British Columbia Hansard — 29 April 2021, p.m., Issue 63 (42nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

20210429pm-Hansard-n63

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 42nd Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday, April 29, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 63 THE HONOURABLE RAJ CHOUHAN, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Second Session, 42nd Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Raj Chouhan EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Training...........................................................................................................Hon.

Anne Kang Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries......................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing .............................................................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ....................................................................................................................Hon.

Mitzi Dean Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.....................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Education .................................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation ........................................................................................Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon. George Heyman Minister of Finance .......................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Selina Robinson Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Lands and Natural Resource Operations................................................................................. Hon. Nathan Cullen Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.............................................................................Hon.

Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................... Hon. Murray Rankin, QC Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation....................................................................................................... Hon. Ravi Kahlon Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon.

George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.............................................................................................................. Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Minister of Municipal Affairs ............................................................................................................................................. Hon.

Josie Osborne Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon. Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction........................................................................................... Hon. Nicholas Simons Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport .................................................................................................................. Hon.

Melanie Mark Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of State for Infrastructure ................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Bowinn Ma LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition...................................................................................................................................................Shirley Bond Leader of the Third Party .......................................................................................................................................................... Sonia Furstenau Deputy Speaker..........................................................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Assistant Deputy Speaker..............................................................................................................................................................Norm Letnick Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ...........................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.............................................................................................................................. Seunghee Suzie Seo Clerk Assistant, Parliamentary Services........................................................................................................................... Artour Sogomonian Clerk of Committees.......................................................................................................................................................................

Jennifer Arril Clerk Assistant, Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..............................................................................................Susan Sourial Senior Research Analyst ................................................................................................................................................................... Karan Riarh Acting Sergeant-at-Arms..................................................................................................................................................................Greg Nelson

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Alexis, Pam (BC NDP) ............................................................Abbotsford-Mission Anderson, Brittny (BC NDP) .........................................................Nelson-Creston Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Penticton Babchuk, Michele (BC NDP)...............................................................North Island Bailey, Brenda (BC NDP).................................................. Vancouver–False Creek Bains, Hon. Harry (BC NDP).........................................................

Surrey-Newton Banman, Bruce (BC Liberal Party) ............................................ Abbotsford South Beare, Hon. Lisa (BC NDP) .......................................

Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (BC NDP).................................................................Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ...............................................Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal Party).................................Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (BC NDP) ................................................................Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal Party) .............................................

Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–West End Chant, Susie (BC NDP) ..............................................North Vancouver–Seymour Chen, Hon. Katrina (BC NDP) ............................................... Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Hon. Raj (BC NDP).................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon. George (BC NDP) ..........................................Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal Party)........................Columbia River–Revelstoke Conroy, Hon.

Katrine (BC NDP) ....................................................Kootenay West Coulter, Dan (BC NDP) .......................................................................... Chilliwack Cullen, Hon. Nathan (BC NDP) ................................................................... Stikine Davies, Dan (BC Liberal Party)................................................. Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal Party)....................................Abbotsford West Dean, Hon. Mitzi (BC NDP) ...............................................

Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (BC NDP) .........................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (BC NDP) ................................................ Vancouver-Kingsway Doerkson, Lorne (BC Liberal Party) ........................................Cariboo-Chilcotin Donnelly, Fin (BC NDP) .......................................... Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Dykeman, Megan (BC NDP)............................................................... Langley East Eby, Hon. David, QC (BC NDP).......................................

Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (BC NDP) ..................................................Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (BC NDP) .................................................Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (BC NDP) ...............................................

Victoria–Swan Lake Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) .............................................Cowichan Valley Glumac, Rick (BC NDP) ..................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Greene, Kelly (BC NDP) ........................................................Richmond-Steveston Halford, Trevor (BC Liberal Party) .........................................Surrey–White Rock Heyman, Hon. George (BC NDP) .........................................Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (BC NDP) ......................................... Langford–Juan de Fuca Kahlon, Hon.

Ravi (BC NDP) .............................................................. Delta North Kang, Hon. Anne (BC NDP) .................................................. Burnaby–Deer Lake Kirkpatrick, Karin (BC Liberal Party) ........................West Vancouver–Capilano Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal Party)....................................................................Shuswap Lee, Michael (BC Liberal Party) ..............................................Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (BC NDP)...............................................

Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal Party) .................................. Kelowna–Lake Country Lore, Grace (BC NDP)........................................................... Victoria–Beacon Hill Ma, Hon. Bowinn (BC NDP).....................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Malcolmson, Hon. Sheila (BC NDP)........................................................Nanaimo Mark, Hon. Melanie (BC NDP).................................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Mercier, Andrew (BC NDP) ........................................................................

Langley Merrifield, Renee (BC Liberal Party)......................................... Kelowna-Mission Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal Party) .......................... Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal Party) ................................. Prince George–Mackenzie Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal Party).................................................. Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)............................ Saanich North and the Islands Osborne, Hon.

Josie (BC NDP)........................................Mid Island–Pacific Rim Paddon, Kelli (BC NDP) ................................................................Chilliwack-Kent Paton, Ian (BC Liberal Party) ............................................................... Delta South Popham, Hon. Lana (BC NDP)........................................................ Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce, QC (BC NDP) .............................................Surrey-Whalley Rankin, Hon.

Murray, QC (BC NDP) .............................Oak Bay–Gordon Head Rice, Jennifer (BC NDP) ...................................................................... North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (BC NDP)...................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal Party)......................................................................... Skeena Routledge, Janet (BC NDP) .............................................................Burnaby North Routley, Doug (BC NDP)...........................................

Nanaimo–North Cowichan Russell, Roly (BC NDP).................................................... Boundary-Similkameen Rustad, John (BC Liberal Party)......................................................Nechako Lakes Sandhu, Harwinder (BC NDP) .................................................Vernon-Monashee Sharma, Niki (BC NDP)..........................................................Vancouver-Hastings Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal Party) .................................................... Kootenay East Simons, Hon. Nicholas (BC NDP).........................

Powell River–Sunshine Coast Sims, Jinny (BC NDP) ................................................................. Surrey-Panorama Singh, Aman (BC NDP) .............................................Richmond-Queensborough Singh, Rachna (BC NDP)...................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Starchuk, Mike (BC NDP) ......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal Party) .......................................................

Kelowna West Stone, Todd (BC Liberal Party) ...............................Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal Party) ............................. West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal Party)....................................................... Fraser-Nicola Walker, Adam (BC NDP) ....................................................... Parksville-Qualicum Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal Party) ....................................... Richmond North Centre Whiteside, Hon. Jennifer (BC NDP) .........................................

New Westminster Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal Party)......................Vancouver-Quilchena Y ao, Henry (BC NDP) ..................................................... Richmond South Centre LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission................................................................................. Pam Alexis Abbotsford South...............................................................................Bruce Banman Abbotsford West......................................................................

Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen........................................................................ Roly Russell Burnaby–Deer Lake....................................................................... Hon. Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds......................................................................Hon. Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed .................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North .................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ..........................................................................Lorne Doerkson Cariboo North.................................................................................... Coralee Oakes Chilliwack ...............................................................................................Dan Coulter Chilliwack-Kent .................................................................................... Kelli Paddon Columbia River–Revelstoke .........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain...............................................................Fin Donnelly Coquitlam-Maillardville ...................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox................................................................... Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................. Sonia Furstenau Delta North................................................................................... Hon.

Ravi Kahlon Delta South ..................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin .................................................................... Hon. Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola .........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson .............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson..................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country .....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission ...........................................................................

Renee Merrifield Kelowna West ..........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East.......................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West........................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca .............................................................. Hon.

John Horgan Langley .............................................................................................Andrew Mercier Langley East....................................................................................Megan Dykeman Maple Ridge–Mission.............................................................................. Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows............................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim............................................................ Hon.

Josie Osborne Nanaimo.............................................................................Hon. Sheila Malcolmson Nanaimo–North Cowichan............................................................... Doug Routley Nechako Lakes........................................................................................ John Rustad Nelson-Creston ............................................................................. Brittny Anderson New Westminster.............................................................. Hon.

Jennifer Whiteside North Coast ........................................................................................... Jennifer Rice North Island................................................................................... Michele Babchuk North Vancouver–Lonsdale......................................................... Hon. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour...................................................................Susie Chant Oak Bay–Gordon Head..................................................Hon.

Murray Rankin, QC Parksville-Qualicum........................................................................... Adam Walker Peace River North ................................................................................... Dan Davies Peace River South ................................................................................ Mike Bernier Penticton ................................................................................................. Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam...................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam.......................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast..............................................Hon. Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie....................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount ..................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre..........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough..................................................................Aman Singh Richmond South Centre .......................................................................... Henry Y ao Richmond-Steveston ............................................................................

Kelly Greene Saanich North and the Islands .............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South .............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap...................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena........................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine........................................................................................ Hon.

Nathan Cullen Surrey-Cloverdale .............................................................................. Mike Starchuk Surrey-Fleetwood.....................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers........................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford......................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton ..............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama ...................................................................................... Jinny Sims Surrey South ................................................................................ Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley ................................................................. Hon. Bruce Ralston, QC Surrey–White Rock .......................................................................... Trevor Halford Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek...................................................................... Brenda Bailey Vancouver-Fraserview...............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings ..............................................................................Niki Sharma Vancouver-Kensington....................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway..................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara................................................................................ Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant..................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey ............................................................Hon. David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena........................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End .....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee .....................................................................

Harwinder Sandhu Victoria–Beacon Hill............................................................................... Grace Lore Victoria–Swan Lake.................................................................... Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Karin Kirkpatrick West Vancouver–Sea to Sky................................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC NDP 57; BC Liberal Party 28; BC Green Party 2

CONTENTS Thursday, April 29, 2021 Afternoon Sitting Page Routine Business Ministerial Statements ............................................................................................................................................................ 1575 Thomas Berger Hon. J. Horgan M. de Jong A. Olsen Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 1577 Bill 5 — InBC Investment Corp. Act Hon. R. Kahlon T. Stone B. Bailey L. Doerkson A. Mercier B. Stewart H. Y ao K. Kirkpatrick D. Coulter R. Merrifield S. Chant

THURSDAY , APRIL 29, 2021 The House met at 1:33 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Routine Business Ministerial Statements THOMAS BERGER Hon. J. Horgan:It is with deep sadness that I advise the House that yesterday, after a brief battle with cancer, Tom Berger, the former member for Vancouver-Burrard, former justice of the Supreme Court, passed away. Thomas Berger believed in justice. That meant he needed to battle injustice, and he found over the course of his lifetime, Members, plenty of it. He will be remembered most for his advocacy for land claims, not just here in British Columbia but across Canada. Mr.

