’re doing on that front. We are getting that first voice, that lived experience. We also, through the hospital - they also have a patient advocacy group that we have worked with. Then in addition to that, we’re taking steps and we have already done our first community engagement. That was done back in - let me see - March 4^th, if I remember correctly. We invited the community that was in the area. We advertised it on all the usual media. We also did drops of postcards to the people who are in the area in order to invite them in. I was there for the whole evening. We had a significant turnout from the community.

[9:15 a.m.]

They weren’t just all local, because the word got out and other people came in, partly to find out about what was going on, partly to find out how it was going to affect their neighbourhood, and partly to find out what the plan was. From our team’s perspective, that was highly successful. I was at the entrance, so I greeted every single person as they came in, and I talked with them if they wanted to talk as they left. If they had any feedback for me, I took it. The feedback, with the exception of maybe two people, was predominantly that it was a really great project. They were really in favour of it, and they really want to support the effort.

The biggest question that I got afterwards was: Can I walk through the facility instead of having to walk around it if I live in the neighbourhood? That was an interesting question. We’re going to continue to do that engagement as we go. I think the other really important thing that I would like Nova Scotians to know is that on the scrim - the scrim is that banner that sits on the fence line - on the scrim we’re going to have a QR code. I believe it’s there now, but I didn’t get a chance to actually drive by and check it this morning. I will check. If it isn’t there now, it will be shortly. That QR code - anyone with a phone, just like any QR code - can scan it and you can find out exactly what’s going on with the project - up-to-date information. In that way, we’re trying to be transparent and trying to engage the public.

The last point I’d just bring up is about the user group engagement. The user group isn’t just that we sit them in a room and we talk at them. Initially it started that way, because that’s the way you have to work in order to develop a plan, but about two years ago, we actually had a floor plan set out. They walked through that floor plan. A couple of months ago, we actually had constructed specific service clinical spaces in cardboard so that people . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. Mr. Benoit, MLA Lachance would like to move on to another question. MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: I am sorry to interrupt. I do have a number of questions that I want to get to during the time allocated. To follow up on what you’ve provided: When I think of stakeholder engagement, there are standards and processes for public participation or stakeholder engagement. If we think about the International Association for Public Participation, there’s actually a process. What that would look like is rather than one-offs that are valuable for the neighbourhood, absolutely, but that are quite random, really.

Public participation that truly engages stakeholders is ongoing, it’s transparent, there are terms of reference, there are commitments, and it’s predictable. I think the user groups are really important and the community around, but I think we could be doing a much better job for probably the single biggest investment we’re going to make in Nova Scotia for a very long time and making sure that Nova Scotians can get the information they need and that they feel that it’s transparent.

Just quickly, right now, if I’m at my stepfather’s home in Western Head in Queens County, and I’m curious about how I can get engaged and find out more about what’s happening to this provincial resource, what do I do? Where do I go?

DAVID BENOIT: I would say that you can go to our website, buildns.ca, and on there you’ll find everything. It’s linked to the health care website, and you can find out about the building, you can find out about the clinical construction, and you can do that any time of day or night.

LISA LACHANCE: I think the other thing that Nova Scotians would really like to be able to see is much more detail around the step-by-step build, the checks and balances to understand a process that resulted in one provider, one contractor, how they can be assured that Nova Scotians got the best deal possible when it was maybe $2 billion - are going to get the best deal possible when it’s $7.4 billion. I think transparency in public procurement is so important. I would encourage more than the basic website and to consider how Nova Scotians can be part of that.

On that question - we only had one bidder in the end. I’m wondering: How are you monitoring, as Build Nova Scotia - because this is a massive project over many, many years, and as we’ve already seen from 2020 to now, many things happen in the world that change the conditions under which you’re working.

How do you monitor if we’re getting value for money for the $7.4 billion project?

DAVID BENOIT: I think it’s a really important point, and I’ve said before, and I hope that people understand exactly what happened. It was an open procurement process that we started with. We down-selected to two bidders. Those two bidders were then in competition with each other in order to deliver the facility. As the MLA has pointed out, conditions changed in the market so significantly that both of those bidders independently came to the project team to say, “It isn’t achievable, what you’re looking for, so we need to find another way.” So we did.

In the end, one of the bidders withdrew, but that doesn’t make it sole-source or doesn’t make it an LP or doesn’t make it any of those other terms. It’s still a competitive process. It isn’t just between two competitors. There’s competitive tension as well inside the competition between tradespeople and between corporations or businesses that are looking to actually build on this project. That competitive tension remained.

Of course, working with our partners who were building this, my team - I can assure you; they spent - and I’m sure Mr. Volcko would attest the same - that we had very long nights. We went back and forth on very specific - there are a thousand things we could talk about, and we talked about every single one of them.

[9:30 a.m.]

I’m comfortable that we got value for money, but you don’t have to take my word for it. There’s a document called the value for money that is a standard document for this type of procurement that’s standard in the industry. As we’ve said repeatedly, it will be available to the public. We’ve committed to that. It is being finalized now. The value for money demonstrates that the Province, through this procurement method, got a significant value out of this project.

I think it’s also really important to remember that now that the contract is signed - a firm fixed price for the items that are in it, and that our construction partners, as much pressure as we will apply - and we’ll apply lots. He’s not surprised by that. His investors - their investors, the people who are investing in this project - will also supply . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. We have such limited time.

MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: A quick question that both Mr. Benoit and Mr. Volcko could answer: Costs are continually increasing - cost of labour, impact of tariffs on steel, et cetera. Are you confident that the costs will stay within the current $4.5 billion construction price tag?

DAVID BENOIT: If I could just add the last point that I was going to say: The investors are confident that this is a good deal as well. We got an incredible interest rate that was not expected, and lots of interest in this project.

As far as the cost - as I said, it’s firm and fixed for the items that are covered. There are always contingencies that may arise that are built into the program. Again, by having done the work to dig, we’ve reduced a lot of that risk. A lot of that was known rather than just estimated. There again is another measure of assurance. Then, as to the MLA’s point about tariffs, nobody can predict what the impact will be there. That will necessitate, I’m sure, discussion, but that doesn’t mean that the price will go up. That just may mean we look for different sources or we find other ways to do it. Those are the discussions that will continue on as we develop through this really long, seven-year build.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: I know I posed a question to Mr. Volcko, but I’m just actually going to just add to that question. We’re rushing through time. I’m wondering if you can talk a bit about two things. Mr. Benoit talked about the negotiations that you undertake with subcontractors to ensure that - I understand - we’re getting value for money - suppliers, contractors, labour, that sort of thing. How is that process set out? Is that process transparent? Could Nova Scotians see when there’s a contract being issued or a need for a different provider? Can we see that there are multiple people being considered? How is that process?

I also wanted to ask you about workforce. I think I’ll pause. I’ll actually just leave that first question around subcontractors.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit on the subcontractor question. Mr. Volcko.

JOHN VOLCKO: As Mr. Benoit pointed out, we are on a fixed-price, fixed-schedule contract. We know how much it’s going to cost Nova Scotians, and we know when it’s going to be turned over for occupancy activities. Through that process, we do a combination of procurement. Some of it is competitively tendered, some of it remains to be competitively tendered, and some of it is based on negotiations with trusted trade partners who we know can guarantee cost certainty and date certainty.

If those are available at some point, I’m not sure what the provincial process is to get those out to the public, but of course we’ll co-operate with anything that is a requirement there. Does that answer your question?

LISA LACHANCE: That is very helpful. I think Nova Scotians are reassured that you’re within a fixed budget and a fixed timeline. At the same time, we all understand that conditions change. I think what Nova Scotians will really want over the next few years is just step-by-step, that there’s an assurance we’re getting the best value for money and that those processes roll out in a way that’s transparent and accountable.

I want to ask you about the workforce. At this point, can you estimate what percentage of the workforce will be from Nova Scotia? I’m also wondering if you’re working with goals or objectives around increasing diversity on the worksite. How are you working to increase women and gender-diverse folks on the worksite, African Nova Scotians, newcomers, Indigenous folks? How are you supporting that on the worksite? Do you have specific goals?

