Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act. In Douglas Fir Room, Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 5 — InBC INVESTMENT CORP. ACT

(continued)

M. Dykeman: Thank you, hon. Speaker, for the opportunity to continue. Although I’m continuing from yesterday and I can’t remember the exact sentence I was on, I will start where I believe I ended off.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

I was talking about the contradictions in listening to some of the members opposite speak in regards to the InBC bill, and the contradictions truly are glaring from the opposition. In one sentence, you’ll hear: “Oh, do not spend any money. Wait, you’re not spending enough money.” That’s complete tommy-rot. If obstinance is a measure of effective opposition, then I believe that the opposition is hitting it out of the park.

Bill 5 builds off targeted, important and needed supports we have provided through this pandemic. I’m not sure if the members opposite have been at the same session of government that I have, but in case the supports provided were missed, just a few of them include $800 million in ongoing supports.

It builds on: the targeted grants and services announced in StrongerBC; $150 million in support of increased employment incentive tax credit, which is ongoing; $35 million to help B.C. farmers with temporary foreign workers; $10 million over three years to expand the domestic market for B.C. products; $235 million in PST savings for businesses; and $195 million in funding to continue the small and medium-sized business recovery grant.

That’s just to name a few. I mean, we also have $70 million for the Canadian emergency commercial rent assistance program, $60 million in other targeted emergency financial relief and $31 million that allows liquor licences, such as for restaurants, bars and tourism operators to purchase beer, wine and spirits at reduced wholesale costs.

I just heard the other day from one of my constituents and friends, Wally Martin, and he has initiated many energy-efficient and organic practices at his bed and breakfast in Langley East, including installation of solar panels and reduction of electrical energy use by 80 percent. He is now an independent power producer and sells energy back to B.C. Hydro. I had the honour to tour his passive house recently, and he wrote to me to thank us for our support. He is the recipient of a one-time small and medium-sized business recovery grant.

He said: “We’re excited to complete relevant meaningful improvements to our tourism business and the historic hotel. This assistance is greatly needed and will position us to serve the community in many important ways. The assistance will not only help us but will support a number of local suppliers and contractors as we complete numerous improvements.” This is just one example.

[11:00 a.m.]

It’s prudent, and it’s good governance to be a forward-thinking government. For 16 years, many of us felt like we were experiencing whiplash. As once again…. A member of the opposition in this last sitting referred to the Hunger Games a number of times. I can tell you right now, coming from a school board background, hon. Speaker, that was like the Hunger Games.

Wow. I remember my son’s first day of school, being told he had to bring his own toilet paper, nine reams of paper, napkins — buy every supply known to mankind just to go to school. To quote the Hunger Games again: “Destroying things is much easier than making them.” That would describe those 16 years quite aptly.

Proper planning, forward thought and investment in support of businesses is good governance. Our government is working to make things, to build things, to have a prosperous, secure and equitable British Columbia. That’s something that our government understands and prioritizes.

We understand that we need to build a future. That you can’t…. And I cannot believe I’m responding to the opposition, explaining this. You can’t just keep taking. You can’t just keep spending. You have to actually build a future. That is what this government is committed to.

InBC will have a triple-bottom-line investment mandate aiming to establish B.C. as a globally competitive low-carbon jurisdiction; promote values that make life better for people in B.C., including job creation, advancing, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, promoting diversity and inclusion; and achieving a financial return on investment.

It’s not about just handing out cash to your buddies. It’s not about turning around and saying: “Well, we gave the people that we felt needed money, money.” No, we’re looking at a fulsome plan, one that says: “Okay. Well, let’s invest in this province, and let’s also support people that need help now.” That’s a balanced approach. That’s why I’m so excited about the InBC bill.

This is exciting for our province. We are known internationally as an innovative province that’s home to cutting-edge businesses, and this bill — this plan — will support businesses, attract them to this province.

In my riding alone, we have fantastic innovative businesses like CubicFarm Systems Corp., who provide unique, automated, on-site, commercial-scale food and livestock feed technologies, working to transform the agriculture system to enable local food and feed independence. Langley has many other innovative businesses — an agriculture sector, tourism, air transportation, food and beverage processing, manufacturing and several innovative home-based businesses.

Investments made by InBC will have, as I mentioned before, a triple-bottom-line mandate, and they will focus on producing a financial return while also making British Columbia a better place for people, communities and businesses to thrive. So it’s considering the people, the planet and the profits. That is a wise investment. That is forward-looking. That’s what a province needs, especially as we support this province to be the leader that it is, as it comes out of this pandemic.

