Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Wednesday, November 2, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 246

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 39 — Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act,

Hon. L. Beare

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Apprenticeship

A. Mercier

UNBC recognition of Indigenous leaders

S. Bond

Kartar Singh Sandhu

J. Sims

Murray Church

J. Tegart

Interdependence

R. Russell

Dave McAnerney

R. Merrifield

Oral Questions

Response programs for mental health and addiction issues and role of police

S. Bond

Hon. S. Malcolmson

T. Stone

Review of Mental Health Act

A. Olsen

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Mandatory treatment for mental illness and addiction

E. Ross

Hon. S. Malcolmson

Service model change for children with support needs and funding for autism services

T. Halford

Hon. M. Dean

K. Kirkpatrick

Petitions

B. Anderson

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 42 — Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

T. Halford

L. Doerkson

R. Russell

B. Banman

D. Ashton

E. Ross

J. Sturdy

M. Bernier

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 36 — Health Professions and Occupations Act (continued)

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

M. Lee

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2022

The House met at 1:31 p.m.

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly: Hon. Members, pur­suant to Standing Order 12, the House is advised

of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker. Consequently, the Deputy Speaker will

take the chair.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: K. Kirkpatrick.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Conroy: Today is actually Take Our Kids to Work Day. I don’t have any kids

here, no, but in the gallery is Kylan Wright. He’s a grade 9 student from

Oak Bay High School, and he’s here with his stepdad, Mike Hykaway, who is

the assistant deputy minister for the North, in my ministry.

[1:35 p.m.]

They came to my office earlier so that we could meet. He told me that

in grade 5, he had written a report on his MP, who is now his MLA, the

member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head. Kylan is a very well spoken young man. We

might even see him in the chamber some day.

Please join me in welcoming Mike and Kylan to the chamber.

T. Stone: I rise today to introduce two bright young students who are joining us

in the gallery today. They’re actually here today shadowing Justine Hunter

of the Globe and Mail . They’re learning the ins and outs of the

press gallery, the vital role of democracy and the public discourse that

journalists are a huge part of here in the Legislature.

Rachael Collins is a student at Fraser Academy. She’s an artist. She

says that she’s here to learn how to better argue with her dad. As a father

of three daughters myself, I can assure Rachael and this House that she

needs no lessons from anyone in this chamber.

Alice Deyell is a student at West Point Grey Academy. She is a student

journalist and one day hopes to have the opportunity to become an

astronaut.

I’d ask that the House please make these two young and up-and-coming

students feel very, very welcome here in the chamber.

Hon. S. Robinson: I have a very special guest joining us today who’s in the gallery, a

young man whose name is Matt Djonlic. He is now Councillor-elect

Djonlic.

I met Matt about ten years ago, when he volunteered on Chris Wilson’s

2013 election campaign. At the time, he was an energetic 20-year-old, eager

to learn, eager to work, eager to engage and eager to lead. While Chris

wasn’t successful in that election, despite all of Matt’s hard efforts, his

efforts did pay off a couple of years later when he helped get Jodie Wickens

elected to this place, and Matt became Jodie’s constituency

assistant.

Soon after that, in 2017, Matt became my executive assistant when I

was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Matt absorbed everything,

everything about local government, everything about housing. He has followed

me to the Ministry of Finance. He again continues to absorb everything,

still eager to learn, eager to work, eager to engage and eager to lead. I

could not be prouder if he were my own son.

Matt has continued to deliver for all of our constituents. I know that

he’s reached out and spoken with everybody’s office here in this chamber. I

am excited to see such a young person of Métis heritage bring age diversity

as well as Métis diversity to Coquitlam council. We know that with

diversity, you get better representation and you get better

governance.

Would the House please acknowledge and thank Matt for all of his work

on all of our behalf, the people of British Columbia, and wish him all the

very best as he moves forward and becomes a politician himself for the city

of Coquitlam.

P. Milobar: I rise today to recognize…. On the floor behind us today, we have my

predecessor from Kamloops–​North Thompson, Terry Lake, who is

obviously no stranger to question period.

We’re trying to encourage him. He does not have to main­tain the

long, proud history of Kamloops–North Thompson of Kevin Krueger before him,

and now myself, of heckling. I’ve got it well in hand. Terry can sit very

quietly today and observe the proceedings.

Will the House please welcome Terry back to the chamber.

N. Sharma: In the House today are several representatives from the B.C. council

for the Canadian Society of Association Executives. Their membership

includes many executives and senior leaders of the province’s associations

and not-for-profit organizations.

Would the House please join me in making

them feel welcome.

B. D’Eith: I always get jealous. So many other folks get to introduce people in

the House. It’s really awesome when I get a chance to introduce

constituents. I have two constituents here, Gwen and Chris Schmidt. We had a

wonderful tour and lunch together. It was great.

[1:40 p.m.]

Chris works in the agriculture industry in farming equipment. Gwen is

very busy in our community. She is the executive director of Community

Futures North Fraser. Right now Community Futures is all meeting at Royal

Roads, so there are a lot of folks here with Community Futures. She’s on a

lot of boards — Mission Skating Club. She’s on Mission Regional Chamber of

Commerce. She’s on the Mission Downtown BIA and chair of the

Harrison-Agassiz Chamber and also in Rotary. She does so much in our

community.

I would like you all please to make them both feel very

welcome.

T. Halford: I will pick up where my colleagues left and talk about the grade 9 job

shadow day. Today I am extremely proud that I have my son Benjamin here,

watching the proceedings of the House. Ben has made the long trek over here

from White Rock to job shadow his dad for the day, and he got a free lunch

out of it. I think I spent my entire per diem on wings last night. So it

was….

I know the sacrifices that every member of this House and their

families make, individually. Ben is included in that, because…. You know,

every time that I see him is awesome, but to have him over in Victoria with

me here today, it’s one of the best.

I want the House to please make Ben welcome.

M. Elmore: I’m very pleased to welcome Rey Fortaleza, the publisher for

Philippine Asian News Today , published in British Columbia.

November 2 is the International Day to End Impunity For Crimes Against

Journalists and encouraging all countries to adopt the UN convention to

ensure the safety and independence of journalists and other media

professionals, who continue to be attacked beaten, detained, harassed, face

cyber attacks and thr­eatened for doing their job and the need for all

governments to uphold a free and independent media.

I ask everyone to please make Rey very welcome as we mark and

celebrate November 2, International Day to End Impunity For Crimes Against

Journalists.

Hon. B. Ma: Thank you so much, hon. Speaker — so nice to see you up there in the

chair.

I have the pleasure of being able to introduce two very important

people to the people of North Vancouver–​Lonsdale. I have Joshua

Saville and Shawn Vulliez joining me from the constituency of North

Vancouver–​Lonsdale. They serve as constituency assistants, working

very, very hard to hold down the fort and make sure that our community

members are well served, especially when I’m here in Victoria.

They’re here for a couple of days to get a better understanding of

what we do here in the Legislature. As all members of the House know, we

rely so much — so much — on our constituency assistants. They are our eyes,

our ears, our correspondence masters, our caseworkers. They keep us healthy

and fed, in some cases.

I’m so grateful to have them here in the House with us. Would the

House please join me in welcoming them to the chamber.

Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Continue.

Hon. B. Ma: If I may, I’d also like to acknowledge my administrative assistant,

who is here in the Legislature with us. It is her last week. Her name is

Sonja Leeuw, and she has been an absolute rock for me here in Victoria. She

has definitely done her

part in keeping me healthy and fed and getting me to

where I need to go. She has been just such a pleasure to work

with.

I’m very, very grateful to her service, and I hope the House will join

me in thanking her for her service as well.

Hon. N. Simons: I’d like to ask the House to help me welcome a constituent from Powell

River, Leni Goggins, who works with Inclusion Powell River and her actual

title is director of social economy and other cool stuff. In fact, one of

the cool projects she’s working on now is the new inclusive economy, which

aims to increase the employment of persons with disabilities and help remove

barriers for employers and employees to ensure that people have the ability

to succeed in all aspects of their life.

Welcome, Leni.

[1:45 p.m.]

G. Kyllo: I’m very proud to be joined in the House today by some very dear

friends, John Guilbeault and his beautiful and very talented wife, Darlene.

They’re from my hometown of Sicamous. They’re here on the Island visiting

family and grandkids. We know how important grandkids are in all of our

lives.

During the course of our conversation today, John shared with me that

he actually served in Ottawa, at Hansard.

John, sorry for the date and for

setting this out there, but it was in the 1970s.

Anyhow, would the House

please make my dear friends John and Darlene very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 39 — JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. L. Beare presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Judicial Review Procedure Amendment

Act, 2022.

Hon. L. Beare: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce the Judicial Review Procedure Amendment

Act, 2022. Our government is firmly committed to lasting and meaningful

reconciliation with Indigenous peoples. The unanimous passage of the

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in 2019 was a

significant step forward in this journey.

This bill is part of government’s implementation of the

Declaration Act, which created the means for Indigenous peoples to fully

participate in decisions that affect them through decision-making

agreements with government.

This bill will ensure clarity with respect to the judicial reviews

of decisions made under the Declaration Act agreements. When a decision

of an Indigenous governing body is judicially reviewed by the court, the

process of the Judicial Review Procedure Act will apply in the same way

as they apply to decisions made by government. These changes will ensure

administrative fairness and shared accountability for such

decisions.

The Ministry of Attorney General worked closely in collaboration

with the First Nations Leadership Council, the Alliance of B.C. Modern

Treaty Nations and several

section 35 rights holders such as the

shíshálh Nation to develop these amendments. The legislation is a step

forward to the cross-government priority of reconciliation.

Deputy Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Beare: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 39, Judicial Review Procedure Amendment Act, 2022 introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

APPRENTICESHIP

A. Mercier: November is Apprenticeship Recognition Month, and it is a time to

celebrate this province’s 37,000 registered apprentices, including over

8,000 participants in Industry Training Authority youth

programs.

There has never been a better time to get an apprenticeship to

join the skilled trades than right now. We have 85,000 job openings

happening in the skilled trades over the next nine years. And as much as

that is a difficulty for employers, it is a world of opportunity for

young people.

I’ve been trying to do my

part in Langley through a series of

youth skilled trades scholarships. Every year I give out three $400

scholarships to kids in the Langley school district, and this year I

awarded them to Matthew Crane, Ryan Vickers and Emily Sousa from

Brookswood and Langley Secondary School respectively, who are enrolled

in the Youth Train in Trades program, auto service techs and hairstyling

— two areas where I obviously need a lot of help and assistance. They’re

going to go off to great flourishing careers in the trades.

Just the other night, I had the opportunity to go to VCC’s

culinary apprentice of the year hosted by VCC and B.C. Chefs Table, and

that’s another trade where there is a ton of opportunity. We are going

to need 18,500 people in the culinary skilled trades in the next nine

years.

[1:50 p.m.]

It was so great to see the top three participants were all women,

including Danae DeJong, a Walnut Grove Secondary grad who graduated in

2020 from a Youth Train In Trades program, and who now works at Pier

There is so much opportunity. Being there the other night, the day

after eight Michelin stars were voted to Vancouver, it was easy to see

where the next Michelin stars are going to come from.

If you have a young person in your life, this is the time to

encourage them into apprenticeship.

UNBC RECOGNITION OF

INDIGENOUS

LEADERS

S. Bond: I rise today to recognize three outstanding Indigenous leaders,

who recently received honorary degrees from the University of Northern

British Columbia.