JOHN VOLCKO: We do have very specific goals. I’m going to start at the top. Our overall workforce is going to be around 850 to 1,000 workers at peak. To answer your question around that, we suspect about two-thirds of those will be local or local to Nova Scotia. There are some key trades that are coming from out-of-province. Our formwork trade is one of those where there’s just not sufficient skilled labour for that scope to do the work. We are very aware of the benefit of the project to Nova Scotians and want to do the best for Nova Scotia.

One example of that is one of our trade partners from Ontario has actually subcontracted his scope of work to a consortium of three local firms. That provides a benefit to increase and help to get our local content up. It also helps to utilize the workforce from several different resource pools.

With respect to the underrepresented group, we do have a fairly detailed community benefits plan that is still in draft version and being reviewed at the moment. It should be out shortly. Our overall goal is to have 10 per cent of our workforce from underrepresented constituents. In addition to that, we have a very aggressive program with respect to apprenticeships. Those apprenticeships are likely new graduates, new out of school, out of trade school. We want those workers to be trained at the highest level possible and then remain in Nova Scotia so that there’s a legacy of a skilled workforce here.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit, did you have a quick addition?

DAVID BENOIT: If I could just add that we’re working with the Department of Labour, Skills and Immigration, the Nova Scotia Apprenticeship Agency, the Nova Scotia Construction Sector Council, and, of course, our partners in order to develop that apprenticeship. The idea here is we start an apprentice on the site, they get to be a journeyperson, and then perhaps they can get to mentoring. I think we have time for that. The 10 per cent that Mr. Volcko talked about, that’s the minimum. We’re looking to hopefully even improve that, but we’ll progress that quickly - and we’re working on that right now.

LISA LACHANCE: Just very quickly: In terms of the one-third of folks whom you think will need to come from outside Nova Scotia and that we just don’t have that skill set here, have there been discussions with either the Nova Scotia Construction Sector Council or NSCC in order to actually provide that training in Nova Scotia so that we can actually fill those roles?

THE CHAIR: Order, please. You won’t be able to answer that, but maybe the next questioner will allow that. I’ll move onto MLA Rankin, please.

HON. IAIN RANKIN: That is a good question. Maybe I’ll just rephrase it first to PCL and the government can comment. PCL is engaged in a lot of large contracts across the province and in some neighbouring provinces. I was wondering your confidence level on labour availability to make sure that you have the labour to actually fulfill the obligations of this very large project. What is the Province doing to ensure that NSCC has more seats for people, given this is a multi-year project that we can graduate more people and there’s long wait-lists for a lot of these trades in demand?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Volcko.

JOHN VOLCKO: As we were going through the bid phase, one of our major risks was labour availability and skilled labour to that point. That’s why our strategy is a combination of bringing people from out of province for those periods of that particular scope. Again, we have a focus on using local and creating a skilled workforce long term.

With respect to Nova Scotia Community College, I’m somewhat aware of how they operate. I was on their board for a couple of sessions, a couple of terms years ago, and I know that they are a very nimble and responsive organization. When we get to work with them to say we need X number of carpenters in 2027 or 2028, they would be nimble enough to work with us to try to hit some of those objectives in a variety of scopes that they provide training in across the province.

IAIN RANKIN: What I’m really curious about is going back to the beginning of this and the government’s mandate because these issues around labour availability have been exacerbated - we’ve had interest rates climb. Back with the beginning of this mandate, it was said that the population projections were not accurate enough to move forward with the original plan of the $2 billion estimate. That was a federal census by Statistics Canada. We have similar staff who work on this who are working on it now.

I will say that COVID obviously had an impact. I wonder if there was ever a specific cost benefit analysis to move forward with the original plan before some of these externalities got a little out of control - to say, Let’s build what the size and scope is now in 2021, and then accommodate another tower or a modification to the build while under construction, either onsite or offsite, so that we could at least try to have the build up sooner and not see these continuous delays and cost increases on the estimate. Was there ever a scenario where we said, “Let’s just get on with this work so we can try to get that VG torn down in 2022 as planned?”

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: I guess I would just start by going back. It was the people who were in the competition who were trying to build it who came to us and said, “This isn’t achievable so we need to re-look at how we can deliver.” We started to look at what is the best way forward. The courageous decision was made to say, “Okay, let’s stop and let’s re-look at how we plan and then let’s move forward.” That’s exactly what we did. The team worked very hard to make sure that we get the most critical elements delivered first. That is what’s incorporated into what the new acute-care tower will have.

As it relates to the labour availability - sorry, just on the last point, as it relates to NSCC. The Nova Scotia Construction Sector Council and the Apprenticeship Agency are in discussions with the Nova Scotia Community College, and we’re in discussions with them. We are working to try to bridge that gap.

We think that using the underrepresented communities - not “using,” sorry; by engaging the underrepresented communities we’ll be able to achieve our targets of apprentices, and it will be a really positive thing for Nova Scotia overall.

IAIN RANKIN: I note that you said there was a kind of a stop. You said let’s stop and let’s try to figure out where we’re going with this redesign - basically that’s what happened. Later, though, the Minister of Health and Wellness said that we need to forward as things continue to get more expensive. I would submit that was happening back in 2021.

Is that not an admission that time was of the essence right away for the new government to get to work and begin the construction sooner, before inflationary issues started to come on hard in 2022? I’m talking about 2021, and it wasn’t until later 2022 when the tender missed the deadline due to, quote, “market conditions.” There was a pause on the project. I’m going back to what the minister said - we now have to get on with building it.

I want to ask the question: Was that not an admission that this project should have gotten off the ground sooner?

DAVID BENOIT: I can’t comment on admission or not. That’s not my role. What I can say is that the team needed the time in order to redesign and make sure that we could achieve and deliver an actual project and support to the health care system where it was most critically needed. That’s exactly what the team did.

We also took the unusual step, which turned out very favourably for us - it is a bit of a Nova Scotia innovation, I guess I’ll say - of digging into the site almost immediately. That actually has done a number of things, one of which was to advance the project by almost a year by having that work done. But even perhaps more important than that, it gave certainty as to what we were going to find in the site. One of the biggest, scariest things you can do in any construction project is dig into the ground, because you never know what you’re going to find. We know we have pyritic slate. We know that the site was used for various things over its lifetime - but what was actually in there. As a result, we were able to demystify that and de-risk it, which actually lowered the price.

The other thing it did was - and I’ll go back to our investors - when this thing went out for investment in February, for investors to bid, the Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s - the way that they talked about the project was that this project is going to be delivered and that the provincial team knew what they were doing, the construction team knew what they were doing. These are their words, not mine. As a result, it generated such interest that we were able to get a much lower interest rate than any other project of a similar size, and certainly lower than the people who are experts in this field - and I am not - expected. That also saved funding costs to the project.

I think one of the things for me, though, that really stuck out to me, was the confidence level that these experts had in our approach and our ability to deliver the project that we have.

IAIN RANKIN: A confidence level that only one company, at the end of the day, was interested in continuing on with a tender. I want to ask a question around why the other proponents did decide that it wasn’t feasible for them under the parameters that the Province had in the tender. We had EllisDon drop out of the process and fees paid to some of these entities for the costs they incurred.

What was the Province willing to give up in terms of leverage on the contract to keep PCL interested? It’s an unenviable position to be dealing - notwithstanding the subcontract tendering process, but why was PCL still interested and what was the reason specifically that the other companies felt like it wasn’t for them? Finally, just in the interest of time, who handles the cost overruns on this project? The best thing about design, build, operate, maintain is the transfer of that risk. I just want to be clear that there is still significant transfer of risk to the successful proponent on this project.

THE CHAIR: Do you want to take the second part first? Mr. Benoit, then we’ll probably go to Mr. Volcko on the cost overruns.

DAVID BENOIT: I would just go back to it’s a firm, fixed price and schedule for the delivery. I don’t know how else to say it. The cost is known and we’re going to pay that. If things arise like tariffs or hurricanes or unexpected, unforeseeable things, there are clauses in the contract that allow for a conversation to happen. Again, that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s an increase in cost; it means that there’s a conversation that takes place between the constructor - that’s in all contracts, especially of this complexity or magnitude.