InBC will take both public and private enterprise and pursue economic development through meaningful partnerships — entrepreneurs, businesses and communities. This fund with critical capital will be provided to B.C.-based companies so that they can grow and stay in this province. It’s about investing — keeping people here, keeping businesses here, providing good-paying jobs here, supporting companies here. This will create family-supporting jobs in all regions of this province.

Supporting start-ups and helping promising businesses scale up is a wise investment. Attracting world-class talent to our province will continue to invest back into our province, so this will stimulate innovation, family-supporting jobs, a resilient economy that works for everyone.

As I mentioned before, this province is known for its innovation, and that’s why even though this has been such a challenging time, our province has been persevering through it. These types of investments will allow our province to remain resilient no matter what we face in the future.

We’re looking, with the InBC bill, to provide meaningful partnerships. That’s how we build provinces. We look at what sorts of partnerships you can bring together, what sort of innovation will come out of that, and what sorts of entrepreneurs will look at that innovation and say: “This is a place that I want to invest in.”

[11:05 a.m.]

Although we heard from the opposition recently — members opposite were talking about how there wasn’t enough support — as I mentioned a minute or so ago, there has been tons of support. But this is about the next step. This is about planning. This is about looking to the future. That’s why it’s such a privilege to stand up and speak in favour of this bill.

Aligning our province with significant changes in the world, like environmental change, social change, technological change and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, is good for our province. The return on that will be stable, well-paying jobs — a prosperous future for our province.

With that, I can’t state my support enough for this bill, but I will take my seat and thank you for the opportunity to speak in favour of this wise investment for our province.

G. Kyllo: I am proud to rise today and take my place to speak on Bill 5, InBC Investment Corp. Act.

As all British Columbians will know, businesses have been struggling over the last 14 months on account of COVID. There are over 8,000 businesses that have already been lost, and an additional 25,000 businesses are currently at risk of closure, representing employment for upwards of 300,000 British Columbians.

This particular bill that’s before us today sets out spending plans of $500 million. The first tranche…. My understanding is the first $100 million will not be available for any businesses to actually make application for, for a full year.

Businesses are struggling now. This House, all members of this Legislature, unanimously approved a $5 billion additional increase in spending in March of last year so that government would have the resources to provide those necessary supports for businesses. The need was last year, throughout the entirety of 2020, and it continues today. This bill that is before us is far too little, far too late and definitely misses the mark.

The one program that government did put forward, their $345 million COVID restart program, sat for over five months while the Premier did his broad public consultation. Now, it’s interesting. When businesses are struggling and there is an opportunity for government to provide those supports, it takes five months of consultation with a broad swath of British Columbians, and we only saw the plan announced as part of the NDP’s snap election platform.

Just think about that for a second. All members of this Legislature unanimously approved a $5 billion spending plan — so government had the resources so that they could provide those necessary supports for businesses that are struggling — five months before they even announced the program. Then the Premier chose to put his political self-interest ahead of the health and well-being of British Columbians, and not a penny flowed from that fund for upwards of three months, on account of that unnecessary snap election.

When the government had an opportunity to provide supports for businesses, they failed miserably. Of that initial $345 million announcement, it’s my understanding that less than $200 million, as of today, has actually gone out the door. Businesses need support today. I certainly don’t disagree that there is a need for a longer-range plan, but where is the broad economic strategy for this government? It does not exist.

Now, I was very proud to serve as the parliamentary secretary to then Minister of Jobs and Skills Training with responsibility for the B.C. jobs plan. That jobs plan was initially adopted in 2011. It was a long-range strategic plan that set out eight different areas of the province that had a huge opportunity for significant growth, and it was extremely successful.

We know what happened in the 1990s. I know that was a long time ago, but after three terms of NDP government, B.C., for the first time in the history of our province, was a have-not province. We went from No. 1 in economic growth to No. 10. We had the highest unemployment rate in Canada. It took a lot of heavy work from 2001 through to 2017 to get B.C. on top.

[11:10 a.m.]

Yet what do we see? We see a government that fails to have any broad economic strategy. What has happened over the last five years is that we’ve seen a continual erosion of the competitiveness of British Columbia as a jurisdiction.

The member speaking before me spoke about the need for investment attraction. Well, I’ll tell you what. When companies are looking to invest in British Columbia…. We have great geography; we have a highly skilled workforce. But businesses — this is an extremely competitive marketplace. Our corporate tax rate in British Columbia today is a full 50 percent higher than our neighbouring province of Alberta. In Alberta, it is 8 percent. In B.C., it is 12 percent. It is important that B.C. remains competitive, and right now it is not.