Berger was counsel for theNisg̱ a’a Elders in the landmark case ofCalder v. Attorney-General of Brit- ish Columbia in 1973. That historic case led to a Supreme Court ruling that, for the first time, acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title to land in Canada. As commissioner to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry, he insisted on hearing from everyone. He ensured that resources were not the only way to access the commis- sion.

That was when we had intervener funding for among the first times in Canada so that money would not deter- mine who was heard on that absolutely landmark inquiry into the land in the north. Of course, the inquiry resulted in highlighting the unre- solved land claims in that territory. It also noted the peril of a pipeline to the food source of Indigenous peoples in the north and their very survival depending on those food sources remaining intact.

It was an unprecedented public consultation and a process that helped to highlight what was at stake for Indigenous peoples, not just in the north but, indeed, across the country. [1:35 p.m.] The eloquence of Mr. Berger’s prose made the report a bestseller. I have a copy of it in my library at home, dog- eared and always a reminder of the work that was done by those who came before us to this place. He introduced us all to the complexities of Indigenous peoples and the chal- lenges that they faced in a nation that was colonized 160, 170-odd years ago.

His insistence on treating land claims seriously, and the environment as a component part of that, transformed how we look at resource development in Canada to this day. And for that, we all owe him a debt of thanks. His public statements about rights and title during the con- stitutional debates here in Canada, back in the 1970s and 1980s, led to the inclusion of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the amended constitution of 1982.

He was reprimanded by the Canadian Judicial Council at that time for his advocacy, which led to his immediate resignation from the Supreme Court of B.C. so he could carry on his work seeking injustice and finding ways to correct it. As a lawyer, a judge and a commissioner, he helped countless ordinary people in their struggles against power- ful interests — not just here in British Columbia but across Canada. He changed life in this province and in this coun- try for the better. When he graduated from the University of British Col- umbia law school in 1956, Aboriginal law was not on the curriculum.

It wasn’t even discussed. And when we think now back on his career and his life, Tom Berger made an indelible mark on legal issues in Canada, on Indigenous rights in Canada and how we look at each other and how we conduct our business — not just in legislatures, not just in courtrooms but in lunchrooms and other places around the country.

As a labour lawyer, he fought injunctions against those that were jailed for their activism — I’ d look kindly to the Speaker; I don’t believe he represented you, but you know of what I speak — and he defended striking Iron- workers who were facing hostile judges in court just after the Second Narrows Bridge had collapsed, killing 18 Iron- workers. Berger called for a labour relations board to handle such disputes to take them out of the courts. And of course, when an NDP government was elected in 1972, that’s exactly what they did. They created a Labour Rela- tions Board. Tom Berger was a troubleshooter.

He headed three royal commissions in this country and, of course, was the deputy chair for a review of the World Bank back in his early days as a lawyer when he left the bench. He was a special counsel to the Attorney General of British Colum- bia in an inquiry into the sexual abuse at the Jericho Hill School for the Deaf, which led to recommendations for compensation which were adopted by the government of the day. Four years ago I had the honour, as Premier, with my colleague the Minister of Environment, to call on Justice Berger to help us grapple with the challenges of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

We welcomed his sage leg- al advice and also his insights into the consequences of rights and title through the corridor. Regrettably, our case at the Supreme Court was unsuccessful, but we learned as a community and as a province and as a people the value of listening to those who have blazed a trail, a proud trail, as Tom Berger had. His life was accomplished, of course, because he star- ted so young. He was first elected to the House of Com- mons at age 29. Elected to this Legislature at age 33. He’ d become the Leader of the Opposition at age 36, and by age 38, had been appointed to the Supreme Court 1575

of British Columbia. All of his achievements were high- lighted by the investiture into the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia. He was a wonderful writer, as well. I made reference to his landmark commission on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and I commend it to those who have not had an opportunity to read it — and other works that he’s writ- ten. There’s a passage that I want to read to you, as I con- clude my remarks about a great British Columbian and a great Canadian. Tom once wrote the following: “I’ve never become jaded.

Weary, dispirited, furious, frustrated…but I’ve never lost…faith in the law. I was animated by a belief — and now it is a profound belief — that the law as enforced in the courts can move us incrementally towards a just society. ” Tom Berger spent a lifetime moving us all towards a just society. For that, all of us owe him a great debt of gratit- ude. His kindness and generosity will be long remembered by those who had the good fortune of coming upon him in their lifetime.

I think of the generations to come who will be affected by the decisions, the rulings and the words that Tom Berger left, not just in legislatures, not just in courtrooms but in the common thinking of British Col- umbians and Canadians to this very day. [1:40 p.m.] Rights and title exist in Canada largely because Tom Berger started us down that track. And countless others, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, have worked tirelessly to bring forward justice in that regard. All of us in this place, in 2019, brought forward unanimously the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I know that was a very proud day for Tom, when he looked at the fruits of his life- time being realized here by diverse people focused on the just society that he’ d worked so hard for. I want to, on behalf of all of us, extend our heartfelt con- dolences to his family and to his friends, and to acknow- ledge that Canada has lost a giant. M. de Jong:The Premier has offered very poignant and very appropriate words acknowledging a great British Col- umbian and a great Canadian.

When I learned this morning of the passing of Tho- mas Berger, I must confess that my mind immediately turned to the exchange we had, just a few weeks ago in this chamber, about another former colleague, Ian Wad- dell. I had heard Ian describe — tell me and write about — the formative, life-altering moment that his experi- ence with the Berger commission, the Mackenzie Val- ley Pipeline Inquiry, had had on him. I wondered: is it an exaggeration to suggest or say that the work under- taken by Mr. Thomas Berger — as he then was — was life-altering for the country? I don’t think so.

In a life, as we have heard from the Premier, that was chock-full of momentous moments, achievements and turning points in the constitutional evolution of our country, that most certainly was one. We have heard about his role in filing the original statement of claim in the equally significant — dare I say momentous — Calder case. Though he was on the bench by the time the judicial victory was secured for his previous clients, I am very reliably advised that he was prouder still of the treaty that ultimately emerged in the wake of the litigation he had helped to initiate — that treaty in the mid-1990s.

I never served with him in this chamber, and for the Government House Leader and me, there aren’t many former MLAs we can say that about. In truth, his time in this place and the federal parliament was relatively short, though it occurred in a very busy decade of his life. But if it was short, it was not uneventful. A little-known fact: the young labour lawyer, before entering the chamber, acting for a former public servant, had sued the then Premier W .A.C. Bennett for defamation. That case went to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Thomas Berger and his client ultimately prevailed. To have Premier W .A.C.

Bennett retreat and remain silent on the matter thereafter…. No small feat, considering the nature of his character. If Wacky Bennett had the last political word in 1969 in the election that followed, contested against then Leader of the Opposition Berger, then, as is always the case in politics, it was a time-limited victory. [1:45 p.m.] In truth, he, Thomas Berger, may not have been built for partisan electoral politics. With apologies to all of those who sit here with me, he may have been too thoughtful, too gentle, too studious for the rough and tumble of the vocation we presently call our own.

There’s an anecdote about his time with the commission in Y ellowknife. A group of lawyers, including Ian Waddell, were sitting around arguing about whether the commis- sion and government had the power to do certain things, the lawyers offering their own opinions on that matter, Thomas Berger offering his own, saying: “No, I think the government, in this case, can go a little further than you’re suggesting.

I believe in the late 19th century the matter was settled legally. ” Then he paused, thought for a moment and concluded: “I think the case was reported in theAll England reports of 1892” — paused again — “volume 2, I believe, in the English Court of Appeal. ” He was, as the Premier has suggested, a man committed to notions of the rule of law and took justifiable pride in the role he played to evolve that.

The measure of the man is perhaps revealed in this passage that I have taken from our colleague’s book, describing something Justice Berger said about the hearings that he was conducting into that pipeline: “I want the people who live in the north, who make the north their home, to tell me in their own lan- guage and in their own way what they would say to the government of Canada if they could. ” Ian writes that he wanted the people living in the com- munities to “speak in their own language, in their own way and not be subject to harassment or cross-examination” — a man who cared deeply about the human condition and 1576 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

throughout his remarkable life made an incredible contri- bution to improving the human condition across our soci- ety. To his family, who shared him with us as a society for these almost 90 years, all of our condolences. Thank you from a grateful province and a grateful nation. A. Olsen: It’s difficult to stand after the member for Abbotsford West’s and the Premier’s remarks and be able to offer anything new or anything remarkable. I’ve been in this House for not very long, certainly not as long as they have.

However, I think the perspective that I can bring to this today is one of gratitude for the work of a powerful and incredible man and incredible advocate that helped my families and our families and our relatives, not only in British Columbia but across the country, to be able to rec- ognize the rights and the title that have existed and con- tinue to exist here. It was only chambers like the one that I have the honour of standing in today that had chosen to ignore them.

It was the work of many of our legislative ancestors but also people, such as Justice Thomas Berger and many oth- ers, who decided that they were going to act with courage and defend those rights and that title and probably — not probably, definitely — go against the grain of where soci- ety was at. That is the mark of a true leader. [1:50 p.m.] It’s with that that we recognize today, and we stand, and I have the honour of saying these few words on behalf of the Third Party, for Mr. Justice Thomas Berger and his passing. To think that all of that history could have passed and did pass….

When I was elected to this place in 2017, Mr. Berger was called upon by us still to assist the province to help navigate a very difficult and tricky situation. So it’s with that that I don’t want to hazard repeating what has already been said. As well, I think it’s important to recognize with humility that the work that we have ahead of us needs to reflect the courage of people like the late Mr. Berger.