I can’t remember part of the question, but it triggered in the S&P Global and Moody’s description of the project, it actually addressed the question that it’s a firm, fixed price. The cost overrun - sorry, I know. It was the risks. It actually addressed both, but to the risks in particular, they said that the Province maintained the risk with the constructor. Those risks that would naturally normally be associated with transference are retained with that.

As to why . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I think I’ll move on to Mr. Volcko to address MLA Rankin’s first part of the question. Do you need to reiterate it, or are we good? Mr. Volcko.

JOHN VOLCKO: I have been involved with the project for about three years. It was right at that time that it went from a two-horse race to a one-horse race. We procure mega-hospitals, mega-projects, billion-dollar hospitals across Canada. That’s one of the things that we do. It’s one of the things that we’re very good at. Our relationship with Plenary Health and my counterpart sitting in the next row is very strong. It has 20 years of history and multiple projects, billions and billions of dollars of successful deliveries.

Going back to the time that you mentioned, I think it was 2022, going to the one-horse race: We were interested in the project, but we had to make sure that we could get to success. That’s why we went to the Province to say, “The scope is too much, the costs are increasing, we have to relook at that if we want this to be a reality.” As I mentioned, the consortium of PPH, which is PCL and Plenary, we are the design-builder, Plenary is the financer, and we have a third-party operator as part of that. Our competitors had a different strategy.

If I recall correctly, you can correct me if I’m wrong, our competitor at the time had an internal financing company within their umbrella of companies. They were going to design-build it and finance it. It’s my understanding that the cost increase as it occurred, it went beyond their capability to finance that, or their appetite for the risk on the design-build and on the financing. I could also add to the second part of that question, on the cost overrun, if you’d like.

IAIN RANKIN: Sure. I’m also interested: Mr. Benoit, you commented on basically mutually agreed-upon extra expenses that could happen if a hurricane happened. I would submit that there are much more, I think, practical reasons for change orders that happen from time to time, even in a modest billing of $5-10 million. You see that with hundreds of thousands, if not $1 million dollars of change orders that come through, especially with the technical nature of the equipment and everything that’s needed in a hospital. This is the largest infrastructure project ever in our province.

I’d ask the question: Beyond just ordinary cost overruns, what are we budgeting for in terms of those change orders within the project? What other extra costs are we looking at? My understanding is the deconstruction of the VG has a cost that’s not baked into the budget of $7 billion for the project. What is the budget for the deconstruction and removal of the C&D material including tipping fees so that taxpayers have a full picture of what we’re going to incur?

DAVID BENOIT: Thank you for the question; there’s lots in there. I guess I would just restate that I didn’t mean to imply that we had mutually agreed costs or anything like that. That’s not the case. What I meant to say was unexpected, un-forecasted, unforeseeable arisings that may happen in the project. Those are the things that would get addressed in the contract.

As far as the equipment - we have a budget, obviously. There is about a billion dollars for equipment, furniture, and effects, that kind of thing. That is something that we’ll get to when we get a little bit further into the project. Of course, we want to make sure that we have - and we’ll be working with our NSHA colleagues on that and with all those user groups that we were talking about in terms of what the need is and what the best technology is.

[9:45 a.m.]

We started this project much more advanced than similar projects. What I mean by that is we actually had 50 per cent - as CEO Oldfield said, we’re almost at 75 per cent design development now. Normally, these projects kick off with somewhere around 30 per cent, so we were already at 50 per cent before we even kicked off the project. Again, that helps assure costs. It helps control the cost. It helps to make sure that we stay within budget.

As far as change orders that may come up, there is no reasonable way for me to even guess how that would happen, if or what they would be, what costs they might be, or even if they would occur. I agree with the MLA that, often, these construction projects do have change orders. Those are usually in response, though, to real world situations, i.e. things that actually need to get changed in order to make sure that the building provides a service that we’re hoping it will provide to the population. Sometimes it’s about changes in the equipment, or changes in the layout, or changes in those kinds of things often are related to change orders to help us mitigate that.

I didn’t get a chance to talk about the mock-ups which I think I’ll just take a moment to talk about now. We’re building right now actual, permanent - semi-permanent - mock-ups so that clinicians can come in and say, “Okay, this is my space. Where is my sink? Where is my soap dispenser? Where is this, where is that?” We can get that right so that we can then make sure that we don’t replicate a problem right across the build when it’s time to install that stuff. We’re doing that now, but that stuff won’t be installed until closer to the end of the project.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. Sorry. MLA Rankin.

IAIN RANKIN: My time is running out. Maybe you can give some specific numbers on what has happened so far for change orders - you have 75 per cent design ready. How much more are we spending? We have a hole in the ground. What’s the cost of the decommissioning of the existing asset there?

DAVID BENOIT: I don’t have that information at my fingertips in terms of change orders so I wouldn’t be able to comment on that. In terms of the demolition of the VG, that would be a whole separate project. That also has to do with what do you do with the site afterwards? That question is really important before we just say, “Well, first of all, it’s being used, so we have to wait until it’s no longer in use before we could even consider taking it down.” What are you going to reuse it for? That actually is really an important question. The planning team - the master planning team for Central Zone is actually working on that now.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. MLA Rankin.

IAIN RANKIN: I’m just trying to get some specifics. Maybe you can give the cost of the money spent on the VG now for the new water treatment facility, new HVAC, new A/C, and all these other expenditures that are incurred on this building that is overdue for decommissioning?

THE CHAIR: You’re looking down the hallway. Is there someone else better able to answer that? Mr. Spinney.

DEREK SPINNEY: I might need some help from the MLA to repeat the question a little bit. Are you specifically asking about the Victoria General campus or - right. On our balance sheet, we always have decommissioning costs, which really just take into account the cost to demolish the whole thing. We do account for that under our IFRS standards that the Auditor General and her office here would be helping us with. That’s really quite basic, I would say, or rudimentary. It’s really just to bring down the cost of that, and to get rid of the asbestos, et cetera.

What we don’t know, and what will be part of the master planning that was just out for tender - we received the bids, we’re working through that process right now - is, “What will we use that campus for?” We don’t know the answer to that, and that’s obviously going to play a really large impact on the cost of whatever we end up doing with it. In some respects, we have a cost, but it’s much more rudimentary than I think what you’re looking for, which is really, “What are we going to use that campus for in the future?”

IAIN RANKIN: I know I’m running out of time. I was just looking for some specifics on a full picture of cost in terms of taking down, the tipping fees. Asbestos and some of that stuff: It’s not just sending it to a regular landfill. The more transparency on all of these costs, the better off we’ll be.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. Perhaps we can ask the clerk to follow up after the meeting and maybe get something written to the committee on those costs. That’s the cost of the deconstruction of the VG, and also Mr. Rankin asked for the cost of the new HVAC system and the new water system in the current system of the VG hospital.

I’m going to move on to MLA Timmins, please.

DIANNE TIMMINS: Thank you for coming today. I’m going to move on more toward the service area and what we’re looking at in the future. What services are moving to the acute care facility? Are there any services that are entirely being moved there, or is it an expansion of the existing services?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Oldfield.

KAREN OLDFIELD: I’ll start. There’s an expansion, as we know, with the ER, which is doubling in size, with our operating rooms, which will also be a number more operating rooms as well as beds. Those are all being expanded. A number of items are being moved from the VG, but some of that moving is happening now. I will ask Mr. Spinney to talk about some of the items, some of the clinics, and so forth that are being diverted from the VG now.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Spinney.

DEREK SPINNEY: One of the things that became very apparent when we started revisiting our infrastructure in totality is what doesn’t need to be in a hospital. That’s a cornerstone of what is now in the More, Faster infrastructure plan. To that end, we’ve started to move things out of the Victoria General. In fact, some of the words we would use are, Decamp what we can and fortify what we can’t. Get out what we can. To that end, blood collection, these sorts of services, we’re trying to get out.

We’ve also taken the decision a few years ago to start to use a private partner to ensure that Nova Scotians can get their cataract surgeries more quickly. On the fourth floor of the VG, for instance, where our eye clinic is, a lot of people were coming in for service there. They don’t need to come to the peninsula. Let’s get them off the peninsula, which they do, near the Armdale roundabout now, quite successfully. Those are just some of the examples of getting things out that don’t need to be there.