We have an employer health tax that was brought in by this government, put an additional $1.9 billion of additional new tax burden onto the backs of B.C. businesses. If we look to neighbouring jurisdictions with which B.C. competes, like Alberta for example, they do not have an employer health tax. B.C. is saddled with some of the highest-cost tax pressure of any jurisdiction in Canada.

So when we look to this particular bill and the necessity it to support businesses now…. As I said, 8,000 businesses have already been lost. There are an additional 25,000 businesses that are at risk, representing employment for 300,000 British Columbians.

Their restart program: an absolute abysmal failure. This program will not be up and running and available for businesses to even make application to for a full year. So the question that I have is: where are the supports for businesses today? Actually, direct funding supports from British Columbia to help support businesses are one of the lowest in Canada, one of the absolute lowest in Canada. That’s offensive.

Now, there’s been lots of conversation and media coverage in recent weeks about a lack of transparency. We’ve seen a reluctance of this government to share very important health data. Only after a leaked report was actually shared with the media, now government is suddenly waking up to the need and necessity and finally agreeing to start sharing that data.

With respect to the additional $5 billion of costs that was applied to Site C, it’s been absolute crickets with re­spect to the actual information that led to coming up with that astronomical number. Vaughn Palmer, one of the most esteemed journalists in British Columbia, asked government on this particular bill: “If this truly is one of the most transparent and open governments in Canada, let’s have a look at the business plan.” Sorry. Won’t be disclosed. Excuse given: cabinet confidentiality.

It’s a business plan. Five hundred million of British Columbian taxpayer dollars are being set up for this particular fund, and the government will not share a business plan? They won’t even share with British Columbians or the media the different work that was undertaken in order to actually put this plan together.

Then we have to also have a look at the board appointments. Now, this is offensive. If there is going to be an independence of the management and the oversight of InBC…. There was no call. There was no open call for individuals that have significant expertise to actually make application to actually sit on the board, to help guide the direction of this huge, monumental $500 million in investment? No. It wasn’t even listed on the CABRO website. So who gets appointed? Who makes those decisions?

[11:15 a.m.]

These appointments are critical to the success of this program. It’s also critical to the independence. But what do we see? The majority of the nine-person board have strong ties to this government. British Columbians should be under no illusion that these board appointees…. They were identified and selected by this government. There was no open call.

They’ve identified the individuals that they feel, in their own opinion, would provide the best oversight for this organization. So nine of these members — Carole James, former Finance Minister, leader of the NDP; two deputy ministers; a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives economist; special adviser to the Jobs Minister Glen Lougheed.

You just have to think: how is it that British Columbians can trust this government, a government that actually has purposely withheld important health data from British Columbians, a government that is unwilling to share a copy of the business plan that actually led to the development of InBC? You’ve got a government that has hand-picked their own board appointees to actually have oversight and to manage the InBC fund.

We see a time when businesses are struggling, and the golden plan that comes forward from the fiscal managers of this province is a plan that doesn’t put a penny out the door to help any struggling businesses today, without the first dollar even available for application for a full year. That is offensive. There is no business plan. There’s no broad economic strategy. There has been no tax review. All we have seen from this government is additional tax burden layered onto the backs of already struggling small businesses. Businesses are at an absolute breaking point.

I was talking to a jeweller the other day. He was sharing with me that he and his wife have been working around the clock trying to make their lease payments, trying to keep their business open. Their employees are taking home bigger cheques than they are. They have utilized a significant portion of their savings in order to bolster up and to actually try and get through here, because they are optimistic business owners. They see the opportunity for a bright sky on the other side.

Where is the support for this government? There isn’t any. Despite the government sitting currently, this budget, $3.1 billion…. Now, that’s $3,100 million of COVID contingency. When providing the opportunity for paid vaccination leave for workers, interesting — Bill 3, less than three weeks of broad public consultation, and government is able to move forward, putting additional tax burden on the backs of B.C. businesses.

But when faced with the opportunity to actually provide supports for businesses, the Premier of this province, who put himself as the chair of the Economic Recovery Task Force, fuddled around for five months before British Columbians saw the slightest semblance of a plan. And then that plan was shelved, for the most part, in order to satisfy the political self-serving interests of this government.