May his flame that he brought to the work that he did throughout his career inspire us to stand up and courageously advoc- ate for those who are disadvantaged in our society, those who our society and the rules of governance and systems that have been in place have marginalized and to speak as powerfully for them as the example that we have in celeb- rating the life of Mr. Berger. With that, I want to raise my hands in gratitude for the trail that he has blazed, the space that he’s created for us to have new and different conversations in chambers such as this one.

May his example inspire us to be courageous and bold in our work and note that what might be uncomfort- able and might be difficult today, future generations will look back and thank us just as we are thanking him for cre- ating the example that he has been to us. With that, I’ d like to thank the Premier for his wonder- ful comments and the member for Abbotsford West for his comments, as well, and certainly, the B.C. Green caucus and the Third Party share the sentiments that have been brought forward here today. HÍSW̱ ḴE SIÁM. Thank you. Orders of the Day Hon. L. Beare:I call second reading of Bill 5.

Second Reading of Bills BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP . ACT Hon. R. Kahlon:I move that Bill 5 be read a second time now. [N. Letnick in the chair.] I’m delighted to be introducing this important piece of legislation that will help promising B.C. companies scale up and grow jobs and investments here in British Colum- bia. This bill fulfils a key commitment in my mandate let- ter from the Premier as well as a commitment in the recent throne speech and Budget 2021 by establishing a new stra- tegic investment fund for British Columbia.

This new Crown corporation will be named InBC Investment Corp., or simply InBC, and will be an import- ant part of our province’s economic recovery in the months and years ahead. InBC currently exists as a Busi- ness Corporations Act company. The bill you have before you today, Mr. Speaker, transforms InBC into a statutory Crown corporation. This legislation sets out some of the key structures and features of the corporation, including the mandate and the independence of the investment decision-making.

Before I speak about the legislation, however, I want to spend a few moments explaining why InBC was estab- lished in the first place and why it matters. Currently our government has several programs to support investment in small and medium-sized businesses in B.C., including the venture capital tax credit program and the employee share ownership program. But InBC, the strategic invest- ment fund, builds on this by supporting small and medi- um-sized businesses with a new source of patient invest- ment capital.

That capital will be invested in accordance with a triple-bottom-line mandate, which I’ll speak about a bit more, and in more detail, shortly. [1:55 p.m.] InBC will take this support for small and medium-sized businesses to the next level through proactive investments in high-potential B.C. business. By investing alongside other sources of capital, both public and private, InBC will support the creation and development of new markets, drive economic growth across the province and partner Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1577

with private sector to address pressing social, economic and environmental challenges. What does the bill before you achieve? Specifically, it sets out InBC’s mandate, which is to achieve financial returns and to advance certain social, economic and envir- onmental policy priorities. It expressly states that the chief investment officer will have sole authority to make invest- ment decisions within the scope of the policy framework set by government.

It enshrines the important transparency and account- ability measures, including an annual reporting require- ment, an external review to be conducted every five years. Finally, it sets out the structure of the board of directors and its role as well as the option for the board to create a body called an advisory forum. While this is not a complete list of everything the legis- lation does, the points I have just outlined represent some of the bill’s main policy positions. I will now speak about each of these in turn. InBC has a unique mandate. It is a strategic investment fund with a triple-bottom-line mandate.

It will be doing what is known as impact investing. This means that invest- ments must aim and achieve a financial return. However, that is not the end of the story. Its investments must also support social, economic and environmental policy ob- jectives of the government. In other words, across the portfolio, InBC investments must aim to make money but also move the dial on key priorities, like building a more innovative, low-carbon economy; growth and investment across the province; and achieving reconciliation with Indigenous People.

The idea here is that the value of the investment is no longer just about financial returns. It’s also about the money making positive impacts across British Columbia. This mandate has set out, in

section 4 of the legislation, the purposes clause and will also include a chief investment officer in their work as they decide which B.C. companies to invest in. Another central feature of this legislation is the inde- pendence of investment decision-making. I want to read this

section out because of how important it is.

Section 18(1) states: “No person other than the chief investment officer or an external fund manager retained by the cor- poration may make an investment decision. ” The legislation goes on to clarify that in making invest- ment decisions, the chief investment officer cannot be dir- ected by anyone, including the government, a minister, the board or a director, the CEO or any other public officer. Put another way, no one can direct this chief investment officer or influence them when they’re making investment decisions. The bill prohibits it. Only the chief investment officer can make those investment decisions.

For example, if someone sitting on the InBC board of directors came across a good investment opportunity and they wanted the chief investment officer to consider it, that director cannot call them up and ask them to look at it. That company needs to apply for the investment via the InBC website just like any other company and go through the regular application process. There will be only one pro- cess for applicants, and they will all need to go through the front door. This provision in the legislation reinforces that. The statutory independence is an important safeguard.

Not only will it help protect the chief investment officer from any actual or perceived interference, but in doing so, it will give InBC more credibility in the marketplace amongst players that will hopefully seek to co-invest alongside it. It will give InBC more credibility amongst companies that will potentially be seeking its investment, and it will give InBC more credibility with B.C. citizens and taxpayers who are funding its activities. InBC is a public strategic investment fund and will be investing taxpayer dollars.

For that reason, it is incredibly important that it has the highest standards of transparency and accountability to the public. I will touch on a couple of those measures.

Section 23 of the legislation contains an annual report- ing requirement. Specifically, every fiscal year InBC will be required to report to myself and the Minister of Finance on the performance of its investments. As ministers, we can specify what form and manner we would like the report to take, including any information that we would like it to contain.

Section 23 also requires that I then lay the report before the assembly and, promptly after doing so, make the report publicly available. [2:00 p.m.] The transparency doesn’t end there, though. Above and beyond this annual reporting requirement,

section 24 of the legislation requires that every five years InBC must undergo an external review. This is modelled on the legis- lation that supports the Scottish National Investment Bank. Specifically, the legislation states that I’m required, as minister, and after consulting with the Minister of Fin- ance, to appoint someone to review and report on the per- formance of InBC’s investment over a certain period. The idea is that this person or organization would be external to government, a third party.

Once I receive that extern- al report, I am then required again to lay it before this assembly and promptly, after doing so, make the report publicly available. In practice, these annual reports and external five-year- review reports will be put on InBC’s website for anyone to read. These measures are in addition to the typical trans- parency and accountability mechanisms, such as publish- ing an annual service plan report and submitting annual reports as required by the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. Finally, I’ d like to speak briefly about InBC’s governance structure.

InBC will have a nine-member board of dir- ectors. Seven of its members will come from outside of government, while two will be senior public servants. The legislation stipulates that these individuals will be appoin- ted by cabinet. However, the names of the board seats will 1578 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

be put forward for nomination by the board to the minis- ters. All the InBC board of directors will be recognized lead- ers in their fields, chosen for their expertise and their abil- ity to represent a diverse range of perspectives and experi- ence. The initial board will also reflect the diversity of this province.

Section 11 sets out the duties and powers of the board of directors, but at a high level, it will be responsible for managing the affairs of InBC or supervising the manage- ment of those affairs.

Section 25 also empowers the board to strike an advisory forum, an optional body that can give the board non-binding advice or populate board commit- tees. While the board is not required to strike an advis- ory forum, it’s another tool to make available to them should they wish to supplement their expertise or add extra horsepower. In conclusion, there’s no doubt that the past year has been a challenge for all British Columbians.

As we emerge from this pandemic, this government is committed to building a sustainable, innovative and inclusive economy that works for all British Columbians by creating family- supporting jobs in every corner of this province. InBC Investment Corp. will help promising businesses scale up and grow here in British Columbia, resulting in more jobs and investment flowing into the province. By acting as a strong institutional investor in the province and by crowding in other additional sources of capital, InBC will anchor and grow more companies here in British Col- umbia.

I hope that everyone here today joins me in support of Bill 5, which will help our economy come back roaring by helping our highest-potential companies and driving long-term economic growth across the province. With that, hon. Speaker, I look forward to hearing many of my colleagues’ and, of course, the hon. member from Kam- loops’ comments. I strongly encourage everyone to sup- port this. T. Stone:I appreciate the minister’s opening remarks and look forward to the debate on this, when we get to the next stage. But I do want to offer some comments here, as part of second reading.

This topic area is obviously close to my heart. I’m very, very proud of the over 15 years that I spent in the tech sector, starting and growing a tech company and going through all of those trials and tribulations that come with starting and growing any business, but some of which are pretty unique to the tech sector. I’ d like to also think that there was some added chal- lenge in doing it in Kamloops. In fact, back in the day, when we started our business up in Kamloops, we were tech company No. 3. I’m proud to say that there are more than 100 companies now in Kamloops.

It’s still a small eco- system of companies, and I’ll talk about that more in a moment in terms of the regional needs in the tech sector and how to best meet those needs. [2:05 p.m.] I’m very proud of the work that we did, and I’m very proud of where the industry is today in my hometown and certainly across British Columbia. I mean, the latest num- bers that I have suggest that there’s well over 11,000 tech companies in British Columbia, plus or minus. This sec- tor now employs well over 120,000 people, again, in every corner of this province.

On top of those 120,000 jobs, there are about 60,000 jobs that are tech people working in non- tech companies, although even suggesting that a company is non-tech is akin to suggesting that that company’s prob- ably not going to be around for much longer. I mean, tech- nology is now pervasive. It’s a foundational requirement in pretty much every business out there and every type of organization. The potential for continued growth in this province, obviously, is significant.

When we look at what’s happen- ing in life sciences, when we look at what’s happening in clean energy, when we look at the gaming sector and the Internet of things — and on and on the list goes — there is no question that we are good at coming up with innovative ideas in British Columbia. British Columbians are extremely creative and innovative, and we have a darn good track record at taking those ideas and starting com- panies and commercializing those ideas.

