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, 2022

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 42.

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 42.

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 Columbia and with events throughout the province.

Some of the concerns I have, really, are around boundaries. I’ll get to that in a moment — how that will actually play out as far as neighbouring cities. How will they be affected by it? Will that end up being a competitive edge that, potentially, neighbouring cities might have? And other questions around that.

Ultimately, this bill, this legislation, has an opportunity to raise an unbelievable amount of money, really, for British Columbians and for events. I think that really needs to be discussed at length, because it has the potential to be an absolutely massive amount of money that will be coming from tourists visiting our province or, certainly, people that are partaking in those events.

I can see the benefit of that. I can see the benefit that people that want to enjoy things like FIFA or other events certainly should have a hand in helping us to fund some of that — either added infrastructure or, certainly, added costs, whether that’s policing or whether it’s other different things.

Ultimately, of course, Bill 42…. The opportunity to collect this 2.5 percent, obviously, has come by way of the FIFA 2026 games. I don’t think that’s any surprise to me. I do want to suggest that it’s a little surprising after the announcement last week of, I guess, the lack of support from the B.C. government with respect to Indigenous-led Olympic Games. I’m just shocked that this would be announced after that announcement.

I guess why I’m surprised at that…. I want to talk a little bit about this. First off, I guess we won’t know unless we’re able to get to committee stage, and I certainly hope that that’s the case. I want to know how much consultation happened with this bill and, of course, Indigenous people, Indigenous groups. I think we’re owed an answer to that.

I think Bill 42, while it obviously would be beneficial to FIFA…. I can’t imagine that it might not have helped to be beneficial to those games. I don’t know if those First Nations knew that this legislation was coming. Certainly, we didn’t know. I’m not sure if this is sort of a best-kept secret, something that was introduced late in the House. The loss of a week to properly debate it, the loss of a week of legislative calendar to actually scrutinize Bill 42 — all of those things are a little bit suspect.

[4:20 p.m.]

I think that we’re owed those answers, and I think that we should have the opportunity to properly ask questions about this bill.

Going back to the First Nations, with respect to any of the bills before this House, we have an obligation, we’ve agreed — absolutely agreed together — that we would seek proper consultation on every bill that comes before this House. Bill 42 should of course be no exception. I think it’s important to note that the event for which the First Nations lost the support of the government last week would have probably fit Bill 42 extremely well. The actual legislation itself would have helped to make that event happen.

I can’t help but ask, if that’s the case and if these three First Nations had known that this bill was coming before the House, would it have been beneficial for them to know that information? Could this bill have had the ability to actually have those games? I hope that the government is thinking about this, and I hope that they’re considering that. I can’t imagine that the attendance, from the world over, wouldn’t be massive for these Indigenous-led Olympic Games. I can’t help but think that this would have been extremely beneficial.

Then just in general terms, I want to talk a little bit about First Nations with respect to any of the bills in this House. I just can’t help but think that that announcement was a big step backward for reconciliation in this province. I know how extremely hard my community is trying. I mean, we just saw an entire local municipal government replaced, in the name of bettering relations with First Nations in our community. Certainly, that was part of the reason.

I think that we have strived…. We have tried extremely hard to improve those relations, to grow those relationships with many First Nations in my riding. I really felt like that announcement was a step backward. I think that it has hurt the efforts of reconciliation in this province, and I’m extremely concerned about that. What concerns me most is that with Bill 42 and the massive amount of potential income that it could have created, we may have been able to hold those games. I think that that really has to be considered in many, many ways.

Again, I can’t stress this enough — the member for Surrey–White Rock has mentioned it; I’m sure the member for Kamloops–​North Thompson likely mentioned it too: we need that time to properly scrutinize this bill, and others. In my mind, it is a bad mistake to bring any legislation to the people of British Columbia that hasn’t gone through that scrutiny. Bill 42 is no different. It has to be scrutinized. It has to be understood fully so that we can understand what the impact is going to be on all British Columbians. This bill certainly has the ability to do exactly that, to have a very large impact.

I want to talk a little bit about section 1 of Bill 42, and how it defines….

Interjection.