In addition, some of the things that won’t be going over and will be of interest to everyone as we get through this master planning process that we’ve now started is, “What do we do with cancer care?” Cancer care, for instance, is in the Dickson Building of the VG. That is not part of the new development that’s being built right now. Where should that be provisioned? How should that be provisioned? Of course, I don’t have the answer to that, but that’s a really good example of things that aren’t going over that need to be taken care of for all the reasons that we know about that campus. That’s the upcoming work that we’re undertaking now.

DIANNE TIMMINS: What is the master plan and how will the different hospital staff and departments be able to review any changes and ensure that service delivery projections will be met upon capacity?

DEREK SPINNEY: That’s a great question. We had a similar question earlier about how we make sure that the right people are engaged. We’re building this for many stakeholders - so how do we make sure that all of those stakeholders are engaged with the process? I think the count is 41 different user groups that are actually put together to help do exactly what you’re saying - where are we at with the progress, what does that look like, and so on.

There are different phases that we go through. There is master programming, which determines what kinds of things you need. Then there is the master planning, which is what we’re undertaking right now. Through that process, there are two check-ins or two reports due, one later this Fall just as a progress report, if you will, and then the final in November of 2026. There are many different project management steps through there, different internal gates as we go through it, and the establishment of all these user groups as well, and as you would expect, terms of reference in governance committees that we go through too.

DIANNE TIMMINS: How would that be introduced to the committee? You said the Fall report? Would that be on the website or for updates for the committee?

DEREK SPINNEY: Yes, the overarching milestones of this, absolutely. The individual pieces of work that are being done will be with the teams as they go through it. I’m not able to pre-conclude, I guess, the best way to be able to share that with everyone because as you can appreciate, it’s an iterative work in progress. We wouldn’t want to say something publicly that the teams hadn’t yet agreed on, so we need to let them do the work to make sure that we’re well-informed. Then, absolutely, we’d be making that available.

DIANNE TIMMINS: I know some other colleagues are wanting to ask some questions, so I’ll move it down the table.

THE CHAIR: MLA Outhit, please.

TIM OUTHIT: Mr. Spinney, you might find it interesting that I just had cataract surgery and I didn’t have to go to the VG to get it. Now I only need glasses to see when I want to read, so that’s what I will do. This is an exciting and progressive time in Nova Scotia. We know a lot of health care builds are occurring right now across the province.

Probably this is for Deputy Minister MacKenzie or Ms. Oldfield. Can we explain how this project will work with other new builds and infrastructure upgrades to create a modern but integrated system? How are all these new builds going to be integrated together to service our population? Good one for the deputy minister?

THE CHAIR: Deputy Minister MacKenzie.

DANA MACKENZIE: I think it touches on the idea of how it all fits together, and the Central Zone master planning work actually supplements and is part of the broader vision for the entire Central Zone region, not just the separate project of the QEII Halifax Infirmary Expansion Project. That work is really aimed at trying to address rapid population growth, shifting demographics, and, of course, the ageing health care infrastructure. That Central Zone master planning is the mechanism that will help us determine how it all fits together - for example, in the Central Zone. Of course, the Central Zone is a primary location for the provision of services to people outside of the zone across Nova Scotia.

[10:00 a.m.]

The Central Zone process - and I’ll hand the microphone to CEO Oldfield to elaborate on this with more detail - focuses on redeveloping and optimizing the key health care sites in the Halifax Regional Municipality, including Dartmouth General Hospital, the Nova Scotia Hospital mental health and addictions campus, and the Cobequid Community Health Centre. That scoping work and that planning is under way. I think my colleague, Mr. Spinney, referred to it earlier. That’s really the mechanism that will help us examine and make sure that what is delivered overall meets the needs.

I’ll hand the microphone now to CEO Oldfield.

KAREN OLDFIELD: When we look at the Central Zone, it’s really the hub or the cog at the centre of the wheel. So much comes off of it around the province, but, also, as was mentioned earlier, even in Atlantic Canada. That needs to contemplate all the moving pieces. Yes, the QEII redevelopment is a key part of it, but also look around the entire Central Zone. Bayers Lake was an early part of the renewal and is working really well. People are very happy with it. It’s located in an excellent spot at the intersections of all the different highways. It’s working well.

Equally, the Dartmouth General Hospital is an important piece. Even though it was expanded in contemplation, it needs further expansion just based on the population growth around the Dartmouth side of the harbour and beyond, whether it’s Eastern Passage, whether it’s Cole Harbour, whether it’s Porters Lake. HRM, as you know, is a very big municipality. We look at all the assets.

The way I analogize it is if we take something like Twin Oaks Memorial Hospital in Musquodoboit, it is today to the Dartmouth General Hospital what the Dartmouth General used to be to the VG. That is how the growth is going and how we’re looking at it. Again, Twin Oaks is being looked at. What I like about it - not to mention the fact that it’s in a very fast-growing area of the province between Porters Lake and that entire area - they also have land there, which is at a premium. Twin Oaks is part of our planning process, and Dartmouth General, as I said. Periodically we’ll see that we have opportunities to add to our land bank around the Dartmouth General, and when we have those opportunities, we take them, because we know there will be expansion there.

Then we look at Cobequid Community Health Centre, closer to your area. Again, there is some land, but it’s not as easily expanded as some of our other sites, which is a real pity, because it’s in a major population-growth area of the province.

I would say that part of the master planning - I don’t want to presuppose an outcome, but I would be shocked - I would be shocked - if there was not some indication of another major or regional hospital being required in the Central Zone over the course of the planning horizon. I’m not announcing that. I’m not saying that. I’m intuiting that. We will see.

It, in a way, comes back to MLA Rankin’s question earlier of what we were looking at when we were trying to decide exactly what had to be happening. The population growth in metro and in HRM in particular - and just the population growth of the province, where almost half is here in this location and the balance around rural Nova Scotia makes it very necessary to figure out just how we’re going to build out the Central Zone.

Of course, the builds are only part of the problem. Then we go back to the staffing, the actual building, the timing, the budgeting, the forecasting. What we’re trying to do with the master plan is lay something out that we can start to get our heads around as a collective, as a system - including our long-term care homes. Where are they being built? How does that all fit into the grand equation? How does hospital at home fit in? Where does transitional care fit in? It’s not one thing. It is many parts of a thousand-piece puzzle.

Derek Spinney is leading the master plan. I don’t know if you have anything further to add to that, Derek, but that’s sort of where we are.

THE CHAIR: MLA Outhit, would you like to hear from Mr. Spinney, or do you want to move on?

TIM OUTHIT: I think MLA Taggart would like to start next - not that we don’t want to hear you, Mr. Spinney.

THE CHAIR: MLA Taggart.

TOM TAGGART: I’m interested - this is to Mr. Benoit. P3 building has been going on for some time. I recall in my own mind when I first heard of P3s - how’s that going to work? I mean, that was quite a few years ago - who’s going to pay? All that stuff.

This is not new. You’ve had some experience. I’m sure that every project has its challenges and you learn. What did you learn, looking back at other P3 projects? And more importantly, what did you learn that gave us the best shot at meeting timelines and budgets and building what you felt or whoever felt was the best for the Province of Nova Scotia? Lessons learned, I guess; what drove you in this direction?

DAVID BENOIT: Lots of people have different experiences with P3. Some people will say it’s the best thing, some people will say it’s the worst thing. It’s neither the best nor the worst, in my opinion. It’s what is appropriate for what you’re trying to build. Before we even got started and before we take on these major projects - this is a standard - we do what we call a procurement method analysis. That started with this project as well. What was the best way to deliver this size, this magnitude, this complexity type of project?

To do that, we actually rely on international consultants who have expertise, not just in the P3 field, but also have access to lessons learned for many projects, not just here in Nova Scotia but across the country and around the world. Of course, they cannot point out the projects that they’re using for proprietary reasons, but they can take the lessons learned and they have information that isn’t publicly available. They have that information that they can then take, and they can go ahead and start to put together an idea of what is the best way to procure.

In this particular case, P3 was chosen. P3 was chosen predominantly because it allows for the long-term maintenance of the facility as well. I think that’s probably a point that people don’t think about a lot: It costs money to build something; it costs more to operate it. When you operate it in a way that replenishes and refreshes the building, then you have a better building when you get to the end of, say, 30 years. In this particular case, it is a 30-year contract.