The three main challenges that tech companies face in British Columbia — and, frankly, across the world, really — can be summed up into three different areas. One, you need those good ideas. And we’ve got a demonstrated track record of coming up with those good ideas. Y ou need to be able to attract talent. Y ou need to have talented people that are willing to work in these companies and help them scale, help them grow, help them conquer the world. Lots of work still to do on that point. We’ll talk about that in a moment. Thirdly, you do need to have access to capital.

Some of my most sleepless nights were waiting for the term sheet to come, you know, back in the early 2000s, over the fax machine. Dating myself there. But waiting for that term sheet to come in from that next venture cap- ital firm that we’ d been working with to inject that next round of capital into our business. We went through mul- tiple rounds of investments. We did take advantage, and we’re very appreciative, of the small business venture tax credit program, and we were an eligible business corpor- ation. That was instrumental to our ability to get off the ground. So ideas, people, and money.

Those are the three critical ingredients very specifically needed in the tech sec- tor in order to grow. I do appreciate the intent behind this piece of legisla- tion. I do appreciate the intent that I think is embedded within this Bill 5 and the creation of this framework for InBC. I do have a range of concerns, however, that I’m going to walk through today. I think, first and foremost, Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1579

that British Columbians should be pretty concerned — and probably are concerned — that there’s a tremendous lack of detail, a lack of clarity to this point, on so many facets of what InBC is going to be all about or how it’s going to be structured, how it’s going to work. The board — probably the most important initial decision to get right — and the entire process around which the board is going to be put in place. The compensa- tion of executives.

It worries me greatly that we likely have yet another Crown corporation that will have a need to recruit a very senior and very expensive executive, partic- ularly, the chief investment officer. The other management positions will be critical in support, I believe, of the efforts of the chief investment officer.

That’s not a position that you find easily out in the market, and it’s a position that is quite expensive. [2:10 p.m.] There’s a bigger question here as to whether or not this is really the strategy, or the approach, that makes the most sense in terms of trying to help better facilitate small and medium-sized businesses accessing the capital that they need to scale their businesses. Are we going to spend $500,000 on the chief investment officer? Is that position going to be a $1 million position? Is that position going to be on par with the CEO of BCIMC, which is $3 million per year? We don’t know.

I do think that there are some legitimate questions around what those details are going to look like. The investment criteria. I mean, there’s certainly a tre- mendous amount of lofty rhetoric and phrasing that the government talks about often, and in this announcement, as well. We don’t know, in terms of the investment criteria, really, truly, the who, when, where, how and what, if any, strings will be attached to these investments. When the government talks about anchoring compan- ies in British Columbia, is that code for there will be strings attached to the investments that will be placed?

If so, what do those strings look like? How is that workable? I, for one, can say, as a former tech CEO, I would not have wanted strings attached to my business when I did invest- ment rounds. One of the worst things you can do in the tech space is to attach strings to financing. One, it’s a great way to scare off subsequent investment rounds for that business. And two, it’s quite easy for the company, through sub- sequent investment rounds, to be potentially evasive of those strings in the first place. That begs the question: why do it? It becomes a deterrent.

It becomes a red flag, another reason not to do business in British Columbia, potentially. What are the priority sectors for investment? What are the return imperatives? How will these funds integrate with other funds that are out there, private sector funds or funds like the Canadian Business Growth Fund? Will placements be made beyond series A investment? Are we talking about, potentially, series B or even series C? Are we talking about laddered investments? Again, no details at this point.

I would be curious to know what data the minister and his ministry have relied upon to justify the creation of the strategic investment fund and to structure it in the way that they are — data on the scale-up of the capital gap that we all know has existed. I would point out — and I know the minister would know this too — one of the odd side effects or con- sequences of the pandemic. There is a heck of a lot of cap- ital sloshing around, looking for a place to invest right now — private sector capital. Record levels.

Billions and bil- lions of dollars, a lot of which is looking for a place to invest here in British Columbia as well. Again, it begs the question: why this structure? Why do it this way? Was this decision made in part or predicated in part on data that the minister has that suggests that there’s been a flood of talent leaving the province and that this is one way to try and ensure that bleeding stops?

Is there data that the minister has that helped predicate the decision to structure it this way that looked at the regional needs, not just the tech sector in the Lower Mainland, there in Van- couver, but the needs across British Columbia? These are all important, I think, and focused questions that we’ll want to get to the bottom of in committee stage. It is a $500 million investment fund that’s being estab- lished. It’s taxpayers who ultimately assume the risk for this. So these are important questions to be asking. [2:15 p.m.] I’m very concerned.

I’m not in a place where I’m feel- ing all warm and fuzzy about the independence that the minister talks about in terms of the arm’s-length nature of this corporation. I acknowledge the sections of the act that he’s pointed to. I acknowledge the intentions that he has established.

But as I’ve been making calls and talking to all kinds of folks — CEOs of tech companies, men and women that place hundreds of millions of dollars through their venture capital funds, financial institutions — the common theme on this that I’ve been told, in terms of how this is struc- tured, is: if you’re appointing the board and you’re requir- ing certain investments to actually have to be considered and only made through the lens of the policy priorities or the policy initiatives, policy objectives, of government, you really don’t have true independence. Y et that’s how this is being structured.

The service plan, which the minister referenced, pro- vides a lot of the top-line messaging on some of this stuff, but again, the detail is lacking. We want to see that detail. The appointment of the directors and the independence of the investment decisions are probably two of the most important pieces that represent critical success factors for what the minister is attempting to do here with the cre- ation of InBC. With respect to the appointment of directors…. Again, I think this is one of the things that is absolutely critical and 1580 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

has to be right. They have to get it right. I’m concerned, however, that there is, as with many other facets of this proposed investment fund, a lack of transparency around this. Most typically, when a new Crown corporation is formed or when there are changes being made to directors on Crown corporations, the positions are posted on the board resourcing office website — in terms of one more measure that government usually puts in place to foster some arm’s-length aspect to the recruitment of directors.

Ideally, you want the best and the brightest to serve on those boards, and you want people that have very relevant expertise in the area of focus for that particular board. Y ou see that posting on the board resourcing website. We understand that the directors are to be appointed for May. We have scoured the board resourcing office website and don’t see a posting for the directors of InBC, which leads me to, then, believe that the government already knows who the people are that are going to be appointed to the board.

That, then, in my mind, calls into question the rigour that has actually been employed to be truly inde- pendent in sourcing those directors. If all the government is going to end up doing here is appointing men and women who are known entities to the government and known to be strongly supportive of the policy priorities of the government and supportive of the government, potentially, in other ways…. That potentially represents the most significant risk to this entire scheme.

We’ve got a number of questions that we will ask in committee stage in relation to the recruitment and ap- pointment of boards and the measures that the minister keeps talking about, or mentioned several times in his comments, that need to be in place to make sure that this government and future governments are not able to meddle in the operations of InBC and, especially, not meddle in the investment decisions that are taken by the corporation. [2:20 p.m.] I mentioned earlier, concern around strings attached to investments. Again, this is an area that perhaps we’ll entirely clarify in the committee stage.

But in the absence of details, and just with nothing more than the rhetoric attached or detailed in the news release and the announce- ment that was made the other day by the Premier and the minister, it sounds like there will be strings attached — in the form of investments having to meet the test of fit- ting into the key policy initiatives of government as well as tests or strings that may be attached that relate to the requirement for businesses to remain in British Columbia or to ensure that their head office is here or to ensure that they’re anchored here. We don’t really know what anchored means.

I under- stand the definition of anchor. I don’t understand the definition of anchor as it pertains to what the government is doing through the creation of InBC. I will say, again, in talking with lots of venture capital folks over the last num- ber of days and tech CEOs of small and large companies, even the slightest hint of strings attached is a no-fly zone in most of these folks’ mind. The B.C. tech fund, which was created in 2016, into which $100 million was put, which has been actually lever- aged quite incredibly over the last four to five years….

It’s why that fund and the deployment of those dollars does not have strings attached in the form of: “here’s what gov- ernment’s policy priority areas are. Make sure the invest- ments fit those. Here’s what must happen with respect to anchoring a business in British Columbia. ” We do see hints of those kinds of strings.

Tech CEOs and venture capital folks say that’s a surefire way to have investors — well, tech companies — take a pass on tapping into the investment fund in the first place, but also having third-party venture capital funds, other private funds, from wanting to come in and ladder their investments with that company. I also will say this. If the intention is to try and keep a business here and help them grow here….

Again, at a high level, I don’t think there’s anyone in this chamber that doesn’t agree with the objective of trying to figure out how we can take all of those thousands of start-ups that we see in British Columbia every year and help them get to that 50-person size, that 150-person size and so forth. But if there are going to be strings attached to the investment here, as it was put to me by a very well- known figure in the venture capital world here in B.C., the fastest and easiest way around that string is for the government’s position to be bought out in a subsequent investment round.

Maybe it’s a series B round, and it’s a much larger investment at that point. The very first thing that’s going to happen is that venture capital firm and the other partners are going to say: “Part of our investment in your company is we’re going to buy out the position of InBC and whatever fund it’s called at that time, and we’re packing up and leaving. ” There are ways around this. There are a number of ques- tions in that area that I intend on canvassing in the com- mittee stage. I also want to just say that there’s a funda- mental difference of approach here, I think.

I touched on it a bit in terms of how our former government established the B.C. tech fund and that we then engaged Kensington partners to manage that fund. [2:25 p.m.] They’ve been able to leverage those dollars very effect- ively. It’s been done with absolutely no interference or influence or meddling of government whatsoever. It’s helped dozens of B.C. companies scale up. The approach being taken here is not that.

The approach being taken here is, through a Crown corporation with a CEO and CIO and all this compens- ation, the assuming of risk very directly by the taxpayers through the $500 million strategic investment fund. The questionable lack of independence between the board and the investment decisions being taken and government’s Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1581

policy priorities…. I just don’t think that the government really has — any government, frankly, but this government in particular — the expertise to pull this off. This is a $500 million risk to the taxpayers of British Columbia. I’m alarmed to learn that investments that might meet the government’s key policy areas also don’t necessarily need to be profitable. I’m alarmed to learn that the anti- cipated rate of return on the overall portfolio of InBC is somewhere in the range of 5 percent.