L. Doerkson: I’m sorry, Madam Speaker. Does the minister want the floor? It’s all good? Okay.

Section 1 defines a major event area. The problem is that because we haven’t had the opportunity to go through committee, I’m not really sure what that means and how that will be defined. Certainly, the idea of FIFA would be that this would be very supportive of Vancouver, but I want to know how international events in my community might be supported by something like this.

[4:25 p.m.]

I know that might seem strange to say “international events” when I come from a community of 12,000 people, but 15,000 to 20,000 people go through the front gates, every single year, at the Williams Lake Stampede. Without question, as somebody who has spent countless hours in the Williams Lake Stampede arena and volunteering for that rodeo, I can tell you, with absolute, clear certainty, that it is an international event that is attended by people from all over the world, and they absolutely love it.

I also want to say that a community like mine in Williams Lake, where we use that infrastructure year-round, the proceeds from something like Bill 42 or like this major accommodation tax could be incredibly beneficial. I mean, we’re talking about a stampede grounds that really is in the centre of our community, that needs constant upgrades, and every time we have an event that is larger than the year before, we need more infrastructure.

We need more everything, and not just infrastructure, but for events like that…. I’m sure that my community is not unique in any way, other than it’s one of the more beautiful in the province. I think that all of these events not only need infrastructure, but they often need extra policing, extra things like that — extra health care, extra ambulances — for all of these events. And I don’t see in Bill 42 where any of that is contemplated.

Again, and I can’t stress this enough, this is exactly, precisely why we need to have the opportunity to discuss this in committee stage so that we can understand what defines a major event. Of course, we’ve already mentioned that it will be the benefit of 2½ percent, which is obviously a large amount of money.

I do want to talk a little bit about not necessarily events…. I want to talk about seasonal opportunities, too, that may be able to take advantage of something like Bill 42 and the legislation that it will bring. That is facilities like Barkerville, which are obviously seasonal, but they attract an unbelievable amount of people to rural British Columbia and into the central Interior, and of course, that is to the benefit of all of us.

All of us feel that excitement in the summer. Certainly, throughout the Kootenays and the Okanagan, we all have a tourism season. But facilities like Barkerville…. If you haven’t been there, it’s absolutely amazing, but their infrastructure cost is outstanding. I mean, it is a lot of repairs there — I think the member’s agreeing with me across the aisle here — but it is an incredible place. They could certainly benefit from something like this, and again, it’s why we need to discuss this fully.

I mean, certainly, in the rodeo world, and that’s what I’ll talk about — I am passionate about it, and I know you are, too, Madam Speaker — events like Falkland and, certainly, the IPE in Armstrong, are all world-renowned events, and I think that there is potential for them to benefit from this. I think that it’s important that we consider, at least, how this might play out through rural British Columbia. I know the focus for Bill 42, the PST Amendment Act, is basically around FIFA, and I know that that’s kind of the catalyst for this, but I just can’t help but think that it could be so much more.

Going back to the Williams Lake Stampede, and certainly, referring to that word of “reconciliation” again…. You know, the stampede grounds in Williams Lake, and I’m sure it is similar to so many other facilities in this province…. I can’t help but think that that brings our entire community together. So there is a real reason for us to invest in that infrastructure and to support them. The fact is the cities benefit from this too. I know very often that people will start at the Williams Lake Stampede, and they will go from there.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know that, also, sometimes they obviously end at the Williams Lake Stampede, and I’ve heard how they’ve toured British Columbia and how they’ve had an incredible opportunity to see what we’re extremely spoiled to have, which is beautiful B.C., of course. So I think it’s important to note how this infrastructure has also created reconciliation in our community.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Again, I can’t help but note that just recently we were talking about infrastructure in my community and how it might benefit from the legislation that’s before us today with respect to Bill 42.

I was noting that we’ve just recently used the Williams Lake Stampede Grounds for a day of reconciliation on Truth and Reconciliation Day, of course, on September 30. A lot of that infrastructure is getting pretty old. I guess what I was just trying to explain to the House is that while we’re certainly considering this around FIFA, what kind of a role it could play throughout the rest of the province and how beneficial it could be to so many else….

I guess the other thing, too, that I wanted to ask in committee, certainly if we do get to that point, of course, on this bill…. I wanted to see how it will play out across other ministries. Certainly, Jobs and Economic Recovery should have a role in helping with this. I mean, we talk about the idea that these international tourism events will be approved at the discretion of the minister, in Bill 42. I can appreciate that. But I think it’s important to know how that decision will be arrived at and who will be involved in helping to make that decision.