The first is Carrier-Sekani Family Services’ chief executive

officer Warner Adam of the Lake Babine Nation. He has been a tireless

advocate for Indigenous children and families, collaborating with UNBC

researchers to examine health disparities between Indigenous and

non-Indigenous people, as well as reshaping the politics of health care.

He is the founding president of the B. C. Aboriginal Child Care Society,

has served two terms as the deputy chair of the First Nations Health

Council and has served on many other boards and committees.

The second honoree, Natan Obed, is president of the national

organization working to protect and advance the rights and interests of

Inuit in Canada. Obed has worked to address issues including suicide

prevention, climate change and has been a strong advocate for social

equity for the Inuit.

The final honoree is artist and carver Rob Sebastian of Gitxsan

and Wet’suwet’en ancestry. This acclaimed artist has a long-standing

connection to UNBC. As you explore our beautiful campus, you will find

many of his incredible pieces. Sebastian carved, and to this day still

carefully maintains, the university’s talking stick and ceremonial

chairs. The carved and painted senate doors are also his work, not to

mention the carved raven in the Robert Frederick Gallery, among other

works.

In addition to bestowing these honorary degrees, this very special

day featured the formal installation of UNBC chancellor Lheidli T’enneh

Elder Darlene McIntosh, and president and vice-chancellor Dr. Geoffrey

Payne.

I want to congratulate the honorary degree recipients, and I very

much look forward to working with the chancellor and president of

UNBC.

KARTAR SINGH SANDHU

J. Sims: Imagine being 90 years old and having your first book

published.

Mr. Kartar Singh Sandhu was born in the village of Rode, in

Punjab, on June 30, 1932. Born under British rule, Mr. Sandhu is a

trail-blazer. He completed his education in 1948, the same year India

gained its independence. From there, he became a teacher and served for

35 years.

In 1999, Mr. Sandhu emigrated to Canada. As much as he loved his

new home, like many others, he struggled with the many changes his new

life offered. He started to connect more deeply with his passion for

poetry and the Punjabi language. Over time, he wrote what he felt and

what he experienced in those first years as a stranger in a new land. He

wrote of harrowing homesickness, of the shift from a slower-paced,

comfortable lifestyle to a fast-paced, more chaotic way of

living.

From his writings, Eka Dua was born. Eka Dua is

a publication of these stories, written in simple prose for the reader

to understand and to relate to. Mr. Sandhu hopes that his poems resonate

with people and that they feel their stories reflected in his writings.

Eka Dua shares the importance of roots, ancestry and

culture in a new world. It represents stories shared by many that should

be passed along.

I have known Mr. Sandhu and his family for a great number of

years. They are a very progressive family, but Mr. Sandhu demonstrates,

once again, that a teacher is always a teacher. He shows us that we are

never too old to stop learning and never too old to stop chasing our

dreams.

Congratulations on publishing your first book, Eka Dua . I

look forward to reading the next one.

[1:55 p.m.]

MURRAY CHURCH

J. Tegart: On December 8, 2020, I stood in this House and shared the story of

the historic Murray Church. The church had been burned to the ground in

2019 by an arson, and the people of Merritt were fundraising in order to

rebuild. The fundraising was in the home stretch, needing just $30,000

more to reach their goal.

Well, I’m so pleased to share with the members of this House that

I attended the dedication of the new Murray Church on October 1,

Murray Church was first constructed in 1876 and has served the

Nicola Valley for 142 years. It was the oldest church in the Nicola

Valley. With determination, fundraising support from the citizens of

Merritt and communities across the province, reconstruction became a

reality.

Two people were specially recognized in the dedication

celebration, local residents David Laird and Richie Gage. It was their

expertise and determination that ensured that the reconstruction was

completed in a timely way and within the budget. The interior pews, the

organ and the baptismal font were all donated.

While touring the small white church, I heard many stories of

family memories of Christmas Eve at the old church. The thing that was

remembered most was that there was no heat in the old church, which

meant you bundled up, brought blankets and sleeping bags, just to stay

warm during the service.

Big smiles that the new church has heat. But what is also evident

is that it has heart.

INTERDEPENDENCE

R. Russell: I rise today to speak about the lessons that we should learn from

microbes.

We think of ourselves as independent and autonomous players in

this world. Indeed, it’s a fundamental premise of much of our current

economic and political thought. But microbes help show us that’s

wrong.

If I picked a cell arbitrarily from any one of us, there’s a

better chance that it’s not human than it is us. We each carry orders of

magnitude more genetic material from non-us than we do from us: 20,000

genes, give or take, for us and probably two million to 20 million for

non-us. Our microbiome influences our nutrition, our defence systems and

our cognition. In other words, it defines who we are.

Globally our subscription to the tenets of free enterprise,

independence, autonomy, competition have resulted not only in damning

social and environmental costs but also in remarkable financial system

fragility. The costs of inaction on climate change are an easy and

salient example, given the past few years of natural disasters

here.

Last weekend, I had the privilege to sit with scientists, public

service policy wonks and community leaders, both from the U.S. and

Canada, both Indigenous and not, at the Osoyoos Lake Water Science

Forum. It refreshed for me the Syilx Nation water declaration, and

specifically the notion that “Syilx people assert that

siwɬkʷ ,” water, “has

the right to be recognized as a familial entity, a relation.” The

primacy of relationship is enshrined in Syilx natural law.

Relationships with others in the world around us make us who we

are. Political decision-making that doesn’t take this into account

produces fragile communities, economically and socially.

Co-developing legislation with Indigenous peoples or mandating

GBA+ for environmental assessments are examples of how forward-thinking

government can change the nature of our decisions in this place to

recognize the reality of our interconnected world and produce social,

economic and environmental outcomes, robust and beneficial for

generations to come.

Ruthless independence is not our nature. Investing in the

relationships that support us all is and makes us all stronger

together.

DAVE M c ANERNEY

R. Merrifield: The development and business industries of Kelowna lost one of the

great ones this last month. Dave McAnerney passed away unexpectedly on

Wednesday, October 12, 2022, at the age of 59. His impact and

significance are found in his achievements as well as the bonds he

formed with all he knew.

His fascination with accomplishment was a fundamental aspect to

Dave, and this quality underpinned his approach to people. He loved to

hear about the interests of others and sought to broaden his perspective

by learning from them. He really was one of a kind and had this amazing

sense of humor and a welcoming smile that was absolutely endearing. But

his business acumen was unmatched.

[2:00 p.m.]

Having graduated from the University of Waterloo in 1987, Dave

started his business career with Labatt, where he spent 18 years. He met

his wife, Anne, the love of his life, during his time in Vancouver. He

knew she was the one when he discovered she could keep up with him on

the slopes of Whistler.

Marriage followed, and the births of their two daughters, Michelle

and Renee, created their amazing family. Dave could not go a

conversation with me without reminding me that I shared a namesake with

his daughter. Dave and his family moved to Kelowna and joined SunRype in

2005 as vice-president of operations and then CEO, and then joined the

Stober group in 2019 as CEO.

The happiest times of Dave’s life were spent adventuring outdoors

in the company of his family and friends or gathering around a dining

room table, sharing a great meal and stories. Dave was truly a pillar in

the business community and a monumental supporter of charities in

Kelowna. Dave took full advantage of what Kelowna had to offer. He loved

skiing, biking and hiking with his family and close friends. Hopefully,

we can all find solace in knowing he passed while doing one of his

favourite outdoor activities.

He was greatly loved and will be greatly missed by all, forever in

our hearts.

Oral Questions

RESPONSE PROGRAMS FOR

MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

ISSUES

AND ROLE OF POLICE

S. Bond: Integrated police–mental health car programs, which pair a police

officer with a mental health nurse, are a proven approach to violent

crisis incidents. But right across the province, in community after

community, urgent requests for the introduction or expansion of those

car programs are stonewalled. Whether it’s Prince George, Kelowna,

Kamloops, Penticton, Burnaby or Coquitlam — all denied.

Yesterday the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions couldn’t

provide a single reason why communities were being told no. In fact, she

tried to deny that her government had actually rejected these

programs.

In the wake of the death of Burnaby RCMP constable Shaelyn Yang,

both the police and the mayor of Burnaby are speaking out. Here’s what

the mayor had to say. Mayor Mike Hurley said: “It’s something that we

must get. I’m past the stage of being nice about it.”

When will the minister finally do the right thing: stop blocking

these desperately needed programs and ensure that these communities get

the programs or the expanded programs that they need?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: When people are in crisis because of mental health and substance

use challenges, we want them to be met with care and safety, and we want

our communities to be safe as well. Our first responder system does rely

on police as the primary respondent. That’s what 911 sends.

Because that is both overburdening police and sometimes not

leading to the best outcomes for people in crisis, our government has

added in a number of ways, whether it’s through ACT programs, whether

it’s through FACT, whether it is through car programs or whether it is

the most recent iteration, peer-assisted care teams, the number one call

in the LePard-Butler report.

We continue to work with municipalities — with every health

authority. We have not closed the door on any options, and we’ll

continue to look for ways to support police in their vital front-line

work and to keep our communities safe in these moments of mental health

and substance use crisis.

S. Bond: The minister knows full well that recent reports that she has

received have told the government that these programs actually work. She

also knows that communities right across the province want these car

programs available to respond when there is a risk of

violence.

For years now, the city of Prince George has been trying to expand

this program and has been told no. Penticton council directly begged the

minister at UBCM for immediate urgent action, and she

refused.

[2:05 p.m.]

Last year Coquitlam mayor Richard Stewart publicly expressed his

frustration that this government denied a car program in Coquitlam.

Following the tragic slaying of Const. Shaelyn Yang, he has joined the

mayor of Burnaby in calling once again for urgent action. Mayor Stewart

said: “At some point, we’re going to see another tragedy that is

directly attributable to the fact that this kind of process

occurs.”

When will the minister listen to the advice of experts, the very

reports that this government has commissioned? Will she get out of the

way, stop blocking these programs, respond to communities and make sure

that there are mental health car programs across the province of British

Columbia?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Our government agrees that when police are called into a crisis,

they need every support available to them. That is why we have stood up

in so many ways, in so many communities. In some cases, they are car

programs; in some cases, they are ACT programs, with a police liaison.

What we are….

I will say, again, to the member that I don’t think the member was

in the room at the Union of B.C. Municipalities when I talked to

repeated councils about this, including the mayor of Penticton. When I

talked with them about the multitude of ways that can keep police away

from those calls completely, many of them were encouraged. Again, our

government works across a whole continuum of supports. No options have

been closed in relation to car programs where there is a specific

ride-along nurse with a police officer.

Interjection.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I’m not saying no; I’m saying we are open to all ideas.

I will remind the member again that the number one recommendation

of the LePard-Butler report for these kinds of crisis calls was that

there be non-police interventions. That’s why we have funded the North

Shore Peer Assisted Care Team, which in its first year of operation was

contacted 448 times, dispatched 75 times. Only in six instances did they

need to call police in.

I’m talking to police officers and municipal leaders in many

communities, and they say that this, in addition to the other supports

we’re giving police and people in crisis, is something they want to

continue to expand and explore.

T. Stone: Well, the minister keeps saying that she and her government have

left all the options on the table. It sure doesn’t feel that way to

municipalities that have car programs that were established before this

government took power and that have been urging the government to expand

these programs.

The government has not allowed that to happen. It sure doesn’t

feel that all the options are on the table for those communities, like

Coquitlam, Burnaby and others, that have asked for car programs and this

government hasn’t allowed them to be funded.