That’s an astound- ingly low rate of return, considering the risk that B.C. tax- payers are to be taking with the $500 million to begin with. In the venture capital world, the anticipated rate of return on an investment is in the sort of 12 percent to 25 percent range. Y es, there are always some losers. There are always some big winners — at least, you hope there are — and a bunch of companies in the middle. But a 5 percent anticipated rate of return with the amount of risk that’s attached to this venture is a very, very small rate of return.

The risk is detailed, actually quite extensively, in the ser- vice plan for InBC. On page 6 of the service plan, it says: “Venture capital is a high-risk asset class that does not afford guaranteed returns. Expected timing and distribu- tion of venture capital returns is difficult to predict. ” Abso- lutely correct. It goes on further to say that InBC is not anticipated to be in a position to place investments until the end of fiscal year 2021-2022, which takes me to another issue, and that’s that the timing of any potential impact from the deploy- ment of this capital is at least a year away.

I would caution the minister on positioning this as an economic recovery program, certainly not in the short term. By the time a board is put in place and a chief invest- ment officer is hired, investment criteria is established and the overall functioning of this operation is up and run- ning, and then you begin the due diligence of seeking and accepting and reviewing investment opportunities and then doing the negotiations and all the due diligence…. This stuff does not happen fast, so the deployment of cap- ital is a long ways off. That’s confirmed in the service plan.

The service plan indicates a $4 million surplus in B.C. this year and cumulative deficits of $16 million over the next three years. The service plan does reference the fisc- al agency loan that is the facility that is being used to deploy the $500 million. On that point, the service plan indicates that the timing and amounts of this debt are “uncertain and difficult to predict at this time. The tim- ing and amount of debt drawn will have a significant impact on the future financial results of InBC. ” Again, highlighting the inherent risk that comes with making investments in tech companies. [2:30 p.m.] [S.

Chandra Herbert in the chair.] On this point, as I said earlier, there is a tremendous amount of capital, more than anyone has seen in a very, very long time, sloshing around, looking for viable places to invest. It does beg the question, if this is even as priority of an area as other areas are in terms of what government can do best to assist small and mid-sized companies in the tech space scale up. In the 2020 B.C. Tech Report Card…. As the minister knows well, B.C. Tech and KPMG put out an annual report card of tech executives across the country. The B.C. subset was obviously of interest to me.

According to B.C. tech CEOs, the number one challenge that they’re facing at the moment is not access to capital. It’s actually access to tal- ent. It’s access to supports around systems and education and those kinds of things. That’s not to say that capital isn’t a significant need, a significant challenge. But is it the number one challenge that’s faced by the tech sector? I mentioned the timing of investments. I’m also con- cerned, again, that I don’t see….

The minister mentioned it, perhaps very briefly, in his comments moments ago, but I certainly haven’t heard much about the focus of InBC in terms of a cross-province focus. When you look at the sec- tors that were referenced in the announcement, that are in the news release, that are in the background documents and whatnot, it’s life sciences, animation, gaming, sectors that are predominantly anchored in Vancouver and, to a lesser extent, in Victoria. These are not the tech companies that need help scaling in Kamloops or Prince George or even, in many cases, Kelowna.

In fact, the main challenge in the Interior and the north when it comes to the tech space is not scaling businesses. It’s actually helping those start-ups in the really early stage. So I question where in this scheme called InBC there is going to be a focus on ensuring that companies in the Interior, the north, on the Island and the rural, regional areas of this province have access to the capital as intended through this program. We want to see an equitable distri- bution of this access. That brings me to my final point. I am the designated speaker on this. My final point is this.

When I listened to the Premier and the minister make this announcement, and when I got my hands on the material and was able to dive into it and start to wrap my head around what this was shaping up to look like, InBC…. Obviously, there were references in StrongerBC. There were references in the budget. There were references in previous commu- nications. But when you look at this, InBC, as it was announced earlier this week, I couldn’t help but be struck that this appears to be an initiative that’s largely silent. What I mean by that is: where is the broader economic strategy for the province of British Columbia?

Where is the broader jobs plan for the province of British Columbia, and how does this fit into it? If the government believes that risking $500 million of taxpayers’ money to establish a highly risky program — a corporation that’s making investments in highly risky companies — is the be-all and end-all and is the only piece 1582 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

of the puzzle that’s required to facilitate the growth of tech companies in British Columbia, they’re sadly mistaken. I look at things like the 23 new and increased taxes that the NDP have put in place since they’ve been in power. I look at the fact that British Columbia has the third-highest marginal tax rate in Canada. That directly impacts the recruitment of tech sector workers. It’s a highly competit- ive industry. [2:35 p.m.] Washington state has no state income tax. According to talent.com, a software developer earns $27,000 less in B.C. than they do in Ontario, but their taxes are much higher here.

B.C. has a higher corporate tax rate than Alberta and Ontario, two of our key competitors in this space from a Canadian context. B.C. has the employer health tax. Obvi- ously, Alberta doesn’t. Ontario and Quebec have a similar form of employer health tax, but they’re both in the midst of moving to reduce the employer health tax burden on businesses. High tech investments are actually moving out of the province. I was struck the other day, in looking at a news release on carbon emissions from a company in Squamish that is doing some incredibly cutting-edge innovation relating to carbon capture….

They’re headquartered in Squamish. Well, the news release was all about how they were excited to tell the world that they’re establishing a pilot project not in Squamish, not somewhere in the interi- or of British Columbia, but in Texas. We hear this story far too often — companies like Car- bon Engineering that will tell you the taxes in this province are too high, the regulatory burden is too high, the access to talent is really challenging, and this is not a friendly place to do business. It’s not a friendly place to come and make an investment. This is, again, a major difference between us and the government.

We believe that the role of government is to create the conditions within which investment is attracted to your province so great jobs can be created, so compan- ies start here and can grow here. And they do it largely without the need of the taxpayer to risk significant sums of money. They do it because it’s a great place to live, it’s a great place to work, and it’s also a great place to start and grow a business. So there’s that whole tax and regulatory piece that….

Y ou know, I’ d be curious where the government’s plan is on that, because that is a critical component that has to go hand in hand with an access-to-capital strategy. I don’t see a strategy around tax and regulation. Likewise, we need some significant modernization of the intellectual property laws in British Columbia. There are some significant challenges that relate to IP issues. Where’s the government’s plan to deal with that? I’ve talked about talent quite a bit today. Where’s the plan to attract the talent that British Columbia needs? Where’s the plan to grow that talent in our own universit- ies?

We, our former government, had an actual jobs plan with sector-by-sector components. The tech sector was one of those components. We mapped out, over a ten-year period, what the needs of that sector were going to be in terms of capital, in term of labour, regulatory changes that would make a difference — on and on it went. We don’t see that with this government. Another point that, absent action, is going to make the access to capital issue more challenging than it should be is that this government….

We still don’t do a good job in this province of government acting as an agent, meaning government acting as a customer or being a customer for early-stage companies in British Columbia. I remember in my days, I had signed up with…. Our tech company had signed up almost every customer we could in the local government space. It’s where we did our early business in Alberta. We had most of the municipal- ities there. We signed up a whole ton in Ontario. We had half the state of Washington signed up.

I could count on one hand the number of organizations in the government space we were able to sign up here in British Columbia, for all kinds of reasons. That challenge still exists today. [2:40 p.m.] Carbon Engineering should be a company that…. Maybe there is a strategic opportunity to have them doing carbon capture as part of the Site C project or some other major industrial project in this province. The province, if it was strategic about this, would be looking for those oppor- tunities and matching those opportunities with B.C. com- panies that are already here today.

That’s not about risking taxpayers’ money. That’s not about attaching strings to the investment of taxpayers’ money in private sector companies. That’s just about being smart and strategic and saying government is going to serve as a pilot for tech companies in British Columbia. We don’t do that. We don’t do that here. I want to also say this.

Every venture capital and tech CEO or tech executive that I’ve talked to this week has said the same thing too — that the government is walking away from its child care commitments, walking away from its housing affordability commitments; that these are critical headwinds that are building that are making it more and more difficult for tech companies to recruit the talent, to bring people in, to fill the positions that are needed to help them scale. So much for access to capital. But if you can’t get people here to work in your businesses….

Part of the reason is because if the taxes are too high, the regulatory challenges are too burdensome, you can’t access a good and affordable place to live for yourself and your family, you can’t access child care for a variety of reasons, that person is not going to come to that tech company here in British Columbia. That’s what’s happening right now. The point is that access to capital is one piece of the puzzle. The government has got to have a strategy around taxes. The government has got to wrap its head around the regulatory burden. It’s got to wrap its head around talent.

Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1583

It’s got to wrap its head around intellectual property. It’s got to fulfil its commitments relating to affordable hous- ing and affordable child care. Those are all key economic imperatives that need to be in place for the tech sector to have a fighting chance. I did want to say that the B.C. tech fund that I referenced earlier…. It’s part of what’s being rolled up in InBC — the B.C. tech fund and the Renaissance Fund. The B.C. tech fund actually has been quite successful. I looked in the ser- vice plan.

Y ou look at the investment tables there, and for 2020-2021, the cumulative capital called on the B.C. tech fund commitment was $51 million. The cumulative invest- ment by fund managers and syndicate partners in B.C. companies, so leveraged off that $51 million, is $663 mil- lion. That’s a significant and very positive leveraging of the investment. Again, what are we trying to fix here? It would appear that there’s a tremendous track record with the B.C. tech fund and how it’s managed and the results that it’s gener- ated.

We know there are literally billions in private sector capital sloshing around, looking for good investments here in British Columbia, yet the government is proceeding with creating this whole new scheme. In

summary, again I go back to my initial comments. The tech sector, and everyone in it, is something that I’ve been very proud of and been very grateful to have been part of for so many years. I, like the minister and I think every person in this House, wants to see this sector contin- ue to grow, and not just in the Lower Mainland but right across the province. There are great ideas in every town and community around British Columbia. Y es, access to capital is an ongo- ing challenge. I’m not convinced that this model, this par- ticular structure, is the way to go about facilitating improved access to capital.