We’ve talked often — certainly, one of the colleagues here and I — about rural development, and that is now a part of regional development. I think that individual might agree that there’s a potential here in Bill 42, if brought properly forward…. It could have a very serious impact in a good way, potentially. I guess what I’m saying is I don’t want to see rural B.C. left out if there is a beneficial argument to carrying this forward into the rest of the province, and I think there is.

I think Jobs and Economic Recovery, of course…. That minister should have some opportunity to comment on these events that may or may not be approved by the minister. I also think, of course, of the Tourism Minister. The past Tourism Minister has been supportive of the Williams Lake Stampede and its moment of need during COVID. I’ve thanked that individual for her support. But I think it’s important that the Tourism Minister be involved in those decisions, because it can’t rest solely on the Minister of Finance, for instance. I think that has to be a decision that has to be made.

Frankly, I think local MLAs should have an opportunity to plead their case. It’s not just the Williams Lake Stampede, as I was mentioning before, that are international events. When I lived in Prince George, the Scott Tournament of Hearts…. We had the good fortune of having the Scott Tournament of Hearts there. Now, while it’s obviously a national event — a very fun one, by the way — it was an incredible international draw to a beautiful city like Prince George, and of course, people were really able to enjoy that.

There was an unbelievable need for not only infrastructure but extra policing, as I’ve mentioned before. There’s obviously a potential to need extra medical care. I hope that’s not the case, but often it happens, of course. I just can’t help but think that these are questions we all really wanted to discuss and have a conversation about at the committee stage.

[4:35 p.m.]

I want to touch a little bit on neighbouring communities too. Earlier while I was speaking, I was talking about the support for a city like Vancouver. My concern is: what about the other communities around it that likely will take up some of the effort that will be needed to host events as big as FIFA and things like that?

While I can understand and appreciate that Vancouver would be certainly the focal point, there are many communities, obviously, around it. Certainly, this could happen in other places where communities are bordering each other quite closely — certainly places in the Okanagan that I can think of. How will this bill support those communities that will also see increases in expense?

I think that it’s very important to understand how Bill 42 will support something like Vernon, but may be able to support smaller communities like Enderby that may also feel the pressure of those events.

From my experience with the Williams Lake Stampede, I know that when our community is busy and at its capacity, very many communities around us, even an hour away in 100 Mile, are feeling the pressure of hosting that event. It’s really hosted by the entire Cariboo-Chilcotin, and it is a challenge for all of us, right? I think that that really needs to be noted in this bill. It needs to be appreciated that those communities that surround and are close to Vancouver certainly will need help. I think that that needs to be considered.

I also think that with respect to those communities, it may have an unintended consequence of making them, under Bill 42 and with respect to the taxation…. It may have a small competitive advantage. You know, if you’re paying 2½ percent…. I know that we’re not talking about a massive amount of money, but it could have an unintended consequence of having a benefit for Richmond or Surrey or wherever. I think that that also needs to be considered as well.

I want to touch one more time on reconciliation before I take my seat. I just think that we had, as a Legislature, a really good opportunity to extend reconciliation under the decision that was made last week. I’m not here to debate whether it was right or wrong. I think that those First Nations needed support, and I think they needed support from this Legislature.

I spoke earlier, when you were not in the chair, and I just want to touch on it again, that I can’t help but think that if this bill had been produced or presented a week or two earlier, it may have had an effect on that decision. Only because…. As I’ve said, we might be talking about a small percentage on one or two hotel rooms for you and I, but when we spread that out over the Lower Mainland, we are talking about a very large amount of income. I can’t help but think that it would have changed the outcome of that decision if those numbers were factored in.

Now, I don’t know that they weren’t. I don’t know that they weren’t factored in. What I do know is that we need a committee stage on this bill to discuss exactly that. I do worry that there was a very significant opportunity for reconciliation there and that we may have missed that. I’m sad for that.

I just want to take the opportunity, in closing, to give a quick shout-out and a thank-you to the tourism folks in my community, because they do an amazing job. They market, in an amazing way, to the world. I think that they will be interested to know how Bill 42 would play out for them. I know that the efforts that they put forth in Europe and in other parts of the world are just staggering. I know that because of my role with the Williams Lake Stampede in the past.