The minister says she hasn’t said no. Well, she hasn’t said yes

either.

The fact of the matter is that car programs respond when there is

a risk of violence, and they can’t be substituted for by peer teams. The

minister is treating this like an either-or situation, when it’s not. We

need both police and peer programs, and we need a lot more of both of

them. Car programs have not only been called for, for 5½ years by the

official opposition; they’ve been called for by mayors and called for by

police. It was a top recommendation in the recent LePard

report.

It was recommendation No. 4 of the all-party committee on

reforming the Police Act. The fact of the matter is that the committee

looking at reforming the Police Act heard loud and clear how having both

medical records and police files allows for a bigger picture, a more

complete picture of a mental health crisis, so that the nurse and the

police officer can make the most informed decision. Recommendation 4 of

the all-party committee said co-response models such as car

programs.

The question, again…. What the minister is doing is not working.

Why is the minister leaving communities across the province without car

programs at all or an expansion of these critical car programs, which

have been proven to work so effectively where they do exist across

British Columbia?

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: It’s because our government recognizes that police on the front

line and people who are in mental health and substance use crisis need

supports tailored to meet their needs, and because the health

authorities are our vital regional delivery partner. One year ago my

ministry funded Vancouver Coastal Health to expand staffing for the Car

87/88 program to better respond to increased call volumes, triage

referrals and complete assessments.

I also, through my ministry, provided Vancouver Coastal Health

temporary funding to create an urgent mobile response service in the

North Shore, Car 22, which is a partnership between VCH and the RCMP,

the integrated First Nations Unit of the RCMP and West Vancouver Police.

That’s an example of something that, when sought by the health

authority, my ministry funded.

We are open to more of these models. We need to tackle these

problems with a diversity of approaches.

T. Stone: When it comes to just how important these interventions really are

for all involved, it’s all about the results. Where car programs are in

place, the results are very, very good.

We hear in some responses from the minister that the health

authorities do their own thing. We hear in other responses that she

actually has inserted herself and directed a health authority over here

to do something but won’t provide the same direction over

here.

The fact of the matter is if the minister and the government

wanted to make this a priority, she would direct all of the health

authorities to properly fund the requests of every municipality that

asks for either a new car program or an expansion of an existing car

program.

Last year she was directly asked to intercede with health

authorities to provide communities the much-needed, much-asked-for car

program services. You know what her response was? The minister’s

response was this: “I do not get into the small operational

details.”

I think British Columbians would agree that it’s time for this

minister to stop passing the buck and to recognize that when a program

is proven to work in communities across British Columbia and when

British Columbians are in crisis, she needs to get directly involved and

do her job.

The question is this. Right now this minister could stand up, as I

said, and she could tell health authorities that these car programs are

a priority of this government. They must be funded in the communities

that asked for them, and they’re desperately needed services. Will the

minister do that today?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: As I’ve said repeatedly, we have all options on the table. We need

a diversity of responses. As I noted in my previous answer, when

Vancouver Coastal Health approached my ministry and said that they

wanted to have expansion of the car program funded because Vancouver

Coastal Health thought that they had the health resources and the staff

in place to expand that car program, that is what I did. We supported

that. That was just one year ago. That’s a recent example.

The peer-assisted care teams that were the number one

recommendation in LePard-Butler — this year’s budget invested $1.26

million to create new teams in New West and in Victoria to add to the

North Shore program. They are mobile teams that de-escalate situations

involving mental health crisis, and they connect people to community

services and supports.

These are people who are in distress, with thoughts of self-harm

or suicide, families experiencing challenges, substance use, loss of

reality, feelings of hopelessness and despair, social isolation and

loneliness, fear and anxiety and other mental health

challenges.

They also help people living with mental illness and substance use

and their families keep connection to their communities and to health

services. They are typically a combination of trained peers and mental

health professionals, social workers and psychiatric nurses to provide

trauma-informed, culturally safe support.

That’s an example in three communities with three municipalities.

And we’re determined to do more.

REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH ACT

A. Olsen: Yesterday the Legislature’s own committee on drug toxicity

recommended a full review of the Mental Health Act. They call it

outdated. We’ve heard this before. The committee that I sat on, the

committee reviewing the Police Act, also called for a full review of the

Mental Health Act.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s clear that we need to change the mental health services in

this province. But instead of looking at the system as a whole, what

we’ve seen this government and this minister do is invest in a system

that’s clearly broken. It’s a band-aid solution. It’s not working. And

the Legislature has heard that time and again.

In fact, members of this House have come together twice now and

implored the government to change and to review the Mental Health

Act.

When can the public expect a full review of the Mental Health

Act?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The system of care that we are working hard to build is what I

hear families and people on the front line call for. They say it’s

decades overdue. And while we are fighting two public health

emergencies, we are working with health authorities and with partners

from every sector of our province and with people, particularly with

lived and living experience, about what they need right now.

Our very first priority is getting the crisis supports, getting

the mental health counselling, getting the programs in schools. So

that’s why our first priority was not reviewing the Mental Health Act;

it was providing the services that people need.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We are considering all the recommendations of the Select Standing

Committee on Health and its review of my ministry’s response to the

toxic drug overdose crisis — reviewing all their recommendations, with

gratitude to the hundreds and hundreds of people across the province

that put their personal experiences and their lives on the line. That’s

what I’m focused on, what people with lived experience….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, if you want to ask a question, you have to give

it time for an answer.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: My very first focus is building up the voluntary system of care

and the supports that people are asking for. A review of the Mental

Health Act is something that our government certainly has under

consideration and we’ll get to.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Saanich North and the Islands, supplemental.

A. Olsen: While this minister and other ministers are reviewing the

recommendations that have come now from two committees made up of

colleagues of this Legislative Assembly imploring the government to

review the Mental Health Act — one as late as just yesterday; a report

was put on the table — the reality of it is that we have known that this

has been a problem for a long time.

They’re reviewing the recommendations, and we’re investing

millions of dollars in a system that is fragmented and broken. That is

what we’re hearing time and time again from those people that are coming

and submitting their feedback to these committees.

The Mental Health Act is actually overseen by the Minister of

Health. So what we have here is we have a Mental Health Act. We have two

ministers that oversee this.

This law that we have is working against creating a better system

of mental health. No amount of money that this minister and this

government are going to invest in it will change that. It’s like trying

to eat soup with a fork.

The Police Act Committee and the Health Committee have both said

to review the Mental Health Act. It echoes the representative for

children and families, the Ombudsperson and several community

organizations.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to

reviewing the Mental Health Act?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I will say again, in a time of two public health emergencies, our

focus, very first of all, is on standing up the supports that save

people’s lives right now, the work that needs to be done right

now.

We’ve created 100 new positions, funding early psychosis

intervention. Those interventions early can save young people from a

lifetime of struggling with psychosis.

We’ve added almost 50,000 new positions or places where people can

connect with mental health counselling. We’re funding the health

authorities to offer culturally informed Indigenous healing service

provision. And in time, we will, I’m sure, together, review the Mental

Health Act.

[2:20 p.m.]

But I’ll point to where we do, in a surgical way, the

interventions that advocates and people with lived experience ask us for

right now. It was just this spring that in this chamber, an amendment to

the Mental Health Act to provide rights advice service was introduced

and initiated by the Premier-designate, the incoming Premier.

That’s the kind of work…. For the first time in British Columbia’s

history, providing rights advice service for people who are admitted

involuntarily under the Mental Health Act — that is the kind of

immediate work that our government has proved again and again. We will

intervene and make changes where people ask us to in the way that

actually affects lives right now.

MANDATORY TREATMENT FOR

MENTAL ILLNESS AND

ADDICTION

E. Ross: For the last few years now, we’ve been listening not only to the

citizens of British Columbia talking about the drug crisis we have and

the mental health crisis we have in B.C. We’ve been listening to the

recommendations coming from the reports. We’ve been listening to the

minister talking about keeping all options on the table open. So it’s

clear now that that’s not the problem.

The problem is that this minister is at that same table and not

doing anything — not even doing her job. That’s the problem. We can’t

live through another report, if that’s what the minister is

thinking.

We’re talking about mental health. We’re talking about violence.

We’re talking about so many different things that British Columbians

have been demanding, begging for — mayors. All we’re asking is for the

minister to do her job based on the reports that this own government

commissioned.

We are in a mental health and addictions crisis. We’ve known that

for a few years now. That’s why this ministry was created.

Over two years ago, the outgoing Premier called a snap election so

he could pass legislation enabling mandatory treatment. After the

election, the NDP promptly abandoned the idea. The minister ruled out

mandatory treatment. Now we have a Premier-designate who suddenly says

mandatory treatment is a good idea again. Will the NDP please, on behalf

of British Columbians, take a clearer position?

To the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, do the NDP

support mandatory treatment or not?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Allow me to address, first of all, the beginning part of the

member’s question, where he says I have not done my job. There has never

been a place in Canada where a provincial government, on the basis of

intervention in an overdose crisis, has achieved decriminalization of

people who use drugs.

We’re the first place in Canada where doctors can prescribe safe

supply to separate people from the toxic drug supply.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We’re the first place in Canada where nurses can prescribe

medication-assisted treatment to prevent overdose. We have opened more

addiction treatment beds. We went from one supervised consumption site,

when the members opposite were in government; we now have over

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, Minister. If you’d just take a moment,

please.

Members, please. Let’s hear the answers. Let’s hear the questions.

Let’s respect the people’s time.

Please continue.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the member’s question at the end of his question, right now

people are detained involuntarily under the Mental Health Act. That is a

tool that exists. There are people that are detained involuntarily in

the psychiatric forensic system, coming out of corrections — people that

are found not criminally responsible.

But the real focus of our work has been on building up the

voluntary system of care, one that did not exist in sufficient scope

when we took government. We’ve opened more than 300 addiction treatment

beds — voluntary. We are opening complex care housing for people for

whom supportive housing is not enough, people that tend to be evicted

because of untreated mental health and addictions. We’ve opened the Red

Fish Healing Centre, 105 beds which have some involuntary beds, some

voluntary beds.

Across the continuum, we are building a system of care that people

need and deserve.

[2:25 p.m.]

E. Ross: It’s not appropriate to do a victory lap on your

failure.

Deputy Speaker: Through the Chair, Member.

E. Ross: This is how the coroners death review panel….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: We will hear the question.

E. Ross: This is how the coroners death review panel described the

minister’s system: “A lack of coordinated services, gaps in services

delivery, long wait times and eligibility for services inconsistent with

peoples’ lived experiences.” That’s coming from the coroner.

It’s going to be a shock to British Columbians that mandatory

treatment is now in place in B.C. I didn’t see any announcements. I

didn’t see any debate on that. It will be interesting to see the record

and where that came up.

The number of young people that are dying keeps going up in

British Columbia. Last year a record 30 young people died, 200 percent

higher than in 2016.

Last week 18-year-old Kylie Walker of Victoria died, and five of

her friends overdosed. This is what Kylie’s great-uncle Joe Thorne says:

“We need to make it mandatory that they be given treatment

now.”

What the minister is doing is not working. The question is simple.

Will the minister support mandatory treatment, yes or no?

Hon. S. Malcolmson: The bill that my predecessor Judy Darcy brought into this chamber

was not for forced treatment. That is not something that our government

has ever proposed, legislatively or through a programmatic

setting.