What we’re expecting is that when we turn it over to the DHW and NSHA in order to own and operate, the in-service contract will then kick in and that building in 30 years’ time will have the normal 30 year wear and tear, but it will be a building that is still useable - a building that we can continue to provide service, if that makes sense, or make the decision on what we want to do in 30 years time. I would not presuppose anything on that front.

We rely on consultants who are professionals in this area to provide us advice on how to do that. With that comes their lessons learned, and not just lessons learned on one project but from around the world. There’s something new that’s evolving in the P3 space across the country, and it’s called a collaborative P3. It looks like what we’ve just gone through. You get down to one bidder, and with that one bidder, you work really hard to make sure that you get the right product on the right scope, right price, right timetable. It saves time in the end because when you have two bidders under the P3, they come up with a proposal, you pick the one that you think is best, and then you start to customize. That isn’t just Nova Scotia, that’s everywhere because there will be little things that they’ll have interpreted that may have big effect with those user groups we were talking about who say, “Well, you know what? It’s nice, but we need the sink over here.” Now we’ve got to change it - that kind of thing.

I see him signalling.

TOM TAGGART: I wanted to get another quick question in. It’s more to, maybe, the deputy minster or Ms. Oldfield. As I understand it - I don’t know all the history - this project had been announced and was going to be built and was in limbo or whatever for some time. Then we or whomever went to work at it and chose a different way forward. I’m sure there are things you’ve seen since you started that process, but I’m wondering: Are you happy about the path you’ve chosen? Can you give us some examples of where we’ve benefitted - that sort of thing - as you’ve recognized the new needs and requirements of modern-day health care.

KAREN OLDFIELD: I’ll kick us off. The space, if I can use that term, is changing so quickly. Let’s take technology, the kinds of things that would go inside the hospital, inside either an inpatient room, or a surgery, or the diagnostic imaging equipment. It is changing so quickly with the onset of artificial intelligence.

Let’s take a bed, for example. We have beds at West Hants that are - how would I easily explain it - they have a Bluetooth capability . . . (interruption). Smart beds, thank you: They have a capability that has enabled an early detection, if you like, of pressure wounds. We have successfully installed X number of beds and through the period of testing, zero pressure wounds.

Now, that’s wonderful, and I wish every bed was like it across the entire province. It is going to take a lot of time to be able to obtain, fund, and replace beds, even though I’m leaning on Mr. Spinney are much as possible. That’s just a small example, but such an important one.

To answer the question: All of these things are happening, so in a way we benefit from change and the fact that other builds across the country - I’m thinking of Ottawa in particular - The Ottawa Hospital. I’m thinking of The Hospital for Sick Children - SickKids, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and so forth in Ontario, where yes, we can learn from the lessons they have gone through, and we do. I speak regularly to my colleagues - CEOs of the other hospitals - to learn the lessons. Derek would speak to his. But our builders would speak to - well, they’re the builders too, so they certainly have learned in the school of hard knocks, if I could put it that way.

Collectively, we’re able to take the benefit of the learnings and apply, and for me personally, it’s really looking forward to make sure that we are putting the technology of the future into these hospitals and training the people and the staff of the future to operate these pieces of equipment, rather than looking over our shoulder backwards.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. We will go back to MLA Lachance. We have 11 minutes in the second round.

LISA LACHANCE: You mentioned just a couple of moments ago the issue of maintenance. The $7.4 billion cost includes $2.9 billion over 30 years for maintenance. Can you break this down with us? How was that number arrived at, and are there things outside of what’s in place that the Province will have to cover? Are there maintenance costs that could occur outside of the $2.9 billion?

THE CHAIR (Marco MacLeod): Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: Thank you for the question. I think it’s really important to start out by saying that the $2.9 billion, as MLA Lachance has mentioned, is over 30 years. It’s not linear. You can’t just divide it by 30 and say, “Okay, that’s the cost per year.” As the building ages, there will be more things that need to get replaced than others, so the money will get spent in a non-linear fashion based on the actual real-world events and what’s occurring at the time in the facility.

The facility, we expect - as I mentioned before - to be in as good a shape as it was on Day 1, with the exception of, say, 30 years of wear and tear. There are numerous things that are inside the contract and therefore it would be - they would be required in order to replace them. One of the advantages of having this type of arrangement is that maintenance costs are often driven by what’s installed in the capital.

Just if I could use a very simple example, if you pick a certain widget that costs 20 cents over one that costs 40 cents, it’s cheaper to build, but you may have to replace that widget 16 times a day or a week or something like that. The arrangement that we have means that we’re going to get that balance of quality and cost in the initial build, which will then allow the facility to operate as we would expect and as we intended it to do throughout those 30 years.

LISA LACHANCE: I have more questions about maintenance, so maybe I’ll start my questions and then others will have a chance to jump in.

Can you table with the committee the analysis that was done to come up with the $2.9 billion maintenance amount? Can you also provide publicly the information about what would cause maintenance costs or what we might consider a maintenance cost to fall outside of what’s being covered in the contract? I’m also wondering: Let’s say it’s built as you’ve said, so well that maybe it doesn’t require the $2.9 billion worth of maintenance over the 30 years. Will the Province still have to pay the full amount?

DAVID BENOIT: There was a list there. I was trying to write it down. Maintenance costs that fall outside . . . the other parts?

LISA LACHANCE: Can you table the analysis with the committee that shows how the $2.9 billion was decided upon? Can you provide to the committee what might fall outside of that agreement contractually? If $2.9 billion worth of maintenance is not required within the 30 years of the contract, will the Province still have to pay the full amount of $2.9 billion?

DAVID BENOIT: Thank you for the additional clarification. The bid that was submitted was for both a build and a maintenance component. There were no specific, direct negotiations, if I can say it that way, over maintenance. It was over the entire bid proposal. The team needed to talk about both the capital component and the operating component. That money really represents the money that the Province would spend if we were to just maintain it ourselves. There’s . . .

[10:15 a.m.]

THE CHAIR: Order, please. MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: I do apologize, Mr. Benoit. We really just don’t have a lot of time. To be clear, I’m really curious: Is there a basis for that $2.9 billion? What was outlined within it? If it doesn’t cost $2.9 billion, does the Province still have to pay the full amount?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Volcko.

JOHN VOLCKO: That’s where we landed. When we talk about a fixed-price or a lump-sum contract in a fixed time period, in this particular P3, it was for the design-build cost, financing, and operation. I would be the first to admit that operation of a facility like this is not my expertise. However, based on the design decisions that were made and the requirements manual that we followed, we’re going to have a facility that has a certain amount of maintenance.

As Mr. Benoit tried to point out, the maintenance is not over and above what the Province would normally pay; it’s just being paid in a different fashion. To answer your question of if there’s an underrun, is there money going back to the Province, the answer is no, not to my knowledge. However, if there is an overrun, say there’s a faulty elevator and it breaks down, the Province also doesn’t pay for that. The consortium pays for that. There’s no benefit - there’s no pain no gain for the Province. We’ve got the full number.

THE CHAIR: I will just reiterate that MLA Lachance has asked for a number of documents to be tabled, and the clerk has made note of that. We’ll look forward to receiving those. MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: As that money is spent, the $2.9 billion, will that be publicly accounted for? Will that be provided in a transparent fashion to the public?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: The short answer to that is yes, it will be accounted for. To Mr. Volcko’s point, there are provisions inside the contract as well that apply penalties. If the elevator - I’ll just use his example - is not operational for a certain period of time, then we actually will charge the consortium a fee that the Province will then get for the period of time that it’s not available. Those are all predetermined. Those were all negotiated into the contract. Again, it’s all one big contract.

LISA LACHANCE: I’m just going to jump for the last couple of minutes that I have to a more immediate consequence of the QEII redevelopment. My understanding is that we’ve known since the discussion started about the rebuild that there would be a deficit of parking spots during the QEII redevelopment. At the same time, there’s a policy or political decision to mandate for free parking at all hospitals in Nova Scotia. I’m wondering: What happened that we weren’t ready for this? I’ve heard from lots of health care workers who come to Halifax Citadel-Sable Island to work and who had done that for many years and then were really troubled in terms of getting to work on time, finding affordable parking. It really has thrown folks for a real loop.