[4:40 p.m.]

I know that those efforts have largely been met with incredible success. I know that now the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and certainly British Columbia, is a hot spot for so many people throughout the world.

With respect to Bill 42, I think that that consideration really needs to be made with respect to how we might pull this out into rural B.C., and I hope that it will be.

R. Russell: I rise to speak briefly in favour of this bill.

I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin as well as his proactive vision about rural B.C. and looking forward with legislation like this. I appreciate those comments.

As somebody that was in local government in the process of establishing the MRDT for a region, I certainly recognize the value that it serves. I think that this is a great opportunity to be able to expand that.

To speak to some of the questions that I’ve heard while I’ve been in the House here…. There were questions raised, for example, about what kind of criteria would be used by the minister to deem an expansion eligible.

I’ll just reiterate…. Some of the potential criteria that would be considered would be things like whether or not it is an internationally recognized tourism event, whether it has great potential to draw significant out-of-province tourists and media attention and whether it all-round bolsters tourism, employment and social-economic benefits for people, which are the kinds of things that we just heard as well.

I think that this is a great opportunity, also, to clarify…. It is an opportunity to add up to a 2½ percent additional tax to be able to provide for those large events. It’s one of those tools which I think provides the flexibility to local governments and to people on the ground to do so effectively.

There was also a question around the consultation. I know, from the process in local government around consultation…. This really impacts accommodators. So the consultation process, I understand, was particularly focused on accommodators to make sure that they understood and recognized the potential value here. I think it’s certainly an opportunity that I see some value in.

I also, though, rise to…. The speaker prior, the member for Surrey–White Rock, went to great lengths to articulate why — what I would say is somewhat offensive to myself, in terms of saying that I am either incompetent or…. I interpret it that way. I find it interesting that that same member spent a great deal of time talking about how we don’t have enough time to discuss, actively, the material at hand here.

I appreciate the comments from the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. I feel like that was time well spent, talking about ways that we can improve this in, to me, the spirit of order and decorum in this place. I appreciate those kinds of comments. I feel like they raise the level and the tenor of the discussion as opposed to bringing it down. So thank you very much.

B. Banman: It is, as I’ve said before, an honour and a privilege to get up to speak to any bill in this House. In this particular case, we are talking about Bill 42, the PST Amendment Act for 2022.

Now, my understanding is that Bill 42 adds a new municipal and regional district tax on designated major event accommodation areas. What that effectively does is allow municipalities and/or regional districts to collect up to 2.5 percent of a tax in respect of international tourism events.

I think that’s great. I think it’s great that this government, the NDP, has finally figured out a way that the users, actually, should pay for something. I think that’s a good thing. Those that want to come and participate are actually going to have to pay to watch it. It’s a rather refreshing change in attitude from this government — that those who want to do it are actually going to pay. I applaud them on that. Maybe there is hope. There is a glimmer of light. Anyway, I digress.

[4:45 p.m.]

There are an awful lot of things that will happen in the committee stage. Sadly, the new Premier-in-waiting, who, I understand, will take office as of Friday, has chosen that one of his first acts is to, basically, eliminate one week of debate. Here’s a really important piece of legislation, which is going to come on this floor, that actually has some really valid debate. You heard one of my colleagues speak to some of those very things. I think that to lose those four days of debate, especially on this particular area, is problematic. Let’s go over a couple of those.

Now, this is brought in, in my understanding, for the FIFA 2026 games. I’m excited about that. It is one of the most massive tourism sporting events, internationally, in the world. In this case, it’s football. Soccer, when it comes to an amateur sport, is the single-largest amateur sport in Canada. It has got strong participation by both men and women and boys and girls.

It’s great to see that this type of tax could be used to help host an international event. However, one of the things that it talks about is what a region may be and who is affected by that region. I’m going to go locally. There are a couple of international events that happen in Abbotsford and in the neighbouring riding of Abbotsford-Mission. Let me go over it, starting with my neighbouring riding to the north.

Mission has an international racetrack. It attracts some of the finest quarter-mile racing there is. It is an international event. I would hope, perhaps, on a major event that they have, that this 2.5 percent tax could go towards that.