The scope of the bill formerly known as 22 was that following an

overdose, young people have a cooling period, ideally for 48 hours,

maybe as long as a week, where they could stabilize after an overdose

and have the opportunity to be connected with treatment options. There

was no consideration, no contemplation of forced treatment. We make our

investments based on evidence. Evidence says forced treatment does not

work.

What we heard at the time, particularly from Indigenous leaders

but also many civil liberties advocates, including the Representative

for Children and Youth and the coroner, was that they wanted us to

revisit the legislation. That was the announcement that I made last

year: that we would not proceed with Bill 22. We would, instead,

co-develop, with First Nations leadership, a way to provide young

people, following an overdose, the ways to get connected back to

community and connected to the options for treatment and support — but

not forced treatment.

SERVICE MODEL CHANGE

FOR CHILDREN WITH SUPPORT NEEDS

AND FUNDING FOR AUTISM SERVICES

T. Halford: Last week parents of autistic children stood outside the incoming

Premier’s constituency office in the pouring rain fighting for their

children, calling on him to stop the NDP clawback on autism

funding.

It has been a year since this government and since this minister

announced this clawback to the funding that these families and these

children depend on, that these children need. The added strain and the

added stress caused by this minister to these families is

immeasurable.

My question is to the minister, and it’s a simple one. Will this

minister stop this clawback of autism funding?

Hon. M. Dean: It is important to listen to parents and to families and to

children and to youth. I have been listening very carefully to families

and to parents, and I will continue to listen to families and to

parents. Where I hear concerns, I take those very seriously.

I’ve been listening to a large range of families. I’ve also been

hearing from many families that their children have been left behind,

that they haven’t had access to services that they need.

We have had calls…. We have had…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please. Let the speaker have the floor. Then you will get

your time.

Hon. M. Dean: …repeated recommendations from the Representative for Children and

Youth and recommendations from a committee of this very Legislature that

we need to move towards a needs-based system. The current patchwork is

leaving too many children and youth behind. Services are locked behind a

diagnosis.

[2:30 p.m.]

What that does is it causes a delay in children accessing

services, and that isn’t good for their development. We’re going to

build a system that will serve more children and youth. It will make

services more accessible and earlier in their development, and that will

help children and youth thrive.

K. Kirkpatrick: It’s a simple question. Will the minister cancel the clawback of

autism funding, yes or no?

Hon. M. Dean: It’s really important that children and youth have access to the

services that they need when they need them. We’re working towards

building a system that will mean that more children and youth have

better access to services to meet their needs.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, please.

Please continue, Minister.

Hon. M. Dean: We’ve had repeated recommendations from the Representative for

Children and Youth, who we listen to. We’re also listening to families,

Indigenous rights and title holders, service providers and community

agencies.

To reinforce the need to change the system, I’d like to offer some

words from the Representative for Children and Youth from September this

year: “We fundamentally need to transform the services and support for

children and youth with special needs and their families. Thousands of

children aren’t getting services right now, so we absolutely need to

shift. The system has not been easy to navigate, so that some families,

including families with autism, have not been able to access the

services. In addition to that, there hasn’t been anything for some

families to even navigate, because there are virtually no

resources.”

The system needs to change, and that’s what we’re

doing.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

B. Anderson: I rise today to table a petition on watershed protection on behalf of

the Wynndel irrigation district.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 42, the Provincial Sales Tax

Act.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued Committee of the Whole, Bill 36,

Health Professions and Occupations Act.

Deputy Speaker: We’ll just take a brief recess as members exit the chamber, and we’ll

proceed with second reading shortly.

The House recessed from 2:33 p.m. to 2:34 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 42 — PROVINCIAL SALES TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Hon. S. Robinson: I move that Bill 42 be read a second time now.

Communities hosting major events need additional revenue sources

to be able to stage those events and reap the long-term economic

benefits. This bill amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to authorize an

additional major events municipal and regional district tax on sales of

short-term accommodation.

[2:35 p.m.]

This tax will be separate from the current municipal and regional

district tax, also known as the MRDT, that applies currently in over 60

areas throughout British Columbia.

The amendments provide that an additional major events MRDT of up

to 2½ percent can be imposed upon request in a designated area where the

Minister of Finance is satisfied that an event is a major international

tourism event of provincial significance in or near the area.

In addition, a designated recipient of the additional major events

MRDT must enter into an agreement with the minister responsible for the

Tourism Act. The tax will apply temporarily in the area, and the

revenues will be dedicated to paying for the costs of planning, staging

and hosting the major international tourism event.

The legislative amendments also include transitional provisions

that relate to both the current MRDT and the new, additional major

events MRDT to provide clarity on which tax rate is payable, depending

on when accommodation is purchased, as well as to provide

regulation-making authority for the new tax.

Following enactment of these amendments, orders-in-council will

allow specific municipalities, regional districts and eligible

tourism-focused not-for-profit associations to have the major events

MRDT temporarily applied in their jurisdictions for the purpose of

raising funds dedicated to paying for the costs of planning, of staging

and of hosting designated major international tourism events.

One such immediate and fast-approaching international tourism

event is the FIFA 2026 World Cup matches to be held in the city of

Vancouver. I know that everybody in this chamber is excited about that.

In addition to providing its own $5 million contribution, the city of

Vancouver requested that the province consider raising the MRDT in

Vancouver in order to help the city pay for its cost of planning,

staging and hosting this major sporting event that will provide

significant tourism benefits for years and years to come.

These legislative amendments are intended to respond to

Vancouver’s request and also to provide a means for other communities to

make similar requests for designated major international tourism events

of provincial significance in their communities.

I look forward to the discussion here in the chamber.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 42. I’ll just advise

the Chair right now that I’ll be our designated speaker for this bill as

we move through the afternoon.

As we’ve heard from the minister, and I thank her for that

overview of this bill…. At first blush, it seems a fairly

straightforward bill. But as we’ve dug into it, as we’ve had briefings,

as we’ve reached out to various stakeholders, there are definitely some

issues and concerns that we will want to fully canvass as we get into

committee stage on this bill. Hopefully, there will be time in the

legislative calendar to actually look at this bill properly, given that

we have now had four days of debate removed by the Premier-designate,

not having the government being held accountable for their language of

their bills as we move forward.

Where we should have had another — what is it? — ten days of

debate left in this place, we will now only have six days of debate,

including today, so that the Premier-designate can have a week-long

coronation party instead of the work of the people being done in this

chamber, scrutinizing things like Bill 42.

Bill 42 actually has a lot of complexity to it, although the

concept is very simple and straightforward. It is having, essentially,

tourists pay, by way of an extra tax, into a pool of funds to try to

build up some money so that a host community can offset some of the

costs of hosting that type of an event. But when you look at the

geography and when you read the bill, it talks about a geographic area.

Yet when you actually talked to the Finance staff in the briefing, what

became very clear was that although the bill says geographic

area….

[2:40 p.m.]

The average person reading that would think: “Oh well, if we’re

talking FIFA and the World Cup, that’s obviously an international event.

That must mean that the whole Lower Mainland,” where hotel rooms will be

used on a great number, “would be used for that geographic area.” But

no. In fact, it’s actually municipal boundaries that start to come into

play. In this case, because Vancouver is the host of FIFA, it would just

be the boundaries of Vancouver that would actually be collecting this

tax.

So you would have Richmond — which has the airport, I might add,

and lots of hotels — not being subject to the tax. You have Surrey,

Burnaby, all those surrounding communities — Coquitlam, North Van. All

of that would not be subject to this tax. That will automatically create

a bit of unease within the hotel industry in trying to stay competitive,

as it relates to rate pressure and whether or not they will have to, as

a hotel within Vancouver, reduce their rates by 2½ percent to try to

stay overall net competitive to what a customer might pay.

I say that because one would think…. I must admit that my first

impression, when you hear this is about an event, is that it would be in

place for the event, maybe a reasonable week or two leading up to an

event and a week or two after an event, as people come and go. But no.

It was surprising to us to find out that this could be in place for

seven years — seven years. In fact, if the event happens to go over

budget, the minister can extend it even longer. This would be in royal

assent.

If Vancouver agrees and the minister puts it in place, and we’ll

even just say by the end of this year, then somebody travelling in 2023,

staying in a hotel in Vancouver, would be subject to the 2½ percent tax

for an event that’s going to happen in 2026. Then, someone that stays

there in 2028 will still be paying for an event that happened in 2026 —

an event that they had zero intention of attending.

So the concept that tourists coming to the event are paying a bit

of a surcharge to help pay for the event starts to go out the window

when you start hearing that those types of timelines are available in

this bill. There needs to be a lot of discussion around that. There

needs to be a lot of understanding and discussion around what qualifies

for an international event. I’ve already heard from various communities

asking, and I don’t have an answer for them yet.

Hopefully, with the four days of debate being ripped out of the

calendar by the incoming Premier, we don’t wind up with time allocation

and the inability to ask questions about Bill 42 at committee stage.

That’s a very likely possibility.

I’m trying to get answers to questions like: “What qualifies as an

international event? Is it only sporting events?” I’ve been asked by

communities that have large international wine festivals if that would

qualify. There are other communities that have large service groups like

Shriners or Rotary clubs from the United States and around the world

that come on a semi-annual basis a couple times or once every few years.

Does that qualify? We don’t know yet.

It will be up to the minister to decide if they qualify, because

there’s no clear language in the bill that we can see that spells out

what actually qualifies. There’s a very real possibility that a

municipality that has a mayor that gets along with the Finance Minister

of the day gets told yes and that the community down the road gets told

no, for very similar events.

Now, I know that the former mayor of Vancouver, who was recently

defeated, wanted this type of ability to tax tourists for their event,

and I would assume that means our incoming Premier is favourable to that

as well, since he was out door-knocking and had endorsed that mayor in

his unsuccessful mayor’s race.

[2:45 p.m.]

We’re not 100 percent sure yet. We’re reaching out and trying to

talk with Vancouver as well. We don’t want to be offside with what they

would need to do as a community to bring forward an event of the stature

of a FIFA, but it seems that the former mayor was taken a bit by

surprise that FIFA would be an expensive endeavour to get involved with.

Who would have thought that FIFA would require things like VIP lounges?

Shocking.

It’s shocking that an organization, as known as FIFA is around the

world, would want — I don’t know — secure parking areas, for security

reasons, for their delegates that are travelling in and that a lot of

their wealthier countries that come to things like the World Cup might

want to have a VIP area to have a drink and a bite to eat.

Apparently, that took the former mayor of Vancouver by surprise.

So now they’re scrambling trying to figure out how to pay for it all. I

say that because this tax is projected right now, just in the Vancouver

area alone, to collect $30 million a year. It could be in place for

seven years or more.

The interesting thing is that this is the government that flat-out

rejected, without a meeting, an Indigenous-led Olympic bid for Vancouver

but that wouldn’t have just been for Vancouver. There would have been

lots of cities that would have had to do small bits of infrastructure

for it. I’m from Kamloops. Kamloops was going to be involved in that.

Sun Peaks, our ski resort, and Whistler were going to be involved again

— Vancouver, Richmond. There would have been a lot of communities that

could have charged a tax like this, to tourists, to help cover the cost

of an Indigenous-led Olympics.

Strangely, we’ve been led to believe, by the government, that the

flat-out refusal to meet with the Indigenous group to walk through their

business plan with them — to get a true understanding of what the

potential financial risk to the government was going to be — was decided

upon by cabinet. Yet two days later, that same cabinet agrees to have a

bill introduced to the floor of this chamber that has the real potential

to generate literally tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars a

year, depending how far-reaching you make those impacted communities for

a bid like the Olympics. It could be in place for several years, even

after the Olympics.