I’m wondering: How did we get to that day one of all free parking? We knew there was a deficit, and then we had a crisis. What happened there?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Spinney.

DEREK SPINNEY: The first thing I would say is to express empathy for exactly what you said. When you’re trying to get to work, life is busy, and the last thing you need to do is figure out where you’re parking and creating a lot of uncertainty. That’s exactly what our patients were dealing with too. At the Victoria General, for instance, if you went there midday, you would see patients circling within the lot trying to find a spot, creating angst on how they were going to get in in an already stressful situation, and conceivably at times even meaning they couldn’t get to their appointment on time.

At the same time, we were intending and trying to have those spots reserved for patients. If you were to go in there, you would see a sign, for instance, “Patient only parking,” et cetera. What we didn’t fully realize was the number of staff who were in fact parking there and paying the $14.50 a day. That was probably the largest learning for us, when we went to this free parking. We didn’t actually change anything as far as the perspective on where people could park. That parking was for patients; it was still for patients. Nothing was changing, but now we had a lot of staff who weren’t able to park.

What we did was quickly pivot on that, because obviously, we’re trying to make sure that both patients and providers are getting the best experience that they can actually get. The first win out of this was that patients were actually getting to their appointments on time for free. You were seeing not that circling in the parking lot, which is beneficial for everybody. If we had patient representation here today, we’d be hearing about the success of that for them.

We then quickly moved to figure out what . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. I apologize for the interruption. MLA Mombourquette.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I think I’ll start off with that there are a lot of questions from all committee members around the contract and the cost. I can appreciate not all of that information is here, but I am requesting that the full contract be tabled here to the Public Accounts Committee. I think that would give all committee members the opportunity to go through it. I don’t know if that’s really a question, but I’m requesting that that’s actually tabled, the full contract.

THE CHAIR: Clerk, you have that on the list? MLA Mombourquette.

DEREK MOMBORQUETTE: I think that for the public, they get to see the full contract in its entirety, and that would give the committee members some clarity on some of the questions that were asked today, and for Nova Scotians. As we know, this project has skyrocketed in the cost. I have a real question. We’re talking about the Central Zone, but ultimately, when a project comes to the point where the expense increases as much as this has, it’s probably impacting government decisions around other redevelopments, specifically I want to talk about Cape Breton for a second.

We have construction happening right now with the Cape Breton Regional Hospital, we have construction happening on the Northside. To me, I’m not hearing anything on the Glace Bay Hospital and New Waterford Consolidated Hospital. These were big pieces of the redevelopment in Cape Breton. My first question to the committee: Based on the cost that is now required to build this project here, are Glace Bay and New Waterford still on target to be completed?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: It’s really exciting, what’s going on in Cape Breton. We’ve got lots of activity there, not just on the health care front but right across the province in terms of building. That brings with it those challenges of, “Do we have enough people?” We’re working to re-highlight the equity, diversity, inclusivity engagement work that we’re doing up there in order to attract more apprentices.

The regional on the Northside is already talked about; some excellent work going on there. Things are on schedule and on track on both of those sites. New Waterford remains on track insofar as we have the - I know the question is about health care, but for me, it’s the whole site. We just finished and opened up the school in New Waterford - opened up in September - and then, of course, the medical centre opened up as well.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. Thank you. You’re beginning to read the by-language here. We’re going to go to Karen Oldfield, please.

KAREN OLDFIELD: Just to supplement that, nothing is static, as we know. So many things have changed in the health care arena over the past three, four years: our primary care, where we deliver it, and how we deliver it. If we take a look at the new Cape Breton Medical Campus, there was an opportunity to do some work with Marconi. All of a sudden, Marconi becomes a provincial asset which is in play that we can look at. What can we do with Marconi? I don’t know if you’ve been through it recently, but it is just beautiful and a massive space. The hallways are half the size of the Chamber. We look at something that’s already built. What can we do with it? These are the kinds of things that we’re looking at now and determining what that therefore means for the remaining builds.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I take that as there may be changes to the original plan for Glace Bay and New Waterford under the redevelopment.

KAREN OLDFIELD: I don’t think that’s what I’m saying. I’m saying we’re looking at it, and if a decision were ever made, then that would be a decision we would communicate. We have to look at things like that. It’s not smart not to look at a provincial asset that is being used for the medical school. We now have the medical school operating, starting in September. These are changes that have to be looked at in terms of an overall system.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: I appreciate the feedback. I just think that people are asking questions at home, and it ties into the overall expenditures that the government is going to spend when it comes to this development, how it impacts everything else. For me, I’m not really getting a clear answer on - there was an initial plan for redevelopment. North Sydney is under construction. That facility’s there. The laundry facility’s been a part of that. These were heavy conversations with some of the same decision makers who are here at committee today.

I’ll continue to ask this question to the minister and others. I’m not getting a clear sense that that part of the redevelopment - in which I know they’re trying to recruit medical professionals into these communities. I think we need to be very clear that Glace Bay and New Waterford are still part of that redevelopment. What is health care going to look like in those communities? I’ve asked this question to government, government representatives, and elected representatives who haven’t given me a clear answer on what that step is. I would encourage the Department of Health and Wellness to really be clear about that. People in these communities are asking. Doctors are looking at these communities, saying, “This is where I want to set up.” There are new facilities that were planned. It’s probably being talked about as they try to make decisions on where to settle their families. I’m asking that question based on what the topic is today. I know that when you see the cost increase that much, it’s got to have an impact on the government decisions around what is happening at other facilities. I’ll stop at that.

The other question I do have, and I was reading an article - I can table it, Chair, I’ve just got to get it printed off - you know, these projects are massive. You can run into problems, as we all know; new construction, a sprinkler goes in a building, there’s a massive flood. All of those things take part. There’s an article around floors that are not straight at a hospital in Toronto.

[10:30 a.m.]

I guess my question through you, Chair, to the government: What protections are in place for the taxpayer in the event that you’re going through construction and there’s a flood or there’s a design flaw? What protections are there for the government so that they’re not incurring those costs and ultimately can stay out of court?

THE CHAIR: Who would like to answer that? Mr. Martin.

PAUL MARTIN: I can’t speak about the issue in Toronto because it’s the subject of an active dispute, but I will respond to your question about what protections exist in this contract.

Mr. Benoit has already highlighted the fact that the contract contains a deductions regime where the service payment that you make to our consortium is abated if rooms or parts of the facility are unavailable for any reason. That would include as the result of a flood and so on. It also specifies response and rectification times for any of those sorts of failures and sets outs a regime of penalties associated with missing those deadlines.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: Thank you for the answer to that. That’s important. That’s why I’m requesting, through you, Chair, that the contract in its entirety is tabled before the Public Accounts Committee so that we can answer these questions that we’re being asked by Nova Scotians every day around these projects. Hospitals are one example. I’ve seen this in other projects, where you’ll have situations where new builds come and something happens - you know what I mean. Who’s on the hook to cover those costs? These are important conversations, especially when you’re getting into a project of this size. It’s historic when it comes to the size of the build here in the province.

I reiterate: If we can have that contract tabled, that would give all of us an opportunity to read that.

I only have a minute and a half left, so I’ll go back into kind of the capital region. It goes back to my question around the Cape Breton redevelopment: Are changes coming to Glace Bay and New Waterford when it comes to that project? Maybe it’s for you, Mr. Benoit: Are you confident that this is going to come in on time and on budget?

THE CHAIR: Sorry, MLA Mombourquette. Which are you talking about?

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: The project here.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: Thank you for the question and the clarification. I was going to ask the same thing.

As it relates to the HIEP firm fixed schedule and price, yes. It will come in.

THE CHAIR: Clear as a bell. MLA Mombourquette.

DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: Confident - that’s a good answer. It’s important. I only have 50 seconds left. We’ve talked about trades. We’ve talked about the challenge that comes around the workforce. We’re all working through it.

Through to you to Mr. Benoit: Is he confident that he’s going to have all the tradespeople in place to keep the project on time?

DAVID BENOIT: I guess I would just caveat my last answer with “all things being equal.” I don’t have a crystal ball. I couldn’t imagine what might arise.