Here’s one of the problems and why we need to hammer some of this out in the committee stage. As I said, I am worried that, once again, closure is going to be invoked, and we will not have a chance to try and improve the legislation, which could help that. In Mission, they have a lack of hotel rooms. Whenever they have a big event in Mission…. Abbotsford is always very pleased about that. That means that the hotel rooms in Abbotsford are going to be full. For those race events, those hotel rooms start to spill out.

Some of the things that need to be talked about and discussed are how one goes about defining what that geographical area of effect will be. It’s important that we have the time to be able to, in committee stage, figure out what the specific mechanisms are, who gets to make the decision, what the criteria of that decision are and which hotel rooms are going to be charged this new tax. It’s not to be taken lightly.

When Abbotsford has its international air show, which attracts tens of thousands of people…. I think the record, one year, was 120,000 people. If you have never been to the Abbotsford Air Show, I strongly suggest you go. If you’ve never seen the Friday evening fireworks…. These guys actually attach pyrotechnics on their planes, and it is a sight to behold, Mr. Speaker. If you’ve never been, please come. Please come. It truly is a sight to behold.

[4:50 p.m.]

It’s not just people from British Columbia that come to this event. We get them, who fly in, actually, from all around the world, mainly from the United States. But they do come from all over the world.

Abbotsford actually has the exact same problem at that event that Mission does when it hosts a large racetrack event. That problem is that we do not have enough hotel rooms for that three-day event. In addition to that, we also have the aerospace…. The name is just…. I’m having an infarct at the moment, Mr. Speaker.

ADSE, the aerospace and defence meeting, happens generally just prior and/or during. So the hotel rooms that are required…. Actually, the last time it was held they had hotel rooms all the way out into Vancouver that were full with defence contractors. They had, last year, in…. I believe it was in the…. Again, I’m having a brain infarct, Mr. Speaker. The Bayshore was where they had the ADSE thing. There are hotel rooms that are booked throughout the entire Lower Mainland because there just are not enough rooms in Abbotsford alone.

How would Abbotsford go about asking the minister…? The issue with that is…. In the Lower Mainland, there are actually two regional districts that slam into one another. There is Metro Vancouver, which basically ends at the Langley-Abbotsford border, and then there is the Fraser Valley regional district.

Here you now have two potential regional districts that are affected by the Abbotsford International Air Show. What mechanisms are now going to be put in place to be able to discuss the criteria? What mechanisms are there going to be in place in…?

Abbotsford was unique. We actually, for a while, sat on both regional districts. That had to do with the amalgamation of Matsqui and Abbotsford. We sat on Metro Vancouver, and we sat on the Fraser Valley regional district.

Well, I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Speaker. At times, there was a tense relationship between those two regional districts. Quite often what was deemed important by one regional district was deemed not important or, in fact, intrusive by another.

How are you now going to get two regional districts…? They won’t be the only ones in British Columbia that, perhaps, don’t see eye to eye on everything. How are those regional districts going to be approached? Who has the authority to be able to tell the regional districts what’s going to be done? Who has the authority, and how is that all going to pan out? This is one of the reasons why we should be here for what was already scheduled, for the debate of the bills that are put through here.

We’ve got the health care bill going through right now, which is one of the largest bills in the history of this building, in years, and it’s currently being debated in committee stage now. We’ve actually found some good information. So there’s proof in the pudding as to why that is applicable to Bill 42. We need the time to be able to sit down with those that drafted this and iron out some of what seem to be subtle details but are quite important.

My colleague from up north came up with some very important reasons, in committee stage, as to what’s going to be sorted out. That’s just the beginning.

Would this be…? There was a time when…. I remember fondly when the Molson races happened in Vancouver. I know that some of the people in Vancouver hated the noise.

[4:55 p.m.]

Now that we have the electric cars that race, which don’t pollute…. I think those Formula E cars would be welcomed back.

That is also something that people came from all over the world to watch and participate in and see. Would that be considered something that the entire province should participate in, in this particular sales tax?

There are other details. I understand that this can happen for seven years prior, and then, even afterwards, it could be seven years post, up to seven years — up to the discretion of the minister. Well, cities have to have a balanced budget. They don’t have the luxury of the province and the federal budgets of being able to run a deficit. They have to balance, by statute, by law. How are they going to collect this? What happens if the events go over?