In fact, in the briefing, the ministry staff made a point of

saying: “Yes, if an event like an Olympics were in Kamloops, this tax

could be used for it.” So it’s interesting that two days after

dismissing an Indigenous-led Olympics bid because of financial risk,

they didn’t seem to even be wanting to have a conversation with those

Indigenous communities about a piece of legislation coming forward that

could actually offset a great deal of that financial risk. Talk about a

missed opportunity, from a very secretive government.

It makes you wonder what the rush was to tell those Indigenous

communities no. The government could have waited two days. I get that

they might not have wanted to talk about Bill 42 with those Indigenous

groups before it was introduced publicly, but they could have introduced

Bill 42 — we’ve been here since October 3 — at any time before now. Then

they could have waited two days and told the Indigenous groups no, to

the Olympics, but they didn’t. They did it in reverse. Then they wonder

why those same Indigenous groups are frustrated about lack of respect,

saying that this has set back reconciliation.

[2:50 p.m.]

The timeline for this bill was simply…. There’s no other way to

put it. It was sitting there with the Minister of Finance, who very

much, one would think, should have had her staff reviewing a proposed

Olympic bid in terms of the financial implications. At the same time,

Bill 42 would have been getting drafted.

At literally the exact same time that they were drafting Bill 42 —

a bill to enable extra revenue generation for international events —

those same ministers said no to an Indigenous-led Olympic bid, based on

potential financial risk, without ever discussing this bill and its

revenue potential to those proponents so that they could rework their

business plan and show the government how their risk is diminished. Over

the space of five years, probably about half a billion dollars could

have been collected, based on the modelling from the ministry itself, on

what this tax will bring in, just from Vancouver alone.

It defies logic as to why there were not those discussions, why

there was not an open and transparent process with those Indigenous

communities around their Olympic bid, about the fact that this bill was

coming forward, so that they could work with Vancouver and those other

communities to talk about actioning this tax as a way to help fund an

international games like the Olympics and the Paralympics — with

significant dollars, significant spinoff dollars, to the overall

provincial economy as a result.

That didn’t happen. It could have helped fund significant

recreational upgrades, in a wide range of communities around this

province, for the training opportunities. That happens; in 2010, teams

from a wide variety of sports came over early, and they started training

in British Columbia. They used our arenas in Kamloops. They used Sun

Peaks for skiing and other alpine training opportunities. I know they

were down in Penticton. They were in Kelowna.

They were all over this province — countries, with their teams, in

various sports — well in advance of the Olympics, needing to use

municipal recreational facilities — which could all use a little extra

in capital dollars to help. Those communities could have actioned Bill

42 to help pay for that, further defraying the actual cost to a British

Columbia taxpayer, and the risk to a British Columbia taxpayer, on an

event like that.

When you look at Bill 42 and then you start reaching out to people

in the hotel industry — that’s what my background is; I grew up working

in and operating hotels with my family and had a family-owned and -run

hotel — the hoteliers get nervous about taxes like this when they don’t

really have much of a say in them being put in place.

Now, my mother was the first female president of the B.C. and

Yukon Hotels Association back in the ’80s. It was a true old boys’ club

then. I think they even suggested to her that she didn’t need to come to

president’s night that night, because it was more a Scotch-and-cigars

thing, and she wouldn’t like it. As much as she hated Scotch and cigars,

she forced herself to go into that smoky room, because she was the

incoming president. Good on her for doing that.

It’s sad that women in office of any type still are facing those

types of things in this day and age, still, all these years later, but

there are a great many people that have been pushing back for a long

time about that. So good on them.

[2:55 p.m.]

When the hotel and tourism tax first came in, when the MRDT first

came in, in the case of Kamloops, my mother was one of the ones that

helped lead the charge against it being instituted in Kamloops. We were

successful; we pushed back against it. We were one of the few

communities in the province that didn’t adopt it right away. That is

because the local hotels were not going to have control over the money.

It was just going to go back to the municipal government to do as they

saw fit. That was the concern.

You fast-forward a few years. The proposal gets reworked, where

the board of Tourism Kamloops gets created, where the funding from this

tax will then go to Tourism Kamloops, where hoteliers will have the

majority of the seats on Tourism Kamloops and with a mandate not to

promote any one individual hotel or tourist operation but to promote the

whole area as a viable tourism choice for people. Myself, my mother and

others openly supported that proposal, and we got it passed when it went

to a vote of the hoteliers in the area.

It’s very important with a tax like this that you have buy-in by

the hotels, because their concern is around scope. What will actually

get paid for out of these funds? How long will they be in place? If you

think back to when we had tolls on the Coquihalla Highway, it was this

statement of: “We’re going to have tolls until the highway is paid off.”

Then it turned into, “Well, maybe the daily maintenance should be

counted against it,” even though all the other highways have regular

maintenance. It turned into this big, where I live, frustration of: what

does completely paid off mean?

Thankfully, Premier Campbell, of the day, just removed them

outright and said: “You know what? We’ve collected enough. It’s done.”

I’ve long said that something like that, something like this tax…. Just

tell me how much money you need to collect from it. Just tell me that

with this tax, you need to collect $200 million. When we collect $200

million, it’s removed. Don’t tell me seven years, and then on year 6½

say: “Well, we need the minister to extend it to year 8.” Just tell us

how much money you need, and then end it.

If you need to build in some administrative costs, if you need to

whatever…. I could care less. It’s $210 million. It’s $190 million. Just

give the public a clear dollar figure that you need to collect, in real

dollars, to feel that a tax like this has accomplished its goal It’s

very easy for everyone to understand. It doesn’t give a future

government or minister wiggle room — or mayors or councillors — because

this is going to be in place through other municipal election cycles and

other provincial election cycles.

I mean, the betting line is there’s going to be a cabinet shuffle

in the next two weeks. There’s going to be a new Finance Minister in a

couple of weeks, by the sounds of things. It’ll be that new minister

that actually decides whether this gets implemented or not, with a new

mayor that wasn’t at the table to start these discussions.

That’s the worry with these taxes. That’s what I’m already hearing

from people that I still know from within the hotel industry — their

concern over who’s going to control the dollars. What safeguards are

going to be in place for how they get spent? How long will they be in

place for? They were surprised when I said that it could be for seven or

eight years. They didn’t anticipate that as an answer. I didn’t

anticipate that in the briefing.

If you look at the overlay with the Olympics and what you could do

if you structure these dates in an appropriate way, it’s a very

significant piece. Now, my understanding is that the Indigenous-led

group was aware, in the context of FIFA and potentially the Olympics, of

a bill like this, but never a meeting with government, as we’ve heard,

to find out how this could actually work for them, how this could work

for their bid.

[3:00 p.m.]

That’s why it’s always a problem when government refuses to meet

with any group as they’re trying to pull something together, especially

when the outgoing boss, the outgoing Premier, told that same group:

“Keep up the good work. We’ve got your back.” Incoming boss? Not so

much. The incoming boss won’t even meet with them.

I don’t know why. He’s got lots of free time on his hands. He’s

cleared four extra days out of the legislative calendar for a Friday

coronation, for a Friday that we don’t even sit in this

House.

On Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week, we could

actually be in committee stage on Bill 42, getting those answers for the

hotel industry, getting those answers and finding out for people how

this is going to impact them, how this might restrict future projects

they might want to do in their area, how they would go about trying to

expand it to a larger geographic area than just the boundaries of

Vancouver, if that’s what they would like.

It sounds like the minister will not have the ability to

unilaterally impose this on a municipality. So it’s going to take a

whole lot of relationship-building to get — we’ll use Richmond as an

example — Richmond council to agree and get their hoteliers to agree:

“Are we comfortable with a tax being charged so that the money can flow

to a neighbouring municipality for works being done in that neighbouring

municipality?”

It’s going to put a lot of strain on those relationships.

Understandably so. It would in Kamloops. I can imagine. We host a lot of

international events in Kamloops, world championships in Kamloops. We

are Canada’s tournament capital. We’re that for a reason. We’ve had

world curling. We’ve had the Hockey Women’s World Championship there.

We’ve had a world indoor track meet. The first time out of Europe that

it came to North America was in Kamloops. It was track athletes from all

over the world.

When I say that it would be interesting trying to get Richmond or

Surrey to agree to have this tax levied, with the money flowing back to

a different city…. I don’t say that because I’m picking on those cities

and think they should. I’m saying it because I know what the

conversations would have been like when I was still the mayor of

Kamloops and I went and knocked on Vernon and Kelowna’s doors and said:

“Hey, we’re having this world championship. We want to charge a tax and

have you guys send the money our way. How does that work for you?”

Pretty confident I know how those conversations would go.

This bill has the very real potential now to set up tensions and

worry within communities that need not necessarily be there.

I get the desire for Vancouver to want to have another way to

generate revenue for the FIFA bid. I can totally understand and

empathize with the incoming mayor, who now has to clean up the mess of

the outgoing NDP mayor for a bid…. Apparently, they may or may not have

been a little bit overly zealous.

Here’s a thought. Maybe the province didn’t actually do enough

scrutiny on the financial risk of the FIFA bid. He sure didn’t mind

pulling the pin, on the same basis, on the Indigenous-led Olympics

bid.

I get the desire to use this as a revenue source. My understanding

is that, in 2010, Whistler did something similar. So there are

precedents out there, as far as I’m aware.

It’s not necessarily, again, the concept of Bill 42 that we’re

taking issue with. We’re more than happy to see this move to committee

stage to try to get these answers for people, to try to be able to keep

reaching out to those Indigenous groups, to those mayors, those new

mayors and councils, to the hotel industry to find out what their true

thoughts on this are.

[3:05 p.m.]

It’s our job, as opposition, to thoroughly vet and canvass and

understand, on behalf of all those same groups, how this bill is going

to impact them, how this bill will actually create an environment,

positively or negatively, as we head into FIFA. There’s going to be

heightened awareness about the World Cup, because the World Cup 2022 is

starting very shortly.

The excitement for ’26 in Vancouver, for the four or five games

they’re going to have, will understandably build, and that’s a good

thing. Do I think that means people will travel to Vancouver four years

before FIFA just to get the lay of the land if they happen to maybe

come, if their country does qualify? No, I don’t think that’s what it’s

going to mean. But we’ll be charging a tax, apparently, for

it.

That’s part of the problem. We’re not going to know which teams

are playing in Vancouver and what the

schedule is and stuff for quite

some time. First, we’ve got to get through 2022 and this World Cup. Then

all the countries have got to requalify again, and then you’ve got to

figure out which pool each country is in. Then we’ve got to figure out

which teams we get out of those pools for games. So we’ve got a lot of

work to do that way.

It seems like the government will be charging the tax while all of

that is getting worked out — from people that have absolutely no reason

to be in Vancouver for FIFA. Every business trip down to Vancouver for

the next seven years will be subject to this tax. Every family holiday

that has absolutely nothing to do with FIFA will be subject to this tax.

But not if you take the sea bus across to North Vancouver. The tax won’t

apply there. Or not if you decide just to stay out in Richmond, when you

fly into the Vancouver Airport, which is actually located in Richmond.

The tax won’t apply there. But it could, possibly, maybe.

Again, the concept the opposition understands. The trust in the

execution we’re a little leery about, to tell you the truth. We have

every confidence in the local governments to figure it out and to figure

out how to work best together. But the mayor and council from Vancouver

are going to have to come to the minister, explain to the minister what

they want to do, hope the minister actually agrees. We haven’t heard

from the minister yet — if they choose to say no to a community wanting

this if that means the province will offset the missed

revenue.