With money not flowing, businesses need support now. I’m certainly fully supportive of a plan, a broad economic strategy, but it does not exist. This current government is very big on spending plans, but when it comes to the revenue side of the ledger, the opportunity to support family-supporting businesses, to support and attract new investment to our province, an absolute failure.

[11:20 a.m.]

I’m very concerned, as I think British Columbians are in an increasing amount — lack of transparency, lack of a plan, handpicked and selected board members. Just think about this for a second, when we have a look at what the NDP claimed to be their community benefit fiasco. The CBA scheme excludes 85 percent of construction workers from actually working on Highway 1 construction jobs in this province. The gross misuse of tax dollars is offensive.

I was proud to be part of the previous government. In 2015, I stood with the then-federal MP in Revelstoke to announce a 2.5-kilometre highway expansion project for four-laning at Illecillewaet, 46 kilometres east of Revelstoke. That project was initially budgeted at $35 million.

For a multitude of reasons, the project didn’t move forward. What did this government do? They rean­nounced the same project, not at $35 million but at $64.2 million. The same project. Oh, actually, Mr. Speaker, I should retract that. They actually reduced the project. It’s no longer 2.5 kilometres. They reduced the scope from 2.5 kilometres to 2.1 kilometres and nearly doubled the cost of the project.

Guess what happened when British Columbians were invited to have the opportunity to actually bid on this project. There was only five verified bidders. The bids…. The lowest bid was over $84 million. This is a $35 million program that was actually reduced in scope by 20 percent, yet the cost is over two times the magnitude as it was originally budgeted. The disrespect for taxpayers is absolutely a concern.

A significant portion of British Columbians work in the private sector, and they’re the ones that need support. They need support now. Government has the financial ability. Government has a significant COVID contingency fund but are hesitant to use it.

When I questioned Bill 3 in this Legislature — now, Bill 3 is the Employment Standards Amendment Act, which actually provides paid leave for workers to get vaccinated. I certainly appreciate the value of that, but government had the opportunity, through a tax credit or otherwise, to actually provide funding for those businesses. But what do we hear from this government? Nothing. Zero. No funding.

We have a government that seems incredibly at odds with the private sector. I don’t know why that is. Businesses are struggling now. They need the supports.

With that, I will take my seat, but I certainly have significant concerns on the timing, the lack of transparency and the actual outcomes of the InBC Investment Corporation Bill 5.

S. Furstenau: I’m delighted to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 5.

Our caucus has been calling for a strategic innovation fund for a long time, including through the entire minority government. We welcome the intention behind this bill. There are, indeed, exciting possibilities here, but at the moment that is all that they are. They are possibilities.

We do have a number of questions. I’ve heard these questions also raised by the members of the official opposition about some of the choices made in this legislation and in the structure of the fund, about the independence of the board, about how effective this fund will be at meeting its goals and about transparency and accountability.

We are supportive of the principle of a strategic innovation fund, which can support the growth of tech companies here in B.C. and strengthen and grow our tech sector, and create more quality jobs in British Columbia. It can also encourage innovation that aligns with our strategic goals and strategic advantages, especially around climate and life sciences.

Tech sector growth has been an issue in British Columbia. We have a significant problem where we lack the infrastructure to support tech companies to grow to scale and to anchor in British Columbia. It has been identified for quite a while that this has disadvantaged our province in terms of expanding in this industry.

[11:25 a.m.]

Too often we have promising start-ups, but they aren’t able to grow up here, so they end up being acquired by U.S. companies or move elsewhere, and we lose the talent, the business activity and the potential growth of a tech ecosystem in our province.

The B.C. Tech Association has said, in responding to the announcement of a strategic innovation fund: “This has huge potential to support the growth of B.C.’s tech start-ups with funding for the programs and supports necessary to scale.”

However, they also noted that there may be missed opportunities in the way that this fund has been designed and structured. I’ll dig into this more in committee stage. Generally, this government has come up short when it comes to outlining an ambitious direction for our economy and taking the steps to make it a reality.

This fund has the ability to support something of a shift in our economy — the growth of emerging technologies and innovative companies that align with our goals — but it doesn’t make up for a lack of vision and ambition. Government needs to be clear about what it is trying to achieve with a fund like this and set the mandate and scopes so that decisions are effective and support the growth of our economy in a positive direction.

The opportunity for this fund to support innovative technologies that help us tackle the central crises of our time, including the climate crisis, is important. It could help us to seize the economic opportunities that we have in British Columbia by developing technologies that address and provide solutions to the climate crisis.