Part of the reason why this particular bill is important, why this tax is important, is that the downloading of costs onto the cities that are going to host these events is extra­ordinary. You start off with traffic control. You start off with volunteers. You start off with all of the safeguards that are going to be in place. You start off with the extra policing, the extra fire, the extra ambulances that are going to be required for some of these events. Who pays for that? Either the event themselves or the city that is hosting it and putting it on.

So it would make sense that during committee stage…. I hate to beat that dead horse — that we’re not going to have the opportunity, it looks like, to discuss these finer details to actually make this bill better or, at least…. Maybe these ideas have already been thought of, but at this stage, we don’t have the answers to those.

I am sure that there are a lot of cities and/or regional districts that are going to want to know what these are, because they’ll be excited to actually host an international event, such as how our First Nations were excited to hold the Olympics.

It seems interesting to me that we’re going to bring this in for FIFA. It could have been applied for the Olympics. Yet before this bill hit the floor of the House, the Olympics were rejected out of hand. The reason that’s important is there were many First Nations that were looking forward to hosting and putting those on.

Perhaps…. I would like to know, in committee stage: were they consulted? Did they even know this legislation was coming here? Did they know this was a funding formula they could have used? Could this have saved that bid? It seems to me that it’s important to talk with First Nations if we truly want to have reconciliation. Perhaps it would have avoided the hard feelings that rejecting those Olympics out of hand had. I think that our Premier-in-waiting perhaps was a little hasty in the decision to just axe that.

It seems to me that there could have been time, once this bill had been sorted out — that maybe this could have saved that. It would have answered the questions for a lot of folks that are against the Olympics because they thought it would be a burden on the taxpayers. This would have been a user-pay for the Olympics, perhaps. Sadly, we won’t ever know, because this bill came after the Olympic bid was cancelled.

I think that’s just going to rub a little salt in the wound of our partners who thought that we truly meant what we said when we were talking about reconciliation. I think it’s a missed opportunity, and I think it’s now going to create hard feelings and push reconciliation backwards, especially when they find out that there was a funding stream that may have not even been discussed with them.

[5:00 p.m.]

I want to go back to Abbotsford, and I want to go back to…. In section 1, it defines a major event area. Well, I’d sure like to know whether or not the Abbotsford International Air Show would qualify. It’s one of the largest of its kind in the world. Would it even qualify? Based on the numbers that it draws, it very well might.

The Abbotsford International Air Show is under a ton of financial pressures. They went through COVID. They were able to do something, even through COVID. But it took its toll. It took its toll on their bottom line; it took its toll on their budget. When you consider that this is a weather-dependent event — which most international events, I would suggest, may very well be — would that help preserve what is truly one of British Columbia’s, I think, jewels when it comes to an event?

Would the PNE, which also went through hardships during COVID and got caught in the whole snafu of…? They are part of the city of Vancouver and didn’t qualify for federal money that was out there for COVID because they are an entity of Vancouver. A very small line in all of what they are — an entity of Vancouver — denied the PNE from any money from the feds. Would this particular Bill 42 apply for the PNE? It’s also, many would say, an international event.

When we take a look at things like the tall ships, the tall-mast ships that have come here numerous times…. How about the Vancouver international fireworks? Would that qualify?

These are questions that, during the committee stage, which we’ve been robbed the time of…. I don’t think we’re going to get to the bottom of nor be able to get to the answer to that. I think that the people of British Columbia, especially for something like this…. Let’s face it. After COVID, we’re all looking for something fun to do. We all want life to get back on the rails.

Bill 42 could help not only restore some of our beloved institutions that financially are in trouble, but it could also help spur new ones. It could help, with the seeds of ideas that people have for a new international event, for it to take place. But there are so many questions that are left unanswered, and I wonder whether or not we’re actually going to have the time to be able to go through most of these issues with the minister to find out exactly how that’s all going to unfold. Sadly, it seems to be something that this government does again and again and again.

This side of the House is not against the idea. What we’re against is the fact that it’s being pushed through without any chance to debate it, any chance to dig into the details. Good democracy requires sunlight, they say. It requires that ability to sanitize things, to open it up and be transparent.

This does not help, especially when one considers the award that this government got for being the most secretive government. This doesn’t help. What would help, if you want to get rid of that moniker, is allowing the proper time to debate bills in the committee stage. It needs to happen more than just here. Actions speak louder than words. And sadly, the actions of this government thus far, be it a good idea or bad, are to just push it through.