Again, I’ll speak in terms of Kamloops and Bill 42 just because

I’m very well versed on how we go out and get bids on tournaments. We

have the Scotties coming in March. We have the Memorial Cup coming in

May. Neither of those are, technically, international. So those likely

would not qualify, by the sounds of it.

What happens, in the Memorial Cup, if an American team wins their

way in? Is that now considered international enough? We don’t know. We

don’t know, but it’s significant dollars, potentially. In the Kamloops

context, it’d be very significant dollars. It’d be a drop in the bucket

compared to what Vancouver would generate, just because we don’t have

that many rooms compared to Vancouver. But it’s all relative. Our cost

structure wouldn’t be as great as a FIFA either.

What is the process going to be for a minister to say no or to say

yes? What is the process in this bill? We can’t find it. We can’t find

it, other than that the minister has the right to say yes or the

minister has the right to say no. There are no criteria.

That’s the problem with a lot of legislation this government keeps

bringing forward. It’s all enabling legislation. Then it all gets done

by regulation after the fact, behind closed doors. That creates a

problem. That’s how errors get made, then. We’ve seen that in bill after

bill after bill.

[3:10 p.m.]

It sounds like there was a fairly significant oversight in a

clause in the health bill that’s being debated right now. On the

transportation bill, there were a couple of errors. There seems to be

error after error with legislation that keeps getting rushed into this

place. I say “rushed” only because the government never seems to have

bills like Bill 42 ready to go at the beginning of a session when we’re

all here on October 3. No, no. We’ve got to wait till we’re in the last

three weeks.

Except, in this case, our last three weeks is really the last two

weeks, because the incoming Premier cancelled four days in the calendar

to have a party instead of having us in this House doing the work on the

bills. The sad

part is that most of us are going to be down here for

committee work throughout that week, on both sides of the

House.

It’s interesting that the government members want to make light of

the fact that their incoming Premier has cancelled four days of the

legislative calendar to avoid accountability of his government in this

chamber. Our side doesn’t find that humorous. Our assumption has been

that that’s exactly what’s happening, because we can’t get a straight

answer out of the government why we can’t spend the extra four days

debating Bill 42 instead of cancelling those four days right before the

coronation.

I look forward to the government better explaining why they’re

cancelling the four days of debate time in this chamber when most of the

87 MLAs will actually be in Victoria that week. I’m not sure what

they’re going to be doing with their time. They certainly don’t want to

be held accountable in the eye of the public for those four days. They

don’t want us to have enough time to properly dive into Bill 42 at the

same time as we’re trying to juggle and find out what’s in the health

professional colleges bill and the Indigenous child welfare bill and a

labour bill and now a judiciary bill and an energy bill.

I certainly hope they enjoy their time at their various receptions

they’ll be at that week. They’ll be able to get lots of rest throughout

the daytime because they won’t be here debating Bill 42. They won’t be

here explaining to us some of the discrepancies we found within Bill 42

in terms of how it’s going to be applied. They won’t be here for those

four days, so we will wind up with closure, time allocation.

For the public, what that means is that the government will just

pick a day and a time and say: “It doesn’t matter where you are in a

certain bill. You’re done debate. You’re done questioning. Move on.”

That’s what removing four days of debate out of the calendar by the

Premier-designate means.

Bill 42. Again, at committee stage, we’re going to have to,

hopefully, get some time for it as we move forward. But it’s also the

purview of the government what bill gets put up for committee stage on

what day. So this may never come forward again. This could be our only

opportunity to speak on Bill 42.

On the importance level, frankly, if we have only enough time, a

shortened, truncated amount of time, would it be better to spend that

time fully looking at how health colleges for doctors and nurses and

other health professionals are going to operate in this province moving

forward? Would it be better to fully dive in and try to understand and

try to get through, even though we won’t have enough time, a child

welfare protection bill for Indigenous communities or a 2½ percent

tourism tax?

[3:15 p.m.]

Yes, this is an important piece of legislation, but I would

suggest to you that child welfare probably is a little more critical to

people’s day-to-day life than a 2½ percent tax that a tourist would pay

— or a business person on business travel or a family just trying to go

visit another family. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t actually be afforded

the time to dig into 42 properly.

It doesn’t mean that, as opposition, we should just be silenced by

an incoming Premier that doesn’t want to be held accountable. He has

removed four days of debate time, four days of question period time,

unilaterally, out of the calendar. Heck, he won’t even have been sworn

in that week yet. He can just keep avoiding us and the public those four

days, anyways, and let us all continue to do our work in here

instead.

Deputy Speaker: On Bill 42, please.

P. Milobar: Well, that’s what I’m speaking to, Madam Chair. Thank you for

that. Yes.

Interjections.

P. Milobar: The point is that those are four days that we would love to have

to spend on Bill 42.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, we’re speaking on Bill 42.

I’d just like to quote our parliamentary procedures: “Good temper

and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.” If we

can keep that in mind. Thank you.

P. Milobar: Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, the back bench for government

seems to be getting quite agitated about our comments on Bill

Just for their clarification, there will be more of us speaking to

the bill because we take our job seriously. The interesting

part is that

we actually write our own speaking notes on bills. We read the bills. We

dive into the bills. We understand the bills. We get updates on the

bills. We just don’t kind of regurgitate what gets handed to us. But

each party operates their own way.

We will have other speakers on Bill 42, Madam Chair.

Bill 42 could have easily helped — especially with the way it’s

structured, as we’re understanding it — defray significant costs

associated with the Olympics, the Indigenous-led Olympic bid. The

anti-Olympic incoming Premier made sure it was terminated before he got

sworn in. It was quite the week. Terminate the Olympic bid and then

terminate four days of debate in the chamber, four days for Bill

What I’m hearing from government members on Bill 42 is that we

shouldn’t speak to it. We should just rush through it so we can sit down

and go into committee stage. Well, debate is an important part of a

bill’s progression as well. If these bills had all been brought forward

in a timely fashion when we first started sitting on October 3, as

opposition, we could move around how we’re going to have speakers to

which bills and for how long.

When we’re literally still getting bills introduced as late as

today, with a backdrop of four days of debate being removed, it’s a

little rich for government members to try to tell us to speed up our

conversation on Bill 42 at debate stage in second reading if we want to

get to committee stage. It’s not how this place works. It’s not how good

public process works.

We will have a few speakers shine lights on parts of Bill 42 on

behalf of their constituents, on behalf of their municipalities, on

behalf of things that go on in their communities, which may actually be

able to use something like a Bill 42 to help defray the cost. We’re

going to have an appropriate amount of debate on that as

opposition.

[3:20 p.m.]

The workaround is not to remove four days of debate and then tell

the opposition just to hurry things up. That’s quite an attitude of

government, I must say — to tell me to stop speaking on Bill 42, to stop

highlighting that in Bill 42 there’s a very real concern around a

municipality having the ability and the right to petition the Minister

of Finance to levy a tax on accommodation stays, with the accommodators

not necessarily having any say in it.

It doesn’t mean the accommodators are opposed to it. Vancouver

already has a 3 percent tax that goes to fund their tourism operations.

They agreed to that. They agreed to that being put in place. It helps

fund their destination marketing organization. But the fact that they

might have concerns and they want to hear questions and answers on this

bill raised in this House…. That should be of no threat to a municipal

government. It should be no threat to the government introducing the

legislation like Bill 42.

Only the most secretive government in Canada feels threatened by

questions being asked about their legislation. Only the most secretive

government in Canada seems to think we should just hurry things along,

not have debate on bills. In fact, let’s just hack a bunch of days out

of our legislative calendar. That’s okay. Just move things

along.

I guess our one saving grace is I remember, not too long ago, when

the government would repeatedly be out of legislation for us to work on

early in the session. Kind of like this session started, yet again. At

least they didn’t have the throne speech this time to fall back on, like

we used to do — 13 weeks into a session having to go back to a throne

speech.

It appears that Bill 42, which would have been getting discussed

and drafted by the Minister of Finance — and the rest of cabinet, one

would assume, at some point, agrees the legislation moves forward —

would have been happening simultaneously with an Indigenous-led

Olym­pics bid that that same minister and cabinet flat-out

rejected without talking to the Indigenous group whatsoever. In fact,

flat-out refusing to meet with them, turning down repeated requests for

meetings. Good, open, transparent government there, I’ll tell

you.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

As we move through committee stage on the bill…. It’s not a very

thick bill. Like I say, it’s only six pages. The premise is fairly

straightforward. The implementation is going to have to be very nuanced.

The implication for other communities could be quite

significant.

Surrey has a massive international softball tournament, I believe,

every year. Does that qualify as an international event? They may want

the 2½ percent for that, not for FIFA, and understandably. How are they

going to get told yes or no? There are all sorts of international events

like that. Now, they’re not going to be on the scale of a FIFA, but

frankly, other than the Super Bowl, I’m not really aware of anything in

the world that’s on that scale for marketing and awareness. Even the

Olympics isn’t at the same level as the FIFA World Cup.

Where is the lens within Bill 42 that not just this minister but

whoever the new Finance Minister will be, will be using? Because that’s

the key with the legislation, especially when it’s legislation like Bill

42 that’s left to the discretion of a minister moving

forward.

[3:25 p.m.]

We’ll hear from this Finance Minister on how she feels she would

deal with this legislation with requests coming forward. But she’s not

going to be the Finance Minister forever. I’m not even saying that to be

disrespectful. I don’t know if it’ll be in the cabinet shuffle with the

incoming Premier, or if it will be after the next election or if it will

be five years from now, but at some point, she won’t be the next Finance

Minister. That’s how this place works. What safeguards are in this for

municipalities to know how successive Finance Ministers are going to

adjudicate these types of requests that will come forward? Because there

are going to be a lot of them.

If it’s simply that the litmus test is it’s got to be on the scale

of a FIFA, then let’s just call this the FIFA Bill 42 and call it a day,

because we’re never getting the Super Bowl in British Columbia. That’s

it. They’ve already said no to the Olympics. If that’s the threshold,

then we need to find out that that’s actually what this is, and then we

need to actually make sure the rest of the province understands that

this bill is strictly for FIFA. It’s strictly for Vancouver, and it’s

strictly for FIFA.

If that’s the case, then there are a whole lot of clauses in here

that aren’t really needed, or at least we wouldn’t need to be talking

about geographic areas. Just say “Vancouver” and “FIFA 2026,” because I

do think Surrey will want to know if they qualify for works that they

would want to do in and around Softball City. That international

softball event brings huge dollars and a huge amount of people into

Surrey every single year. As I said, I’ve heard from a community that is

wondering if their international wine festival would qualify. I think

that’s a valid question.

Now, I’m from Canada’s tournament capital. We would pride

ourselves…. We had massive chess events. We held them in our big, indoor

sport court area. It’s still a tournament. There’s still a lot of skill

involved. A lot of people come for it. A lot of coverage for it. So

communities across this province have things that are international in

nature and internationally significant to their towns and their cities,

just not on the scale of a FIFA.

In Kamloops, we actually had an international friendly. It was the

women’s national team against Mexico. In fact, we had it in place, and

it was well underway, and then FIFA found out about it, so there was a

little bit of a backstory there. When they got involved, there was a

whole lot more expense involved to hosting a soccer match than we would

have ever incurred. We did it. It went off great. It was a great

evening. A great game.