For many years, we have shared concerns of experts and industry leaders about the opportunities B.C. is forgoing by not having investments targeted at growing this part of our economy, in comparison to other provinces — notably, Quebec and Ontario. B.C. has been way too pensive and has missed opportunities to leverage federal investment. We are very hopeful that this can start to signal a shift in how we approach this sector.

We have seen some concern about the picking of winners and losers through a fund like this, or that this amounts to corporate welfare. However, a well-designed and strategic innovation fund isn’t in the business of picking winners and losers. It’s in the business of investing strategically in our economy and supporting innovation that aligns with our goals and values and fixes gaps in the ecosystem that exist today that are barriers to growth.

We still don’t know how this is going to be executed in practice, and we have a lot of questions that will remain. The structure of InBC and how it will work in practice and how well it will fulfil the promise and potential will absolutely need to be dug into at committee stage. We need more priority around the investment criteria. Section 4 of this bill says that 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 environmental policy objectives of this government….”

There is some concern that we have around this. We absolutely support the idea of a triple-bottom-line approach, particularly regarding sustainability climate impacts. But we are concerned that this language is too vague, and we absolutely need to know more.

The NDP’s economic and environmental policy objectives currently include massive fossil fuel subsidies and betting on LNG. As we can see from graphs that have been released this week, B.C. is a significant outlier of western countries and democracies in terms of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. While the rest of the world has gotten on board and is reducing those emissions, ours are going in the wrong direction.

We are concerned that we would see hundreds of millions of dollars deployed to attempt to clean up inherently dirty fossil fuels. Or, as it should be, is this money actually going to go to innovative companies that can help tackle the climate crisis? It’s impossible to actually answer this question from the definition, and I think that we can all agree that “trust us” is not enough at this point. We need more clarity on the board’s mandate and scope of activities and the structure of how decisions will be made, including the independence of the board chair.

The bill lays out a structure that includes representation from within the public service and the private sector. However, it is a little surprising that InBC’s board has been appointed already. News came out late last week. But given that we are in the process of debating this legislation right now, it seems a little presumptive to appoint a board before the legislation has actually passed the House that enables the framework for that to happen.

[11:30 a.m.]

Even with a majority, I think it is important for a government to respect the processes and procedures of this House, and of course, we will want to properly understand the process that was used to appoint this board and the plan.

I’ll point to the comments made in the Vancouver Sun by Vaughn Palmer. He mentioned that the InBC Corp. will be governed by principles of “transparency and accountability,” as what the Minister of Jobs mentioned in his opening comments. But when he asked the minister for the business plan on which this high-risk venture was based, he was told it was a “confidential document for cabinet eyes only.”

As Mr. Palmer points out, this half billion dollars for this investment fund is public money, and so is the risk, but the business plan is the exclusive property of the minister and the cabinet colleagues. I think that what we need to see is a far greater level of transparency on this and many other issues related to this government.

Overall, we support the intent and the principle behind this bill. We need to have many questions answered, and we need to see much more detail on how this will be implemented. We will be pursuing these questions at committee stage.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party.

T. Shypitka: I’d like to take my place here in speaking to Bill 5, entitled the InBC Investment Corp. Act.

Off the top, I have some mixed feelings about this bill. Like with other bills I’ve seen over the past four years, the title and the second reading interpretations can be misleading. As they say, the devil is always in the details, and I think it is key that the people of B.C. can rely on my side of the House to make sure we uncover those details.

Let me start off by saying that as we look to the recovery of our province from the hardships that this pandemic has brought us, we need to utilize every aspect that our government, people and industry have to offer. There is a real opportunity in turning this health crisis into an opportunity for us in British Columbia to rise above the rest of the planet in manufacturing a made-in-B.C. plan that will stimulate growth, encourage and promote skills training and partner with Indigenous communities for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We have the smartest and brightest people on the globe right here, and we have the means to do it. We have four strong pillars of our economy that have never let us down: agriculture, forestry, fishing and, of course, in this month of May, mining. But we also have a fifth pillar that has spawned from these other four pillars, and that is our growing and booming technology sector.

Our tech sector is wide in scope, including interactive and digital media, information and communications and engineering services. This expanding sector also has a symbiotic relationship with our original four pillars of the economy in providing clean technology for mining, oil and gas extraction and life sciences for agriculture, fishing and forestry.