I’m not convinced that this structure minimizes the risk to the taxpayer. I’m not con- vinced that absent the government’s apparent lack of focus on those other areas — taxes, regulations, talent, IP , gov- ernment as a customer and other areas — this strategy is going to work. [2:45 p.m.] We’ll get into all of these details in the committee stage. I look forward to very thoughtful and detailed answers to what will be thoughtful and detailed questions. With that, I thank you, Mr. Chair, for the time. B. Bailey:I apologize that there is banging in my condo.

This has been an ongoing issue in the months that I’ve lived here, and I apologize to the members and those listening that there is a distraction in the background. However, we will push on. I’m delighted to have the opportunity to share my enthusiasm in regard to this wonderful InBC strategic investment fund, which is what the tech sector has been asking for, for years, maybe even decades. The $500 mil- lion over three years is a significant amount of money. This is not a small investment, and it’s a carefully struc- tured investment to be done on behalf of B.C. and on behalf of taxpayers.

Let’s talk a little bit about the need that this is solving for. British Columbia has a really amazing start-up sec- tor, and we’ve often been recognized for our start-up sec- tor. There are some who say that in fact we’re the number one start-up system in Canada and in the top 15 glob- ally. We’ve heard mention, of course, that we have over 11,000 tech companies, but the challenge that I’ve seen in the two decades that I’ve been in the sector, and which we often hear about from those who represent it, is that so many of our companies are start-ups, are small and medium-sized businesses.

When you identify the challenges within a sector — certainly, the member who spoke prior to me, the mem- ber for Kamloops–South Thompson, rightly noted it — it always comes up that talent is a challenge, for sure. That challenge has been growing year over year. It also always comes up that capital in this system is problem- atic. It’s not only a lack of capital, but it’s also the type of capital. We hear from people frequently that this gap keeps our businesses from scaling.

I don’t want to assume that someone listening today will necessarily understand how an investment makes a big difference in a company and why companies need invest- ment. Let me just take a moment to kind of paint that pic- ture a little bit. When you’re building a company, it’s not always true that you can bring product to market and use your own revenue to fund the growth of your company. Of course, we all wish that were true. Wouldn’t it be great if we could very inexpensively get our product to market and we could use revenue to build our company? The best money in, to build your company, is revenue.

But that’s difficult. Often the cost of building whatever product it is…. Whether it be software, a technology that’s going to be applied to reduce carbon emissions or any other example, those costs to create the product that you’re building or the intellectual property that you’re building can be very large. Y et when you look at the potential, the upside, once you do bring your product to market, of what it will make, it makes sense. But you can’t get there. There’s a gap. That’s why this investment money is so important. I apologize to those who understand the investment world.

It’s a very simplistic description. But I’ve heard a couple of folks in my community say: “What is this InBC, and how does it affect me?” It’s really, really important that when we look at how we grow our tech sector, we help address that issue. When you look at really successful ecosystems in the tech sector…. Of course, we like to look at Silicon Valley. There are a whole bunch of reasons that go into the success of Silicon Valley. There’s not just one. One of the important reasons is that the ecosystem includes a huge amount of investment income.

If anyone has ever done the Sand Hill walk, it’s just one VC company after another. There’s so 1584 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

much money in the ecosystem. It’s a fast-moving ecosys- tem. Deal flow happens incredibly quickly. It’s a “yes” eco- system, not a “no” ecosystem, which ours often is. There are many, many other differences. [2:50 p.m.] British Columbia is interesting because we have really, in many ways, quite a unique scenario in that we punch above our weight in terms of this start-up ecosystem, in terms of the quality of ideas people have, the companies that they’re building. Technology is iterative.

It builds on top of each other, and there is a lot of iteration happen- ing within our sector, but the challenges were relatively small. We’re relatively small in terms of our labour flow, but we’re also relatively small in terms of who we attract for capital. Even though we punch above our weight in terms of having many, many start-ups and great ideas and we’ve done well in the start-up ecosystem, we don’t really have that when it comes to capital. Death on the vine happens from being undercapitalized, so it’s really, really important that we address this gap.

The ability to grow your company, to look at that as a solution, is really, really important. Without that capital allowing you to grow, what happens is often you’ll take different types of investments that aren’t what we call a patient investment. This is a patient investment. It’s not immediate returns quickly that you have to then replace with other investments, this perpetual replacement of investments that can completely eat up a CEO’s time and energy. Founders are best at running their companies and grow- ing and working on their product and moving it forward.

To always spend your money on fundraising is really not the best use of founders’ time. It’s so important there’s a way to allow growth that doesn’t mean that the only strategy for your start-up is in early acquisition. What happens in the British Columbia ecosystem is people sell pretty early, before they really get the value out of their company. That’s just tragic. We’ve seen it so many times. It’s so disappointing because we don’t unlock that potential within that company. We do that because there’s no capital to help them move and grow. When we think about becoming an anchor company, what do we mean by that?

Of course, we do know what an anchor company is, but the difference is that if you’re able to grow your company from maybe being a 40-person company to being a 500-person company, you can be an anchor company in your own province. What does that look like? It’s so important. I’ll give you an example. I’ve mentioned that I worked in software, spe- cifically in video games. One of the anchor companies in British Columbia was founded about, I don’t know, 25 years ago and got bought by EA. Distinctive Software, it was called.

When EA bought Distinctive and decided to grow in British Columbia, it did a huge amount for that ecosystem. All of a sudden, there’s a big player. What happens when there is a big player? Well, it draws attention to the sector in the province. Y ou’ve got someone to point to. “Hey, look what’s built here. Look at this amaz- ing work being done. ” But also what happens is talent works within that organization, and they learn best prac- tices. They’re great engineers when they come in, but they’ve got even better processes when they step out.

They become very astute in business practices in addition to just building. The corporate training that people experience in a larger corporation like that is just so incredibly helpful. What very often happens is that entrepreneurs, after being at a large corporation, an anchor corporation, for some time, will even start their own companies. We’ve seen literally hundreds of companies, mine included, started from people who left EA. Interjections. Deputy Speaker:Sorry, Member. Members, if you could please respect that the member for Vancouver–False Creek has the floor. Thank you. Sorry, Member.

Apologies from the House. Please pro- ceed. B. Bailey:Thank you, Chair. It’s just so integral that when people leave anchor com- panies and start up their own companies, they do so with really strong experience and great processes, and they’ve learned that from the larger corporation that they’ve left. Very often this sort of calving off that happens from anchor companies is how the whole ecosystem builds. Often the anchor company will buy the smaller companies that have started out as part of the whole ecosystem devel- opment. [2:55 p.m.] We want to see more anchor companies, because it feeds the ecosystem.

These are really well-paying jobs. The tax base from them contributes to the public coffers. It’s very, very important. Now what we have instead is a very, very strong start-up ecosystem, but that growth has been sty- mied because we don’t have that middle investment piece that we need, and people have been asking for it. It’s very, very important that we address the question of scaling and how to scale. The idea that if people are able to bring in investments into their company and grow their company in British Columbia instead of taking sort of the first exit opportunity that’s there — that’s massive.

It can actually change the ecosystem. It can change it, and I think it will. So I’m extremely, extremely excited about this. Again, it’s something that’s been asked for, for a very, very, very long time. Sometimes selling your company externally, outside of British Columbia, outside of Canada, can be beneficial. It’s not always a negative thing. It’s negative when the com- pany leaves, in my opinion, and we lose that talent and lose Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1585

that potential of growth here in British Columbia. Some- times when a company is purchased by an external actor, the growth continues in B.C. Those great jobs stay in B.C., and the talent stays in B.C., but the revenue and the profit doesn’t stay in B.C. Profit staying is important, again, to that ecosystem. When you consider another example…. For example, I’m thinking about something up in the Kelowna area from some time ago, when Club Penguin sold to Disney. That particular acquisition created something like 40 mil- lionaires in one day. The ecosystem, as I understand it….

Certainly, the member for Kamloops–South Thompson can speak to this probably more than I, but as I understand it, the ecosystem that came about in Kamloops — much of that money is related to that particular acquisition. So it’s not always true that acquisitions to external actors are negative. They can also create funding to feed the eco- system. But what we’re concerned about is really when that money leaves, and that’s happening more and more in British Columbia. We see a lot of exits.

However, I would take issue with my colleague the member for Kamloops–South Thompson in saying that people are fleeing British Columbia right now. I don’t believe that’s so. In fact, we’re seeing data to the opposite. Many, many tech companies are investing here in B.C. We just saw Best Buy decide to settle in south Mount Pleas- ant, which is a really encouraging aspect. I think it’s really about what the ecosystem can be. We’ve got an exception- al, exceptional tech talent group here, and this will support the continued growth. Does that matter beyond the tech sector?

I think that’s interesting, because the tech sector…. It used to be that we would think of it kind of as a vertical. Y ou know, there’s the logging sector, fisheries and technology. But the tech sec- tor isn’t a vertical anymore. That’s just not the case. There is not even really a tech sector. People who work in techno- logy work in all other sectors. I think that’s really import- ant to note, because this is going to affect all of B.C., right? It’s not just the tech sector.

The kind of growth that this can drive will benefit all of B.C., not just the tech sector, because the tech sector is all of B.C., really, and technology is a competitive advantage. It’s not a separate thing. In addition to anchoring and growing more companies in B.C. and driving long-term growth across the province, I’m also very excited about the structure that’s been chosen for this InBC, specifically the triple bottom line. My col- league mentioned that businesses don’t like investments that have strings attached. I’ve certainly heard that to be true, and I know that was true in my own business.

But there are strings and there are strings. [3:00 p.m.] I think that the way that this is being designed is very attentive to that concern. We can balance the objectives of having government priorities as part of decision-mak- ing but very broadly, so it’s not prescriptive or limiting or somehow makes it less appealing for businesses to be involved in the funds. I think that’s being paid close atten- tion to, and I’m particularly excited about that. I’ll share with you now my thoughts on why the triple bottom line is so important and why I’m proud that this fund has taken that movement.