I can tell you that the team is on it every single day. If there’s something that’s arising, if they see something possibly arising, or if they think something might arise, they’re already working on a solution. They’re already working with our partners in order to try to make sure that it either doesn’t materialize or it gets mitigated, or we have a contingency around it or through whatever the challenge is.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. MLA Wong.

HON. BRIAN WONG: Thank you for being here. This is a massive project. I can’t even imagine. I know that Mr. Spinney, you were talking about some of the transition plans - some of the transitions that have already happened, as in moving blood collection out of the Victoria General, trying to fortify things that are existing there.

It came to mind the processes that people go through when they move from one house to a new house and the planning and the stress and all of those things. I’m just wondering if you can talk about some of the other transition things that you have in mind. I’m just wondering if you could discuss the transition plan a little bit. There are people, there’s equipment, there are patients, there are processes, and all of those things. I’m just wondering if you can enlighten us on some of the things that you have in mind.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Spinney, please.

DEREK SPINNEY: It’s a great comparison to your home move, for instance. There’s a lot that goes into that. That’s the human aspect of it. It’s really important to us at the Nova Scotia Health Authority to make sure that we’re taking into account how people are going to be felt through this process.

One of the things that will strike you when you walk through the West Bedford Transitional community facility is that you really feel like it was built for people and then health care was added, whereas in our traditional facilities, you walk in and you feel like you’re in a health care facility, and then we seemed to have realized that people were there so we put a pretty picture on the wall.

It’s the exact opposite. We’re finally getting to be patient-centric. When you walk into that facility, you see a bell cart at the front door like you would see at a very fancy hotel that’s all shined up, so people feel like they’re the ones who are at the centre of everything that’s actually happening. We’ve been able to have 68 patients there now. The first phase is completely open and working very well.

In order for that to happen, there’s a lot of planning that goes into it. This is also where we rely on private partners, in this case Shannex, to be able to deliver on that. We look at it from end to end, not only in what we’re moving out but how it’s going to land on the other side. I think this is a good example of what Ms. Oldfield mentioned earlier about how things change. They’ve always changed. They’re always going to change. They certainly have over the last three years. As we look at all of our master planning, how can we do things differently? The question about costs going up: Will that have an impact on other things? It absolutely does. However, what doesn’t change is our commitment to making sure that the health care needs of Nova Scotians are met.

It may mean that we need to do it a little differently. If you’d asked five years ago, “Will we have a transition-to-community facility where we’re going to have 178 people being taken care of in a more appropriate way?” - nobody in this room would have said yes to that. Yet here we are, and that facility will have almost the same number of beds as the Dartmouth General. That’s just one example.

When we look outside of the city, these cost implications do have an impact - they absolutely do - but this is where we need to do things differently. This is where - and Ms. Oldfield said this as well - we need long-term care, the Nova Scotia Health Authority, and primary care, the health homes, everything coming together to serve the communities in which we live.

I think that is going to hopefully answer the question, but Ms. Oldfield would like to add to it.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Oldfield.

KAREN OLDFIELD: Derek’s right. It is about people. We’ve talked a lot today about the skilled-labour workforce with respect to construction, but we also have to be mindful of the additional staff and workforce that will be required around not just the Central Zone but the entire province to meet the demands of the patients who are calling at these newly renovated facilities. In that regard, we really have to work backwards, all the way to the community college, our universities, immigration, our colleges of nursing and of physicians, and so forth. It’s the whole gamut.

Working together to plan out what the future looks like - of course this redevelopment is a massive component of it, but there are so many other things that go into it and have to be thought through, planned for, and done. I want to remind the committee that when we talk about transition, we’re not just taking a person from the VG and putting them in an ambulance and taking them down the street to a new bed at the QEII HI site. That’s actually the easy part. The hard part is everything else that we’re talking about here today.

The transition is already being planned to infinite tiny weeny little details. It’s going to take all of that time to plan for it properly.

THE CHAIR: We’ll go to Mr. Benoit for a moment.

DAVID BENOIT: I just wanted to add on to what CEO Oldfield and Mr. Spinney said. Sometimes where you end is important to how you start. The team at Build Nova Scotia has an operational readiness team that actually facilitates, helps, and starts the planning that CEO Oldfield was talking about to make sure that we don’t just deliver a building but a building that’s operational for the NSHA. It isn’t just about the patients. It’s also about the staff who work in it.

We most recently employed that model for the Bayers Lake COC, which had a seamless transition to open. The staff had amazing things to say about the work that we did, but it all starts in the background. It starts today, and it will continue right through the rest of the build.

What I’ve heard from citizens on the street and other places is that they are very impressed with that facility. They’re very impressed not just with the way it was built and the way that they are welcomed but also with the staff in it. All of that starts because we made sure they were ready to take on the role of operating that building.

THE CHAIR: MLA MacLeod.

MARCO MACLEOD: We’ve talked about the transition. I’m talking about the transition after 30 years of operations. I think this facility is set to open in 2031, so we’re looking at 2061. I’m sure in 2061, technology is going to be different. There are going to be innovations in health care. During your planning stage, what efforts or how much thought has gone to futureproofing this building so that in 30-plus years down the road, it’s still useful to Nova Scotians?

DAVID BENOIT: I’m not sure if there may be other members on the panel who would like to add in.

It’s actually a very complex problem that you bring up. How do you get a building, build it to open in 2031, and then make sure that it can operate in 2061? The model that we’re using may be even beyond that, because the building could still be in good shape. Part of that is about what you do for innovation up front and part of that is about responding to the needs as they become known or as technology changes.

Working with our partners, the team is very focused on what kind of innovations we can put in. Some of the barriers with infrastructure often are the walls - if we could have opened this wall a little bit, then we’d have more space, or if we could try this - and I’ll use modular as one example because it’s topical. Modular lends itself to a little bit more flexibility because you’re able to put stuff in and take stuff out. What kind of modularity could we get into this build? I don’t want to leave people with the idea that you can build a traditional building and then somehow modularize it. That’s not a reality today; it may be someday in the future. Who knows?

There are things that we can do and there are choices we can make. We’re having those discussions now to be able to try and inject that innovation and therefore help with that problem. You’re never going to be perfect and you’re never going to meet the need exactly, but in the same way, maybe there are things that we can do to help both today and into the future to continue to operate the building.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Oldfield.

KAREN OLDFIELD: Just a quick addition to what Mr. Benoit has said. A car today has more computerization than Apollo 13. Same with elevators, same with heating systems, same with every single system that goes into that new build. It’s highly technical and highly computerized.

One upside of having Plenary deal with the operational costs here is that their experts are going to be fresh every single month, every day, every week. Though I dearly love our facility and maintenance staff - they do such great work, and they have their fingers in a lot of dikes - that is not the kind of training that they have. Yes, we will have to maintain our own skillset, too, but there will be a difference, and I think that will be a great help as well. We’ll be able to learn from it, but we are going to make sure that the right training is dealing with the right equipment.

THE CHAIR: Order, please. MLA MacLeod with 40 seconds.

MARCO MACLEOD: Ms. Oldfield, you mentioned earlier today about pressure beds. I may have missed something. Are all the new beds in this facility going to be pressure beds?

THE CHAIR: Karen Oldfield.

KAREN OLDFIELD: I would love it. We’ll do our best, but we’re undetermined at this time. It’s the bed of the future. Not only is it just for pressure wounds, but there are beds that have X number of data points, so we can monitor so many things that are happening to a patient. That’s an incredible . . .

[10:45 a.m.]

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The time for questions has elapsed. I would invite our witnesses, Mr. Benoit, Deputy Minister MacKenzie, or Karen Oldfield to give final comments if you so choose. Mr. Benoit.

DAVID BENOIT: I would just conclude by saying thank you very much for the questions. These are really important questions. These are really important aspects that Nova Scotians I know what to hear about. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to them. I just reiterate that this is a really positive step forward for the Province and for care in this province.

THE CHAIR: Karen Oldfield, please.