We have some of the best educational institutions anywhere in the world. I speak to institutions such UBC, BCIT, Simon Fraser, Capilano, Emily Carr, the Justice Institute, Kwantlen Polytechnic, Royal Roads, UNBC, UVic and my alma mater, the College of the Rockies — all told, dozens of private and public universities and colleges with fine and proven track records in graduating our newest bright minds.

Our land base in British Columbia is second to none and is one of the few places on earth that includes ocean, desert, fertile plains, rocky mountains, rainforests, freshwater lakes and streams and the most diverse species of fish and wildlife anywhere to be seen. B.C.’s unique geographical location to markets of the largest importers in the world, like the United States, China, Japan, Mexico, Hong Kong and South Korea, is a definite advantage to harness. We have the means indeed.

Government’s role and responsibility, in my opinion, is to harness these advantages and to create the conditions that allow growth for jobs and industry and to allow us to compete fairly with any jurisdiction on earth.

[11:35 a.m.]

The way that government creates these conditions is through legislation, regulation and policy. This is what all of us in this House are hired to do, in part. This is perhaps our biggest task we’ve been assigned with, and it is super important.

However, what Bill 5 represents is something a little beyond what my colleagues and myself envision as what government’s role is supposed to be. Using public money to invest in order to facilitate what government should be doing through other means, such as legislation, regulation and policy, is a dangerous proposition that has a good probability of failing.

Government has more than enough problems right now to get many of these projects off the ground. If the government is sincere about economic recovery and getting jobs back in place, we need immediate action. Bill 5, if brought forward, will allocate funds that will not be able to make investments until the spring of 2022, and even that will not have an immediate effect, as this is a three-year rollout. This will leave our economy in an idle position for at least another year. That is simply not acceptable.

Government cannot take their eye off the ball. The focus that is required to address the hardships that our B.C. businesses have endured for the past 14 months…. To ask for another year is just simply too long to wait. If government wants to do something immediately to get some good, high-paying jobs and benefits to Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities across the province, then I have a long laundry list of items they may want to jot down.

We can start, first, in our natural resource sector and improving our permitting and application times. We have seen notice of work and other forms of permitting go from 120 days to 300 days and more. We can do this by enforcing our permitting offices with proper resources and a system that truly understands mining and oil and gas extraction.

We can accomplish this by breaking down the silos between ministries so that only necessary referrals to other ministries come back to the permitting office in a timely fashion. Government can offer higher capacity to First Nations, in collaboration with industry across the pro­vince, so that the industry can rely on timely and well-informed consultations with our First Nations partners.

This bill represents investments to providing funding. Well, if it is funding that government is interested in, then I would suggest they can start with replacing the funding to organizations like Geoscience B.C., which had unanimous, all-party support and was recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance for this year’s budget, of $6.5 million.

Further to that, government can develop a long-term, sustainable funding mechanism to fund Geoscience B.C. at $5.5 million per year for fiscals 2022-23 and ’23-24 and beyond. This money will go a long way to identifying and mapping our natural resources so that others can come behind to explore, discover, develop and produce. It is critical that this important information continue as fluidly in order to provide consistent data.

Finally, we need to protect our critical metals and minerals here in Canada. Just last month the federal government developed the Canadian minerals and metals plan, which includes a list of 31 critical minerals and metals. This list is integral to contributing to Canada’s economic and national security, achieving Canada’s transition to low-carbon futures and requirements by Canada’s international allies such as the United States, the EU, the U.K., Australia, Japan and South Korea, which may need these minerals for economic and national security reasons themselves.

Many of these metals and minerals, such as copper, molybdenum, nickel and rare earth metals are here in B.C., not to mention the only aluminum smelter outside of Quebec, and we need to find more, as the government of Canada has suggested.

With such a strong mandate from the federal government, now is the time to coordinate efforts with Geo­science B.C. and approach the federal government together to leverage provincial funding of public geoscience. Just right there, we can boast a 100 percent return without much use of public money, while simultaneously providing expert mapping and data collection to the treasured metals and minerals we have in this province and in order to move to a low-carbon future.

There is nothing wrong with getting good companies off the ground, and access to capital is most definitely a barrier to business. But with this bill, it seems like government is pledging to turn a new leaf. We have seen for 14 months now the botched rollout of public money already. A previous speaker mentioned that part of the $5 billion the government asked for 14 months ago is still yet to get into businesses’ hands that desperately need it. Some will never get the chance, as those businesses have gone insolvent already.

[11:40 a.m.]