A lot of people might not know what a triple bottom line is, so I’m going to just speak a little bit about that. It was a concept developed in 1994 by John Elkington, and it’s made up, of course, of the three elements: the people, the planet and the profit. Historically, investments made by VCs, in particular, would only look at profit. But profit registered in revenue is a quite minimalistic way to look at how businesses have impact and also how the world impacts businesses.

The idea is to encourage businesses to look at their perform- ance analysis beyond just financial performance — to look also at sustainable investing, sustainability, what it means to the planet and what the implications are. Often those implications are not borne by the particular business. They’re shared out among all of us — so an encouragement to look at that and also to look at people and community. We know that these businesses that have pivoted into looking at triple bottom line have actually been very suc- cessful, because talent is interested in this.

People want to know that businesses have a conscience, care about the planet, care about the people that work for them. So from a particular business point of view, where this ori- ginal triple bottom line emerged, it became quite suc- cessful and popular. I think it’s also important because we know — I know, anyways — that investment decisions are not always decisions that are made just on the merits of a business. There’s a lot of bias that exists in venture capitals and investment firms.

I witnessed this firsthand when I was searching for investment for my second company, Silic- on Sisters, which was a women-owned and -run video game studio. I did that walk on Sand Hill down in Silicon Valley. I had great numbers, and I had a great story, and I had a business that was really rolling, and I was told: “Women don’t play video games. No. Women don’t run video game companies. No. ” Not any interest at all in the metrics and the data and the business case, but a bias. That bias is something that’s been noted again and again. There’s a tre- mendous bias against women leading companies.

Y et that bias is remarkably unjustified, because we do know, in fact, that there’s really, really good data on what happens when women run companies and when women sit on boards. Just to share with you, here’s a case for women-led start- ups. This is fromForbes magazine.

It’s the top ten reasons that we should consider supporting women-run start-ups. “Private technology companies led by women are more capital- efficient, achieving 35 percent higher ROI and, when venture- backed, 12 percent higher revenue than start-ups run by men, ac- cording to the Kauffman Foundation. “Women-founded companies in First Round Capital’s portfolio outperformed companies founded by men by 63 percent. “In a study of over 350 start-ups, MassChallenge and BGC de- 1586 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

termined that businesses founded by women deliver higher reven- ue, more than two times as much per dollar invested, than those founded by men, making women-owned companies better invest- ments for financial backers. “Despite the severe funding gap, start-ups founded and co- founded by women actually performed better over time, generat- ing 10 percent more in cumulative revenue over a five-year period, according to BCG. ” Fifth point: “Companies in the MSCI world index with strong women lead- ership generated a return on equity of 10.1 percent per year, versus 7.4 percent for those without strong leadership. ” Number 6: “‘Women-owned businesses are growing much faster than all businesses.

From 2007 to 2018, women-owned businesses grew by 58 percent in terms of the number of firms, and 46 percent in terms of revenue, ’ according to American Express researcher Geri Sten- gel. ” The other three points are very similar, but essentially, I think you get where I’m going. Although there’s a negat- ive perception in Silicon Valley about investing in women- owned companies — or certainly this was true five, six years ago — the data doesn’t bear it out. I think this experience that I’ve had, and it’s been docu- mented widely now, is also true when it comes to BIPOC people’s experience in business.

We tend to invest in folks that remind us of ourselves. We tend to hire folks that remind us of ourselves. Those two things are problematic, and they keep us from perhaps making our best decisions in both of those regards. [3:05 p.m.] I’m not saying that this is a factor that should over- whelm all other factors. I’m not making that argument. I do, though, think that these types of considerations should be part of any decision in regards to investment.

Although I don’t know yet exactly what this will look like and haven’t seen the mandate letter, I do hope there will be some com- ponent that does provide encouragement that we look at women-led companies and companies led by folks who are BIPOC. I’m also really excited about the structure. In

part 3, in 6(a), we see that there are two directors from the public service and up to seven directors outside the public ser- vice. This is so important. We have some exceptional busi- ness people who have had amazing exits here in British Columbia and who have just tremendous knowledge to share. I don’t know yet, but I’m hoping we’ll see some of those folks who step forward to use their incredible exper- ience to help us guide the best investments possible in this fund.

I think the independence of the chief investment officer — not being political at all and cannot be directed by any- one — is absolutely integral, not only to the integrity of the fund, but in terms of who we attract. We really want to attract the best of the best. I think that the structure that I see in the bill will be able to do just that. I think that’s incredibly important, because this person is going to have a lot of power and decision-making capacity and really needs to be the right person, which I think will be structured into this. It invites the right person — let’s put it that way.

In regards to the priorities of the fund, I’m very excited that the priorities of companies that are focused on a low- carbon economy are going to be highlighted as well as our absolutely stellar and growing biotech sector. The tech sec- tor is very broad, as I’ve mentioned, but those two partic- ular areas are so ripe for investment — just absolutely ripe for investment. We’ve seen some incredible acquisitions. We’ve seen IPOs in both of those sectors that are really, really encouraging.

I will just disagree a bit with my colleague from Kam- loops–South Thompson when he speaks about the carbon company in Squamish leaving to Texas and that this is an example of the result of taxes. Actually, I think it’s differ- ent than that. I know that businesses react to paying more taxes for sure, but really, the challenge is not that. The chal- lenge is ensuring companies stay because there is a climate for investment here. This fund is exactly the kind of fund that will keep a company like that here. That’s exactly what this fund will do. So I don’t think that that example is….

I think that example is on the other side of the ledger. It is, in fact, why this investment fund is just so important. When we think about the word strategic…. Strategic has a very specific connotation when considering it in light of investment. “Strategic investment” is a term that really specifically means that this investment is meant to draw other investments. It’s a tool to leverage.

The strategic part of it is that it’s very specific, well-thought-out and designed to get particular outcomes. [3:10 p.m.] I think those outcomes are just going to be absolutely stellar from this fund — specifically focusing on the two areas already mentioned, those of biotech and clean tech — because when we grow those sectors, we’re not only supporting the business environment of that growth; we’re supporting incredible jobs for young people in our province — we’re also supporting new technologies that can help us address the greatest crisis of our time, which is climate change.

These new technologies can serve us in so many ways. They can serve us in terms of us battling climate change, but they can also serve us in terms of us exporting best- in-class technologies all around the world and establishing ourselves, even further than we already have, as being the cream-of-the-crop leaders in terms of climate change tech- nologies and help in solving this problem. B.C. has the capacity to do that. We absolutely do. The talent here is extraordinary. I think that particular aspect of this stra- tegic investment is really worth noting, because it will pay dividends in so many different ways.

I had the great privilege — not anymore, but prior to this year — of sitting on a board that gives out schol- arships to women who are studying for post-secondary Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1587

STEM degrees. One of the things I most love about that scholarship fund is that we asked them to talk about how their research, how their studies, will change the world. There are usually about 150 applicants a year. It’s incred- ible what they write, what they want to study and what they want to do. Across the board, probably 80 percent of the answers are in regard to solving for climate change in the most creat- ive ways imaginable. What these young engineers are plan- ning to do is incredibly exciting to me, and I know that some of those young women will come out and start start- ups.

This fund makes it more likely that they’ll be success- ful. Instead of hitting that wall of growth and not being able to get past that 20- or 30-person company, we have a much greater chance of that occurring because of this. As you can tell, I very, very much support Bill 5. I think this is an absolute game-changer. I’m not overstating it. I truly believe that this will pivot our province to being a world-class leader in technology. We’re already a com- petitor. We’re already doing incredible things, but this will kick it into top gear.

I’m absolutely excited to see the met- rics going forward, to finding out who our CIO is and the board of people who will help us continue this work. I’m very proud of the minister and all of the folks who worked so diligently on this excellent piece of legislation. L. Doerkson:It’s indeed a pleasure to bring greetings from the Cariboo-Chilcotin to you and, certainly, to the House. We’ve heard much information here in the last couple of hours. I’ d like to bring it back to, maybe, some simpler terms. It is a great pleasure to stand here and speak to another important bill — the InBC Investment Corpor- ation Act.

I want to start, though, if I could, just by acknowledging all of our front-line workers. It can’t be said enough in this place how grateful we all are for the services that so many people have provided for all of us throughout this extremely challenging time. I did want to note some of those front-line workers who are perhaps a little bit less obvious to most of us.

I’m obviously very appreciative to all of the nurses, doc- tors and care aides, but I’m extremely thankful that our search and rescue departments have not taken a break; that our volunteer fire departments continue to serve all of our communities every day; that police continue to keep our communities safe; that wildfire fighters are here in the Cariboo-Chilcotin right now and that they’re sandbag- ging, waiting for those inevitable wildfires; that vets and vet techs continue to watch over our pets and livestock; and that truck drivers, retail workers and grocers continue to provide for us.

I’m extremely thankful for all of them. With respect to Bill 5, I understand that it will create loans and funding for businesses, and I think we’ve heard that there is some support for that, but there are questions around it. These investments can be risky, and these will see taxpayers funding the start-up of these businesses. It focuses, of course, on tech and those start-ups, and it refers to post-pandemic recovery. [3:15 p.m.] It also appears that it would be taking half a billion dol- lars and investing in these private companies, which is concerning, a bit, to me.

It should be noted that so many of these businesses existing today have done their very best to not only supply us with some very essential goods and services, but they have also done that on limited income, with limited staff and, of course, around very strict public health orders. Those orders continually challenge these businesses to reinvent themselves and to recreate the ways that they conduct commerce. So many of these businesses have been unable to obtain funding today through current programs that have been offered — programs that have, in many ways, failed in the business community.

It is highly peculiar to me that we would be introducing post-pandemic funding, as clearly, we’re not through the pandemic. I referred to these businesses as providing essential ser- vices, and I’ d like to speak to that for just a moment. When I speak to the essential need for a resort to be open in the West Chilcotin, some may question this, but I must point out that for road crews or other work crews, where else would they stay? Where else would they dine? While the operators find themselves servicing crews like this — and I’m sure they’re all too happy to do so — it’s not without its own challenges.