Would that qualify? Would we have been able to go after some of

these funds for a year or two to help offset the extra bleacher costs,

the extra security costs — all of those types of things that go into an

event like that. It was literally a FIFA event. FIFA, I learned from

that event, has very strict standards, no matter where you are in the

world.

Would it be, say, safe to be said that maybe our soccer fans are

not as passionate as they are in other parts of the world? Absolutely.

Did we still have to have, literally, armed guards escort referees on

and off the field? Yes, we did, because that’s a FIFA requirement, no

matter where you are in the world. At least, it was back then. I have no

doubt that Vancouver is going to experience significant cost pressures,

if we found cost pressures for an international friendly match between

two teams, one actually being the Canadian team.

[3:30 p.m.]

Again, we don’t take issue with the fact that this is a bill that

has been created to try to help Vancouver offset some of their costs

with FIFA, but we represent a lot of other communities on this side of

the House. There’s no clear language in this on what this minister

intends to do with all those other requests that will undoubtedly come

forward. That’s why the hotel industry is wondering how this is going to

be implemented coming forward, because not all industry gets along with

their local electeds all the time.

I talked about how the Finance Minister will change out at some

point. So will mayors. So will councillors. So will administrators. So

will organizing committees of an event. Intention is one thing, but the

written words within Bill 42 are critical to getting that understanding

on the record.

We can all go back to Hansard and look and see, to figure

out what the true intent is, layered over top of the clauses and the

sections in this bill, so that when those ministers change, the new

ministers have some guideposts to help them in their decision-making and

that municipalities have some guideposts to know what they should or

shouldn’t be asking for and whether or not it’s a reasonable rejection

by a minister. That is really Bill 42 in a nutshell.

I know that, as much as the government members in the House would

love for me to go on, I would love to make sure we free up some time so

that we could hear from some of their members. I wouldn’t want to be

accused of running a clock to a point that they felt that they were

having their chance to speak on behalf of constituents

squelched.

That’s how this place operates well: when there’s enough time in

the legislative calendar to properly talk about Bill 42 in second

reading, to hear different perspectives and different points of view, to

make people think: “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that.” Just imagine how much

more of that we could do and how much more detail we could get into if

we didn’t have four days ripped out of the legislative calendar by the

incoming Premier. But we do. That’s sad, but we do.

I think I’ve made my point on Bill 42. Although we, at this point,

support it — we support the concept of Bill 42 — what we’re really

supporting is getting it to committee stage. What we really support is

actually having a long enough committee stage that we can properly vet

it and properly deal with it. Hopefully, that doesn’t come at the

expense of trying to dig into legislation like child protection laws and

health laws that are also needing to be debated. Hopefully, the incoming

Premier’s ripping four days out of the legislative calendar hasn’t

created that situation.

Sadly, based on the history of how many times time allocation has

been brought in and how many times bills have been introduced, very late

in the session, under this government, I fear that’s what we’re going to

be seeing with Bill 42. There’s nothing in this bill that is so complex

that it couldn’t have been introduced on October 3, when we first sat

down — nothing. In fact, it might have helped the incoming Premier’s

door-knocking on behalf of the former mayor. I guess we’ll never know.

Maybe the election outcome might have been different. Probably not,

given the spread of the margin, but you never know.

[3:35 p.m.]

We could have had this bill in front of us on October 3. We could

have had all those other bills in front of us in that first week of

October that we were here. Then, maybe, ripping the four days out of the

legislative calendar by this point in the procession of bills might not

have been such a problem, but it has created a big problem for us in

Bill 42.

There are five days after today left in this chamber. Five days

left. We need at least a day for Bill 42. There could be nine days left.

Instead, there are five. We could have twice as much time left to work

on these critical bills like Bill 42, but we don’t.

I guess the government doesn’t want to be held accountable. I

guess the government doesn’t want transparency. I guess the government

doesn’t want proper allotments of time so that bills can be thoroughly

scrutinized. I guess that all lines up on brand when you get voted the

most secretive government in Canada. I guess the government doesn’t want

us to really dig into Bill 42 and how this would have impacted an

Olympic bid or not, given their incoming Premier is so clearly

anti-Olympics.

Be interesting to find out if they believe that FIFA would create

a police state in Vancouver, as the incoming Premier seems to feel the

Olympics creates. FIFA is going to have pretty high security standards

for something like a World Cup. They had them for an international

friendly in Kamloops, so they’re going to have pretty high security

standards for a World Cup event — times four or five games, times all

the training days before the game happens with the teams and travelling

dignitaries that come and all of that, especially depending which

countries we get in the draw.

Let’s face it, there are going to be a few countries that are a

little more contentious that are going to be in the World Cup than

others. We don’t know who those are yet. I can sympathize to a certain

degree with Vancouver trying to figure out how they’re going to pay for

all these unknowns. And I can sympathize and understand why they would

want a vehicle like this. I don’t know that the hotels in Vancouver

understood that it was going to have the ability to be seven years, but

possibly ten — in place for that length of time.

What precedent does that set for future games and bids? Is it: you

shalt agree to this or we will not help you out as a province, or not?

We need to hear from the minister what the intention is. Is it going to

be, moving forward, that if you, as a municipality, don’t agree to this

tax coming in, the province doesn’t have your $100,000 extra you need or

your $1 million extra you need over and above this. We’ll find out in

committee stage, hopefully, but only if the incoming Premier doesn’t

bring in time allocation.

I mean, if the incoming Premier wanted to avoid Bill 42 on those

four days, all he had to do was extend the session by a week or two. He

really just wanted to have a nice free week for a party. If he wanted to

actually have proper scrutiny on Bill 42, it’s not too late. They

haven’t officially removed those four days out of the calendar. All

they’ve done is issue a two-sentence press release saying the Premier’s

getting sworn in on a Friday. Fridays we don’t sit in this House

anyways. And: “Oh, by the way. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday that

week are now cancelled.”

They’ve only issued a press release. They haven’t actually

procedurally removed those four days, so they could very easily just not

remove those four days out of the calendar. Then we’d have time when we

get back from the Remembrance Day week to canvass Bill 42 and find out

about all those impacts I’ve referenced and talked about. And to find

out from those various stakeholders — now that they’ve been able to see

the bill in print and now that they have a slight better understanding

of timelines and how it will work and who it would actually apply to or

not — what they actually think about it.

[3:40 p.m.]

Will this even generate the type of money that Vancouver was

expecting, or was Vancouver expecting it would be more of a

regional-type tax? I think that’s an important question to get answered

from Vancouver. This could fit 100 percent of what Vancouver is looking

for, or it could be that no, actually, they were hoping for a regional

tax.

But then, what does that mean for Surrey and their Softball City

and their international events? Does that mean they’re shut out if they

don’t — pardon the pun — play ball?

Our Indigenous bid for the Olympics. Again, had this cut off right

at the end of FIFA, in 2026, we’d have another four years to collect

just Vancouver alone. That’s $120 million. Add in Kamloops, Sun Peaks,

Whistler, Richmond, training cities, and just in that four-or five-year

window, you could have easily been close to a half-billion dollars. So

those questions and more, we’re going to canvass. Those questions and

more, we’re going to hopefully canvass with what our regular legislative

calendar will be, because the government will come to their senses and

stop talking about removing four days of debate.

All it takes is, if the incoming Premier just happens to be

watching the chamber…. All I’d say to him is: “Cancel your plans to

remove four legislative days out of our calendar so we can actually deal

with Bill 42 in a proper manner.”

A supposed man of action that’s supposed to take no prisoners sure

doesn’t want to be accountable, it seems. He talked a very good game

about our leader during leadership, but he seems to be ducking and

dodging and weaving pretty good right now.

I look forward to others’ comments. I welcome the government from,

I don’t know, going off script and just telling us what they actually

think about a piece of legislation. But I know we’ll hear from some of

our members, hear their thoughts, hear their concerns for their

neighbourhood, hear how this bill may or may not impact their community

positively or negatively.

I thank you for the time on Bill 42.

T. Halford: I’m grateful to take my place and speak to this bill, Bill 42, PST

Amendment Act. I want to echo a lot of the remarks made by my colleague.

It’s important work that we do in this Legislature. I think that if you

look at the legislation that’s been put forward in this session…. Just

down the hall, we have a Ministry of Health bill with 650 sections to

it.

Although this bill here, I think, is not nearly as weighty as the

one I just referenced, it’s still important. We have an MCFD. bill that

has not yet reached committee. We have other legislation that’s been

tabled that still has not reached that stage.

On Bill 42, I looked at it from my riding’s perspective. I

understand that we are all excited for the fact that we have a World Cup

coming to our nation, which will be shared with other nations. I think,

for the first time, I’m really starting to pay attention to this year’s

World Cup — that will be starting, I think, on November 18 — for a few

added reasons. One is that my son, who is here today, is an avid soccer

player.

[3:45 p.m.]

Actually, our neighbour at our house is the Canadian men’s

national coach, John Herdman. He lives a few doors down from me. We’re

excited to cheer on Team Canada as they go forward here in the coming

weeks.

But I think this legislation here, this PST Amendment Act that

we’re speaking on, on second reading…. It’s obviously a very interesting

piece of legislation, one that’s been introduced to this House at a time

when discussion about international sporting events has been, obviously,

very topical. We’ve canvassed in this House the bid for the

Indigenous-led Olympics. I think the frustration that we have seen from

Indigenous leaders on the lack of collaboration, consultation done by

this government in their rejection or lack of support for that bid…. I

think it’s a valuable lesson to this government and future governments

on the importance of collaboration with Indigenous leaders and partners

in this province.

I am proud that we have, in my riding, Softball City. I’m sure

many members have spent time at Softball City. I know that this past

summer, we were gathered…. I think the member for Surrey-Panorama joined

me when we were throwing out the first pitch for, I think it was, Canada

versus U.S. But that is a massive, massive event, and in Surrey, in my

riding, we do not have the luxury of a lot of hotel space. In fact, in

my riding, I think, possibly just two hotels.

Every time this event comes, every year — it was on hia­tus

during the pandemic — we have teams from all across the world that are

staying in various hotels throughout the Lower Mainland, at various

costs, and a lot of them are billeted. But I wonder what this piece of

legislation is….

How could an event like the Canada Cup fit in? Is there room for

them at the table, to fit in? I think a lot of municipalities would have

that question. At its most basic, Bill 42 allows for the municipalities

to request and be granted the ability to collect a new 2.5 percent tax

on designated major event accommodation areas in the case of

international tourism events. So what qualifies?

In Surrey, we have a number of events that…. Whether it’s, like I

mentioned, the Canada Cup…. We have cricket events. We have junior

hockey events. I know that Langley, with the Events Centre, also hosts a

lot of events. I’m not just talking about the downtown core here, but….

I know that both my colleagues from Kamloops are proud of the fact that

Kamloops is the tournament capital of Canada. He asked some very valid

questions that I think will be important to him, as the critic for

Finance, to canvass in that committee. We all have an opportunity here

to speak, should we wish to, on the legislation that is tabled in this

House. That’s part of how this place is structured.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know that my constituents expect me to take that opportunity

when I can, whether it’s on this bill, Bill 42, the PST Amendment Act;

whether it’s on an MCFD bill; whether it’s on the health bill that I

mentioned is going through committee down the hall. We have that

opportunity, but it’s also somewhat of an important obligation. Second

reading allows us to speak for a set amount of time, and that’s

important. I would think that at some point, besides the Minister of

Finance, the government will have speakers that will speak, obviously,

in favour of this bill.