This government has proven time and time again that managing the public’s money is about as successful as juggling chainsaws. It always ends in a disaster. I have guide-outfitters and fishing guides in my region that have not seen a drop of business for the last two seasons. By the time InBC takes effect, they’ll be into their third season and not likely around anymore. They also fear they will fall through the cracks yet again.

Just in the mining sector alone, we have at least half a dozen projects that just need the last extra push to get into production. Artemis’s Blackwater, Osisko’s Cariboo Gold, Skeena’s Eskay Creek, the extension of Newcrest’s Red Chris, Ascot’s Premier — these five mining projects represent about 3,000 high-paying jobs and $2.2 billion in expenditure. This will cost nothing for us to get this over the goal line, and it will be a huge injection into our economy.

For the sixth project, it could be many others, like Seabridge’s KSM, Kutcho Copper, North Coal in the Kootenays or the silver, gold, copper Galore project. These are shovel-ready projects that are just sitting, waiting to just give that last extra push.

Also, there are 275 exploration projects that represent an additional 3,850 jobs and an additional $500 million spend — ironically, the same amount of money the government wants to take from the taxpayer and make them cough up for their investment scheme. Yet instead of political will, we have not seen this government bring online one new project to production yet. We haven’t seen a new mine from this government since they took power in 2017.

Another rationale for why government should stick to government and not take a shot at being investment brokers is that even if successful, the business environment needs to be competitive. If government can’t get a hold of fiscal policy and improving process and regulation, then all this experiment will do is set up more businesses to fail. I was a business person for over 30 years, and at the end of the day, a business person just wants to be left alone with the least amount of input from government.

Entrepreneurs have an inherent ability to dream, create and succeed and fly. All they need is government to clear the runway. Government has the ability, as long as it has the will, and I don’t believe this government has the will. We see that clearly in what the government has created for business. The NDP have introduced 23 new and increased taxes and made us an uncompetitive jurisdiction.

B.C. has the third-highest top marginal tax rate in Canada, which impacts the recruitment of tech jobs like software development engineers. Washington state, to the south of us, has no state income tax. According to talent.com, a software developer earns $27,000 less in B.C. than they do in Ontario.

B.C. has a higher corporate tax rate than Alberta and Ontario — 12 percent here, 8 percent in Alberta. We used to be less, actually, at one point. Now in Alberta, their tax rate is 50 percent lower than what B.C.’s is. B.C. also has the employer health tax, which is a tax on jobs. Alberta doesn’t, and Ontario and Quebec have both moved to reduce the HT burden on small business.

The member from Chilliwack boasts that the elimination of the MSP was the largest middle-class tax cut in B.C. history, which is just plainly false. The definition of a tax cut — for the member from Chilliwack and every other member on the NDP side that continues to drink the orange Kool-Aid that gets served up on that side of government — is this: a tax cut is a reduction in the rate of the tax charged by a government. The immediate effects of a tax cut are a decrease in the real income of the government and an increase in the real income of those whose tax rates have been lowered. Well, that is clearly not what happened with elimination of MSP.

First, there is no decrease in the real income of the government from this tax cut. If you remember, there was an increase, actually, because for the first year, there was a double dip from the government: half the MSP, and of course, there was a new EHT that was brought in. Only in NDP-land can a tax cut bring more revenue to government.

The second piece is that it did not decrease real in­come. The key word there is “real” income, because even though the MSP was gone, real income for the middle class is decreased because of how the EHT trickles down to everyday families.

[11:45 a.m.]

First, employers are mostly middle-class and the backbone of our economy, and they count. Second, municipalities, health authorities, police and fire services will have an increased cost, and that goes back in the way of higher fees and taxes. The B.C. Liberals were going to eliminate half, with no substitute tax, in the first year and the other half in the following year. This would not have brought any replacement tax. This would have been a tax cut.

Speaking of taxes, our carbon tax in B.C. is the highest in the country, with the additional caveat that there is no protection for those emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries. The U.S., Australia, Russia and the Middle East pay no price for carbon. Miners in Chile only pay carbon tax on their electricity generation, at $5 per tonne of CO₂. B.C.’s carbon tax is currently $45 per tonne.

There are currently 14 operating mines in B.C. and two smelters that sustain 35,000 jobs, provide $1 billion in tax revenue to government and account for 25 percent of B.C.’s exports. As the mines become exhausted, new ones may not get built, due to the high cost. New replacement mines will get built, and they will produce emissions. It just won’t be in B.C. The NDP government’s own Mining Task Force identified 25 areas of concern for mining in B.C., with carbon pricing and the absence of protection for EITEs, or, as I said, emission-intensive trade-exposed industries, being the top concern.