Because of public health orders and because of travel bans, these businesses are struggling with less staff and working very, very hard to provide those ser- vices, but they do. Bill 5 will aim to help those businesses that are focused on tech and will focus on start-ups. Furthermore, it sug- gests that this will be post-pandemic funding, as I men- tioned before. For the $500 million committed to this pro- gram, it does nothing for businesses today. I would have hoped that the funding could have helped businesses that are struggling right now.

I’m sure that businesses, strug- gling to provide essential services for people that have to travel for medical needs to larger centres — where they and their families will need lodging, restaurants, fuel, per- haps supplies — need support now. Most of these businesses are struggling under either orders or lack of business. In other words, they’re strug- gling to keep the lights on while they serve us. It is, for sure, a trying situation for so many small businesses right now. They’re struggling now, and from what I can see, post-pandemic is still some time away.

I know that in my riding — in the early part of many of the most recent orders that were introduced for restaur- ants in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and, certainly, the rest of the province — if they were the lucky ones that had out- side dining facilities, they were, of course, covered in snow. The restaurants farther north than the Cariboo-Chilcot- in were, for sure, at odds, not only with orders but, cer- 1588 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

tainly, weather as well. Many of these businesses have been unable to secure funding and help from this government. As the government has introduced other funding mod- els in bills like Bill 5, we’ve seen some failures with respect to those rollouts. Certainly at this point, those failures would have to be acknowledged by this government. There have also been funding models that have simply vanished. We saw the animal care initiative in 2020. They’ve acknow- ledged that there were issues with guide-outfitters, rodeo stock contractors, zoos and even the Vancouver Aquari- um.

The need to help these businesses was identified in 2020, and I would certainly hope that that need is recog- nized here again. These costs have not gone away for the businesses, and they have not had business at all — nothing. I know a number of businesses that are caught in this situation with respect to animals, and I know that with action not hap- pening soon, some of these operations will have to make very serious decisions. [3:20 p.m.] Someone pointed out on my Facebook page the other day that businesses don’t want to have to apply for funding.

They don’t really want the government to have to come up with these creations like Bill 5. It was pointed out to me that all they really want is an opportunity to work, an opportunity to earn money and an opportunity to be in business. I would never suggest that we shouldn’t all do our part, and I’m sure that most businesses would agree that they, too, want to do their part to keep COVID-19 at bay. But it must be acknowledged…. If the government insists that these closures and travel bans are necessary, then we must figure out ways to effectively find funding and get that to the businesses today.

It is key that funds actually get to businesses, particularly when the funding has been approved and is literally sitting there doing nothing. We’ve watched how the B.C. recovery benefit has rolled out. This promise, made back in the election of 2020, was to be delivered to qualifying recipients by the Christmas of 2020. It’s May next week, and I still have constituents com- ing in to find out why they have not received their $500. Surely, the government must understand that this pro- gram has certainly been flawed.

There is hardly a day that goes by now that I don’t receive calls as to held-up funding, applications that have not been accepted, requests for massive amounts of information for the B.C. business recovery program. With respect to the businesses of this province, Bill 5, should it pass, will not help anyone until 2022. I have my doubts about this bill. Should it come into effect, I’m hopeful, at a minimum, it will have mechanisms that will protect the taxpayers who have provided the funding for this bill from their hard-earned money.

I hope that if it is passed, the criteria of getting these funds and loans does not become so cumbersome, also, that it costs tens of millions of dollars to administer the program. The previous funding models have struggled at the cost of business throughout the province. This process has truly been flawed from the beginning. I believe, at this point, that only about half the funds have actually been delivered by the B.C. business recovery pro- gram. I want to point out that these funds have been approved by everyone in this place months ago.

I would have hoped that rather than posting a pandemic funding announcement of Bill 5, we could have seen funding to help other sectors of hurting businesses and funding for some of our not-for-profits. There is a real need by many rodeo grounds, agricom- plexes, fair grounds, racetracks, sporting complexes, etc., that have a constant pressure of maintaining property. They’ve had no business. Giving good care to the Williams Lake Stampede Grounds for sure comes at a cost. Volun- teers, as always, are happy to do the work, but there is a real cost of buying materials.

Oftentimes a lot of these materials are donated by small businesses, but as you know, many of these businesses are struggling because of the lack of these events. It’s a vicious circle. Each of these events and businesses feed off each other, and many exist because of each other. It is very important that we see funding for some of these groups. Bill 5 could have had options for funding today, I think, to help some of these groups and businesses or, at the very least, make what we already have approved in this House function better and actually get to where it needs to be the most.

There has been no funding for groups like these, yet Bill 5 will take half a billion dollars in taxpayer money with very high-risk investments. We must be far more efficient with programs like this in the future. The last round of closures to indoor dining has been devastating to the restaurants. The travel bans have des- troyed what was hoped to be the start of the summer season for so many tourism operations. I’ve discussed, at length, these bans with many operators in the Cariboo- Chilcotin. It has been a devastating blow.

When introduced, it was suggested that the province leads Canada in supports for small business. I would sug- gest that we may lead in announcements, but I question whether we’re leading in deployed funds. The deployment is paramount at this time. These funds will have to get where they are destined to go. We must break down the walls and obstacles that have slowed the delivery of funds in the past. We must be as committed to delivering these funds as we are to announcing them. [3:25 p.m.] Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to tell you that a lot of months have passed between the last funding announcements and these ones.

Of course, these ones are announced for the future and not for right now, when they’re needed most. The times right now are, for certain, desperate for some. It’s not just that the times are uncertain, but orders have also been very uncertain. Thursday, April 29, 2021 British Columbia Debates 1589

While restaurants have struggled with outdoor dining orders…. As I’ve mentioned before, when these orders were first introduced, many decks that existed were co- vered in snow. But for many, they didn’t have a deck or outside dining possibilities. Not to mention the timing of the orders before Easter. It didn’t take long for many restaurants to call with their absolute shock at these latest orders. It wasn’t just that they were difficult to work around, with establishments com- ing up with creative ways to prepare different meals. The timing of the orders was awkward as well.

As you know, there was not much by way of warning, and many of these restaurants had already received speciality orders for the Easter long weekend. Many had hired extra staff for what was to be a good weekend financially. With respect to lodges, the confusion of announcing a travel ban with no clarity around the rules has been a complete disaster for their businesses. I’ve not talked to an operator in my riding that is clear on the rules or what they are to do with people that seem to be committed to break- ing or disregarding those rules.

It is safe to say that these operators have been put in a very awkward position. My point is that while Bill 5 is being announced as a post-pandemic recovery fund, it does nothing to help businesses that have been completely boxed in by the government’s regulations. Bill 5 is to help tech start-ups in this province, and I understand that. It’s also set up for a post-pandemic world. The problem is that there are no economic recovery plans unveiled in that world yet — no clear direction. Bill 5 is being announced at a time when many busi- nesses are teetering on the brink of closure.

The timing of the announcement and the bill is, quite frankly, to me, a bit strange, particularly in light of the situation, with so many small businesses that are suffering right now. In my role as rural critic…. Connectivity has become the number one priority in rural British Columbia. It was interesting to see that we will invest the taxpayers’ funds in these companies, some of them very risky, through Bill 5 funds. But wouldn’t it be nice if our government saw as much value in connecting our rural communities with such privileges as Internet and cell phones?

Bill 5 will commit $500 million to tech, but the com- mitment to connectivity over the next four years in this province is only $40 million. How can this government show its commitment to tech when so many people in this province can’t even connect to the Internet? They cannot connect to the World Wide Web. In closing, I really think this bill would have been better suited to helping businesses now. I think there would have been so many more things the funds could have done to help right now. A. Mercier:It is a pleasure to stand in this House and speak to Bill 5, the InBC Investment Corp. Act.

To the relief of many in this House, I think, my remarks will be rather brief today. I’ d like to begin by thanking my friend the Minister of Jobs, Economic Recovery and Innovation. He has not only managed to help support and throw a lifeline to small businesses that are having an incredibly hard time right now because of the pandemic. I’ve heard from businesses in my community and my constituency of Langley that have received the circuit breaker grant and that have applied for and received the launch online grant. To have had that come to them is a real lifeline to help them.

The minister has also done that while bringing forward an innovative bill that looks towards the future of British Columbia and the future of the B.C. economy. Now, we heard, amazingly, some remarks from the member from South Kamloops that he’s worried about the government meddling in Crown corporations.

Ima- gine that, coming from the former minister responsible for ICBC, from a government whose track record, over 16 years, was to view Crown corporations as a source of income for general revenue so they could extract value from ratepayers and use that to give tax breaks to their friends. [3:30 p.m.] What we’re seeing with this bill is a paradigm shift and a sea change in the way that Crown corporations are managed and in the way that the government inter- acts with the economy — and not one that is just value extraction for the wealthy and those who sit at the top, for the well connected. [N.

Letnick in the chair.] This isn’t about giving buildings that belong to Crown corporations to lobbyists. This is about ensuring that values and public purpose are at the heart of our invest- ments. And to assuage the concerns from our friend the member from Kamloops South, I’m going to read from the act. I find that many of his answers, he’ll find directly in the act itself. Going to

section 4, purposes of the corporation: “The purposes of the corporation are as follows: (

a) to make investments that achieve a financial return; (

b) to make investments that support the social, economic and envir- onmental policy objectives of the government. ” So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that a financial return is in here, but also: “ …to make investments that support the social, economic and environmental policy objectives of the government. ” What this is about is…. This isn’t about a quick return for venture capitalists. This is about crowding-in fund- ing…. It was very eloquently stated by my friend the mem- ber for Vancouver–False Creek about patient capital.

This is about crowding-in funding for firms that have trouble scaling up due to a lack of ability to attract capital, because they need a longer lead time for returns, and making sure that those that are having trouble getting off the ground, 1590 British Columbia Debates Thursday, April 29, 2021

and that serve a real social and economic purpose, have the support that they need. Y ou know, I ca

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20210429pm-Hansard-n63
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20210429pm Hansard n63
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f2662f9cd8e276ac2569a9ea918258aec2d75514

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).