KAREN OLDFIELD: Thanks for having this on the agenda and for enabling us to take a few minutes to talk about it. I think it’s fantastic. I love where we’re going. I would encourage every one of the committee members to come and see some of these new infrastructure projects if you have not, like West Bedford, like Bayers Lake, some of the things that we’re doing. It’s phenomenal and it’s great progress, and we should all be proud of it. There’s nothing to hide, basically. Come and see. That way you can share and tell your constituents and all Nova Scotians. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Thank you very much, folks. You are free to leave, and we’re going to continue on with a few pieces of committee business. We’re not going to take a break - we have to barrel on through today.

The first piece of committee business: We have a number of pieces of correspondence that you all have on your desks. The first one is the Auditor General response to the committee request from last week. I think it’s on the top page. I’m wondering if there’s any discussion on this piece of correspondence from the Auditor General. Seeing none.

Nova Scotia Power: Information requested from the June 4^th meeting. Is there any discussion on that? MLA Timmins. (Interruption) Pause just one second. It’s later on in the agenda. Anything on the letter from Judith Ferguson? No?

Next, we have the email from Deputy Minister LaFleche regarding the June 18^th appearance. Just to reiterate, the deputy minister was the approved witness, and now we have a letter from the deputy minister asking for him to be excused and replaced with Associate Deputy Minister Peter Geddes, and also suggesting that Mr. Benoit, whom we’ve just heard from, be replaced with Donnie Burke. Is there any discussion on that? MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: While we definitely want the right people in the room for the discussion, I would really argue that we need to have Deputy Minister LaFleche and Mr. Benoit for that meeting. I don’t agree with this request. I can talk more about why, but maybe I’ll let other people weigh in first.

THE CHAIR: Is there any other discussion? MLA Taggart.

TOM TAGGART: I’m just not sure. I think this is an offer to bring more informed people in. I don’t see where there’s an issue with that. I don’t know how many people we have invited to that meeting. I don’t have it in front of me . . .

THE CHAIR: It’s hard to hear you, MLA Taggart.

TOM TAGGART: I’m sorry. I just think that this is an offer to send people in who can answer the questions as opposed to someone who would have to say, I’ll have to get back to you on that. I support this. I actually think that maybe there should be more of this. We pick our witnesses because we think they are the people who can best answer the question, but when they give us advice that says, “No, I’m not the best person; this is the best person,” I think we should consider that advice, at least.

THE CHAIR: I will just get in on this conversation quickly and say that there are, I think, two parts of this. Number one, whenever we invite our witnesses, we make it very clear that they can bring other people from their offices. For instance, if we invite Deputy Minister LaFleche, then Associate Deputy Minister Geddes is 100 per cent welcome and encouraged to attend. The issue, I think, that we might come across is that if we have the people that he’s suggested and don’t have the supervisors - the deputy minister, where the chips fall, as it were - then we may get into the same situation where somebody can’t answer the question because their supervisor or their - I forget what the word I’m looking for is - isn’t present. I just want to put that out there. I’m going to go back to MLA Lachance, and then I’ll hear from MLA Timmins. MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: Just to clarify, people can bring a whole back row of resources to these meetings, but I think this is a really important issue. We are following up on a May 2019 report where five out of seven recommendations were not completed in 2025. The Auditor General’s report really stressed that these delays were potentially very problematic in terms of the safety of Nova Scotia’s infrastructure. The current responses from government have been quite vague in terms of either stating this year - 2025 - or not being provided. I feel strongly that, great, bring other people, but that we need the most senior officials here for the Public Accounts Committee.

THE CHAIR: Senior was the word I was looking for, MLA Lachance. Thank you so much. MLA Timmins.

DIANNE TIMMINS: I’m okay with the change. The reason why is because I think it’s going to end up being delayed if the deputy minister is unable to attend. It is a very important issue on the table as well. We have an opportunity if there were questions that weren’t able to be answered, we can also ask for it to be requested to the department to give to the clerk as well.

THE CHAIR: Yes, the clerk has just advised me that this is not an issue where the deputy minister cannot come. He’s saying he would rather not come. He hasn’t said that he’s unable to make the meeting. If he was unable to make the meeting, we would just reschedule it.

Any other discussion on this? We’ll move on.

If we have no further discussion, then the agreement is that the decision stays the way it was which is that Deputy Minister LaFleche does attend the meeting. If we’re not going to have any further discussion, then we are agreeing that we would prefer or we want Deputy Minister LaFleche to attend the meeting and David Benoit to attend the meeting. Okay. MLA Wong.

HON. BRIAN WONG: I believe that Deputy Minister LaFleche had said that the person who’s going to replace him actually works on the ground more and has better information that he can provide us.

THE CHAIR: Heard. Yes, that is true, but what I think I’ve heard from other members of the committee is that it would be great to have the person he’s recommending and him attend. Essentially, committee, if we want to change the witnesses as they have been approved, then we need a motion. MLA MacLeod.

MARCO MACLEOD: I’d like to make a motion.

THE CHAIR: Go ahead.

MARCO MACLEOD: Can I make a motion to amend the witnesses as per the email?

THE CHAIR: I’d prefer if you just read it out clearly of who you want to see at the meeting.

MARCO MACLEOD: Okay, Associate Deputy Minister Peter Geddes and Executive Director Donnie Burke with Build Nova Scotia.

THE CHAIR: Okay. The motion is to amend the witness list to include Donnie Burke and Peter Geddes? Or to replace Mr. LaFleche and Mr. Benoit with Donnie Burke and Peter Geddes?

MARCO MACLEOD: It would be to replace them.

THE CHAIR: There is a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion about the motion?

MLA Lachance.

LISA LACHANCE: Clearly, my position has not changed. I think that this is the Public Accounts Committee and that we’re following up on audit recommendations that have not been followed over the medium term and have not been implemented. The outstanding recommendations include developing a complete inventory of known and potentially contaminated sites and implementing a risk-based approach to prioritize contaminated sites for restoration. I think all Nova Scotians should be concerned about the ever-increasing costs of contaminated sites in the budget. Communities have a right to have this conversation and to know what to expect in that regard.

We’ve had people back. We’ve reviewed the audit follow-up on these issues. It still is rather vague and uncertain, and I don’t actually think that’s acceptable. I do think that it would be great it we want to ask the associate deputy minister and the executive director to come, but I don’t see the rationale for not having Deputy Minister LaFleche here.

Another example would be even today. In a sense, Deputy Minister MacKenzie and Associate Deputy Minister Gatien didn’t speak a lot, but this is part of their portfolio, and it was important that they were here. They are ultimately responsible for the departments responsible for implementing the audit recommendations.

These seem like great additions, but I feel very strongly. No one’s explained to me why you wouldn’t have the deputy heads of the organizations here for this conversation. Perhaps there’s something I’m not aware of, but maybe some of the members who support that change and who made the motion could explain to me why we wouldn’t want the person ultimately responsible for the department in the room to be part of the conversation.

THE CHAIR: MLA Mombourquette.

HON. DEREK MOMBOURQUETTE: Through you to the Auditor General: Maybe if the Auditor General would like to comment on whether the current slate of witnesses should be here at the deputy minister level? This is the Auditor General’s report. Through you, I’d like to hear from the Auditor General.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Adair.

KIM ADAIR: I guess what I’m thinking about is the precedent-setting nature of this change. Best practice for Public Accounts Committees is that the deputy minister is the one ultimately responsible and has always been required to appear. I know Ms. Langille goes to great lengths to make sure that she schedules the meetings so that the deputy ministers are available. As has been said, other people are welcome to come, and the deputy minister decides who to bring with them.

Ultimately this is the decision of the committee, but I would just say to think of the precedent-setting nature of this decision.

THE CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll go to MLA Taggart, then MLA Mombourquette, then MLA Lachance.

TOM TAGGART: I need some clarification on what MLA Lachance was referring to as “vague.” I’ve heard that two or three times, and I’m not sure what’s vague here. I think it’s a pretty straightforward question. I’m wondering what I’m missing.

THE CHAIR: MLA Lachance, do you want to address that?

LISA LACHANCE: Just to build on the information provided by the Auditor General, the expectation at Public Accounts is that the deputy head of the department is here and accountable for the operations and . . .

THE CHAIR: Order, please. The time has elapsed for the meeting. We will meet again next week. The motion has not carried.

[The committee adjourned at 11:00 a.m.]