As the task force identified, the lack of protection for mines and other EITE industries, like pulp and paper or forestry, under B.C.’s carbon tax is the single greatest barrier to the competitiveness of B.C.’s mining industry. This comes from the government’s own Mining Jobs Task Force.

“Within the next 20 years, nine B.C. mines are expected to reach the end of their production and close, leaving only five operating mines in 2040. That means the jobs, community benefits and revenues for public services will disappear along with them. There is no guarantee B.C. mining will continue.” That came from a report. That’s an actual quote. This is something that InBC will not be able to tackle, and government needs to step up now to identify it.

Now, members on the other side will argue that this fund will propel low-emission technologies. We’ve heard that even from the Green speaker. But why are we reinventing the wheel when industry and our tech sector are already doing this? For example, water treatment facilities in my home in the Elk Valley have been in the works for years, in consultation with the Ktunaxa First Nation. Teck Coal is investing well over $1 billion in solving selenium issues that come from 100 years of waste rock from companies that have come and gone.

This technology is online right now, and in the coming months, it’ll treat over 50 million litres of water per day. This is good news not only for the Elk Valley but for the world. Mine sensoring and smart shovel technologies have been advanced to substantially reduce waste rock, which will, in turn, reduce water use and emissions for transporting the waste rock. Electrification of our natural resource sector has been ongoing for years. Less carbon intensity — it’s the objective, and it’s working.

The energy sector covers the entire value chain, from upstream production to downstream end use in conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas extraction and processing. This includes petrochemicals, renewable energy, bioenergy, innovative hydrocarbon use, carbon capture and storage. The list is endless.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We do it best in Canada, and B.C. has been leading the way for at least a decade. So you see, the private sector has a firm grip on this already. If allowed and encouraged, our free enterprise system always rises to the challenge. We all need to recognize this and give ourselves a pat on the back.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour talks about how we all need to put on our thinking caps to address the environment. Well, that is a major slap in the face to our tech sector, to all the industries that are leading the world in best environmental practices. If she were to have her way, she would shut all our industries, only to chase that demand to other countries that would make us all cry with their human rights and safety and environmental standards.

If we do not support these sectors right now and make them more globally competitive, we lose our share to countries that have abysmal records on controlling their emissions. This is referred to as carbon leakage. This government and members like the one for North Vancouver–Seymour are guilty in enabling this leakage to continually increase.

[11:50 a.m.]

Environmental, social and governance, or ESG, is a big part of reducing carbon emissions and part of corporate planning. The list goes on. The lack of detail and clarity with the structure of this corporation is also a big concern. The board structure is critical. We have heard the minister say they will have expertise. What expertise? No definition. Will there be conflicts? We’ve seen how government handled setting up an oversight assurance board with the Site C project. The board that was set up — that reported to B.C. Hydro — was chaired by the chair of B.C. Hydro himself. What is the compensation of the CEO and CIO? Are we talking $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year?

All this structure comes at a cost, as we’ve seen with a lot of our Crown corporations. What we are saying on this side of the floor is that we want to make sure we promote B.C.’s emerging industries while getting the best return for taxpayer dollars.

Will the government policy criteria have a profitability requirement? If not, that would be an issue for me. As we’ve said before, picking winners and losers with taxpayers’ dollars is a risky game.

The independence of InBC is also questionable. A couple of weeks ago when I first jotted down my notes for this debate speech, I noticed that there was no posting for InBC on the CARO government website. Maybe government can correct me on this, because who gets appointed could very well impact the independence of investments. The independence is arguable when you have a government minister that appoints the chair and the members, who ultimately select the CEO and CIO.

Just over the past week, we have found out some more details on how independent this new board of directors will be from government and that there are no direct ties. But of course, we now see what I feared two weeks ago. The majority of the nine-person board have strong ties to the NDP.

So it’s a nine-person board. Carole James, former Finance Minister and leader of the NDP is on that board. Two government deputy ministers, who will absolutely do what government tells them to do. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives economist. Special adviser to the Jobs Minister. That is five out of nine, just over 50 percent. Go figure. It makes it handy, come voting time. How can the NDP seriously expect British Columbians to believe that this board is independent of government or that investment decisions will be shielded from NDP influence?

As the Green leader said…. Sorry. Noting the hour?

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

T. Shypitka: Noting the hour, I take my place and ad­journ the debate.

T. Shypitka moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. S. Robinson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.