Given the recent decisions by this government, by this incoming

Premier, probably knowing the specifics about Bill 42, the specifics

about the MCFD bill, the specifics about the legislation that was tabled

today…. But let’s just focus on Bill 42 for a second, because that’s

where we are, and that’s second reading right now. Is there certainty

that this is going to be able to be fully canvassed? I think that that

certainty has been shaken, because, as my colleague said and I will say

again, that incoming Premier has chosen to tear out one week of this

sitting. It’s four days of legislative time.

Now, I know myself and my colleagues will be here. I understand

that a number of government colleagues will be here. But we will not be

doing the work that was set out in our parliamentary calendar — work on

Bill 42, perhaps — where my colleague would’ve had the opportunity to

canvass this extensively in committee. We’ve had instances in this

House, under this administration, where we brought in time allocation on

important legislation. We had a member of this House in mid sentence

have his microphone cut off due to time allocation. I think that

member’s constituents would have a problem with that.

I think it’s still fairly new to this building. But there are

processes for legislation, whether it’s through LRC, where you know

what’s coming…. You would think that you would want adequate time in the

calendar to defend the legislation that you put forward.

In Bill 42, I think my colleagues, others on this side of the

House and the Third Party should be afforded that as well. We have seen

in this fall session where there have been errors in legislation that’s

been tabled that had to be rectified. That happens. That does happen.

It’s nobody’s…. I don’t think it’s intended, but errors do happen. But

when you have the proper runway that you should be afforded, that’s how

this place works.

I know this bill was designed specifically to fund the FIFA 2026

games, which will be partly hosted in Vancouver. But there are key

things and key elements of this bill that need to be discussed. It will

allow for government to approve this type of tax for international

tourism events at the discretion of the minister. What constitutes an

event? I mention Canada Cup. That would be something that I would think

should be canvassed and considered. Maybe it is being considered. Maybe

it’s not. But those types of discussions need to happen.

[3:55 p.m.]

I think that overall, the concept of tourists funding

infrastructure — you think about infrastructure that’s designed to

accommodate events that they are attending — has some merit. It could be

a good way to recover some of the costs that we see with these large

events. Like I said, I’m not going to profess to be a soccer — or, I

guess, football — fan, as much as others in this House may be, but I

think it’s very clear that the World Cup is one of the biggest events,

if not the biggest event. It may have overtaken the Olympics. But that

doesn’t mean there won’t be questions about what this bill will look

like when it’s put into practice.

This government hasn’t earned that kind of trust, at least

definitely not from opposition — that’s not our job to do — but also our

constituents. I do get emails from constituents on legislation. People

do watch this program. They will write in, and they will ask, and they

follow it closely. I think other jurisdictions follow this closely. I

think other jurisdictions and those that are watching probably view it

very cynically if the process is not allowed to be followed

through.

I’m not demeaning this piece of legislation, because I think that

this is important. When we look at the costs that are associated with

some of these events, specifically with security, they can be enormous.

But consultation is also very important, consultation with

municipalities. We’ve had major shifts throughout the province

municipally, at the mayor level, at the council level. I think people on

both sides of this House are probably taking the opportunity to get

familiar with some of the new mayors and councillors. Then, obviously,

there may be changes with staff as well.

They would expect that those conversations happen. They would

expect that a bill like this would be vetted through a committee stage.

That’s vitally important. They would probably be asking, I would think,

if they haven’t been told, and I doubt they would be: what does the

approval process for municipalities look like? What does that

mean?

When you look at Surrey — and like I said, we have Softball City

in my riding and Canada Cup: what is that approval process? How is it

structured? How do we make sure that we have somewhat of a level playing

field for communities, whether it’s Vancouver, whether it’s Surrey,

whether it’s Kamloops, whether it’s Prince George?

If you look at what’s going on in Prince George for the last

number of years, it seems like every time you turn on the TV, Prince

George is hosting something major, whether it’s a hockey tournament,

whether it’s curling, whether it’s B.C. Games. Prince George often seems

to be…. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the work of my colleague the

member for Prince George–Valemount. Prince George has always got

something going on that is driving mass amounts of tourism due to

sports.

So how is that a level playing field, when you look at Vancouver,

at Surrey, at Prince George, at Kamloops, given the fact that this bill,

the way that we read it — obviously, we can get some clarity in

committee — limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality

or regional district per respective tourism event?

[4:00 p.m.]

Now, I would think that once we get to committee on this, if I or

my colleague asked this, that would be clarified. We could go to the

municipality and actually work with them on that

clarification.

Another important

part is that the discussion for this bill comes

down to other events that could prompt municipalities to utilize this

legislation. What events are those, and at what stage do they need to

be? Obviously, we talk about a world cup. A world cup is…. It’s the

world cup. Everybody knows the world cup; everybody understands

that.

Could this be the same thing, if we were fortunate enough to host

the women’s world cup? Actually, one of the best sporting events I’ve

ever been to is watching the Canadian women’s team play. I know the

men’s team is exceeding expectations, but the women’s team has been

doing that for over a decade now, and I think we should all be proud of

that work.

Would the women’s team qualify for this, if we were fortunate

enough to host a world cup? That would be a question that we would

canvass in committee. I don’t think any of us know the answer to that

right now, except for maybe the Minister of Finance. If the answer is

no, then maybe there’s an opportunity for us to rework that and make

sure that that’s something that we can collaborate on.

One of the most successful events that B.C. Place has had,

consistently, is women’s soccer. I think the women’s national team is

always ranked in the top four in the world. That’s something, I would

say, that we are very proud of.

How does this work? What event qualifies? What event does…? Is it

at the discretion of the minister? It can be a bit challenging. I think

some of the frustration that we’re seeing is…. Again, it’s an

opportunity to canvass this. It appears that this government is very

reactionary, but it can often pick winners and losers. It was late, very

late — no pun intended — to the game on the World Cup. It’s going to be

an opportunity for B.C. to showcase….

To my previous remarks…. When you look at the reaction that we’ve

had over the last week from Indigenous leaders — who, they have said,

have had the carpet pulled out from under them by this government saying

no to any support for an Indigenous-led Olympic Games — I think that

builds some cynicism. I think that hurts the credibility of a government

that is obviously struggling in that area. They’ve said that it is dead.

My colleague mentioned it.

[4:05 p.m.]

Was this legislation discussed by the government with those

nations that were leading an Indigenous-led Olympic Games? We are told

that…. Obviously, one of the speaking points that the minister came out

with is the cost that is associated with an Olympic Games. That was the

speaking point that was used when this government first rejected the

World Cup.

When you look at the justification of cost — things like this —

was this piece of legislation discussed, in helping recoup costs? That

is a perfect conversation to have at committee stage. I think that’s an

important conversation to have. There is an expectation that we have

that conversation, but when you look at what this government has put

forward in the last couple of days, you have to wonder.

When you look at Bill 42 and the other bills and the timing,

there’s either incompetence or intent. It’s either incompetence in how

you introduce legislation, or you can’t manage a calendar properly to

make sure that it is vetted through the proper stages that it needs to

go through — such as Bill 42, such as the MCFD bill that was tabled,

such as the 645-section bill that is currently being debated down the

hall, such as the Labour bill that was introduced, such as the other

bill that we saw from the Attorney General, such as the energy

bill.

I’m not being cynical, but there is a question to be asked: is it

intentional to have to come in here and shut down debate on something

like Bill 42 or on the Labour bill? I’m not dismissing any of the

importance of this legislation, but is it the intent to bring in

closure, bring in time allocation and just say: “Trust us. It’s going to

work out okay”?

Well, we’ve seen how that doesn’t happen. We’ve seen errors in

legislation that has been presented this fall at this sitting. That’s

what happens when items are rushed. Is that the intent, or is it

incompetence — incompetence to manage a legislative calendar?

To ask the question at committee stage: what municipalities? How

do they apply? What is the definition of an event? What is the

discretion of a minister? There is a possibility that those questions

will not be asked, because either this government cannot manage a

parliamentary calendar properly, or their intent is to completely

disregard it.

I think that that conversation, if you have it with your

constituents, is a bit offensive, and it’s wrong. If these ministers do

not want to stand here and defend the legislation that they stand up and

introduce, just say it. Go on the record and say it. We’re all here next

week; I know we are, and I know the majority of government is. Bill 42

should be a topic. That will not happen.

[4:10 p.m.]

This government, the week after next, has torn out four days of

the parliamentary calendar. When you want to ask the important questions

about how municipalities work, how one would apply, the consultation

that was done with municipalities, the consultation that was done with

Indigenous leaders…. It wasn’t done in terms of the Indigenous-led

Olympics. It can’t happen. I think that’s a disservice.

When we look at the passionate speeches that came from the

Indigenous leaders on the bill presented by the Minister of Children and

Families, I would hope that this government would ensure that that bill

gets the proper respect that it deserves and goes through the proper

legislative process — just like Bill 42 should, just like the labour

bill should, just like the energy bill should, just like the Attorney

General’s bill should.

I get this government wanting to duck four question periods, given

recent performances and upcoming potential cabinet shuffles. I don’t

blame that. But the fact is that this building is not solely based on

question period. We do other work here, whether it’s second reading or

whether it’s committee.

I would hope that members are asking tough questions of their

leadership in this government, because their constituents should be

asking questions of them to say: “What are you doing? What are you

running from here? Defend it.” I think that’s a reasonable expectation.

For the life of me, I have not seen one argument that makes sense from

this government on why they cannot fulfil that.

Like I said, when it comes to Bill 42, there are important

questions that need to be asked, but the main question that I’ll end

this with is: is it intent, or is it incompetence? One of those two

things.

With that, I’ll take my seat.

L. Doerkson: Well, thank you for that big applause. I appreciate being

here.

I am obviously pleased to offer some remarks on Bill 42. I do want

to sort of pick up where the previous member left off. I have some

concerns as well with respect to some of the recent events here, of

course, with the cancellation of a week of our legislative session,

which obviously…. I’ll certainly point out the questions that I have

about Bill 42.

I think many of us want to see all of these bills go through

committee, through the proper channels and through the proper scrutiny

that they deserve. With all due respect, it’s for the betterment of the

legislation. It’s an opportunity for us not only to debate but actually

scrutinize Bill 42 and other bills that the member from Surrey mentioned

that are extremely serious.

We have a potential labour bill before us. We have things to talk

about with respect to WorkSafeBC. We have things to talk about with

respect to our health care system. We have a number of bills that are

before us right now. Bill 42 is extremely serious, and I definitely will

get to those comments right away.

[4:15 p.m.]

If you’ll allow me a little bit of leniency, I do want to say that

I was touched earlier by the memorial service — I think that’s something

that we share — for Constable Yang. I know that many of us watched it in

our caucus room. I’m sure the government did as well. I want to extend

my condolences to her family and to her friends. It was an incredibly

sad moment and, certainly, sad images. I guess I’ll just leave that

there. I’m glad to have been able to watch that today and

participate.

With respect to Bill 42, of course, we know — we’ve talked about

it a little bit today — that this is an opportunity for a 2½ percent

increase in taxes. Obviously, the focus will be on international events.

What I want to discuss today is how to bring that back to rural British

Columbia and talk about some of the events that could be affected in a

positive way by this legislation.

Now, I don’t want to confuse the House. I don’t want to suggest

that I am for or against. As I said before, I want to go through

committee stage, and I want to have an opportunity to fully scrutinize

the bill and to understand the benefits and the impacts that it could

have not just in the bigger cities but certainly rural British C