[5:05 p.m.]

We all know that this is going to pass. The government has the numbers. The government can pass anything it wants. But just because you can does not mean you should. Just because you can do something without consultation, without debate, without exposing the books to understand how the regulations work, doesn’t mean you actually should.

You will hear from this side of the House that a fair amount of the large complaints that we have is the fact that these things do seem to be going through without proper consultation and without the ability for this side of the House to go: “Oh, excuse me, have you thought of this?”

By the way, we’ve been talking to some of our constituents. We’ve been talking to some of the groups that have spoken out to us, and they have pointed out A, B and C of flaws that they see in any particular bill, including Bill 42. As I was saying, what is that major event? What is that area going to look like? What kind of governments are going to be involved? What happens when it’s more than one regional district? Should it be the entire province? Should it also be…? How do the events themselves ask for it if the cities, for instance, can’t be bothered to do it? Can an event come directly to the province and ask?

Does the minister have the right to now force it upon a city? “Yes, you will be charging this tax whether you want to or not, and it will be going towards this event.” Maybe the minister should have that right. But these are all questions that currently are not really answered.

Section 3 enables that tax to be put on accommodations in major event areas and sets the maximum rate to 2.5 percent. Who decides whether it’s 2.5? Who decides whether it’s going to be 1 percent? What are the triggering criteria that are going to determine whether it’s at the maximum rate, and does the minister have the right to override that 2.5 in the future? Can we make it 4 percent? Can we make it a quarter of 1 percent?

These are questions that, during the committee stage, this side of the government would probably ask the minister, rightfully so, to get a definition and the rule book so that these events can actually figure out what they’re going to do and how they’re going to apply for that.

Now, section 12 establishes the criteria for regulation enabling major events, accommodation taxes, including the circumstances by which a municipality must apply for the tax — and that the minister must be satisfied there is a major international tourism event. Well, what does that mean exactly? Does the Abbotsford International Air Show count? Does one of the huge trophy races at Mission Raceway that’s international count? Do the tall ships that I was talking about count that have come into Vancouver and come into Steveston that happen on a regular basis? These are just like….

We heard about the Williams Lake rodeo, also an international event. Barkerville. Barkerville is toured by people from all over the world. They will rent motorhomes, which they get from Abbotsford, by the way. One of the largest places to rent a motorhome in all of North America is in Abbotsford, and they will rent those motorhomes and travel to that. Should those motorhomes be applicable to the 2½ percent tax? Maybe it’s something that’s missing in this legislation that should be put in that tax.

There are some questions on section 12 in this legislation that rightfully deserve the time and the light and the sanitation during the committee stage that we need to be able to go through. Additionally, section 12 limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality or regional district per respective tourism event. Well, as I was saying before, that’s a huge issue. In the Lower Mainland alone, there are two of them that butt right up to one another, and they share the costs of an event.

[5:10 p.m.]

Langley and Vancouver rent out hotel rooms for the Abbotsford International Air Show. Langley and Chilliwack, two different regional districts, actually will have hotel rooms for some of the major events that that happen in Mission. It’s not just the race that happens. Mission actually is known for some great Shakespeare as well, and has some international concerts.

There’s another one. We have the Merritt Mountain Music Festival that takes place. People from all over go there, and they actually go there in motorhomes as well. On that ticket and in the renting out of those motorhomes that happens in that event, should that be applicable? It has a drastic effect on the small town of Merritt itself. Now, Merritt loves it, because it’s a huge economic stimulus. Would these also be some of those questions?

I think there is a huge, glaring red flag in this one, in that it limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality or regional district. Just on the face of it alone, Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out why I think that we deserve the time with the minister to go through this clause by clause, before it becomes a section, so that we can actually help improve this particular bill.

I haven’t heard anyone on this side of the House say that they’re against this particular bill. It’s a common way that many, many places…. It was mentioned to me that Las Vegas, for instance, has a tax of up to 13 percent, which actually helps pay for the infrastructure. Las Vegas has become a worldwide destination. What Las Vegas has done is find a way that, for those that want to come and play in Las Vegas, not only does what happens stay in Las Vegas, so to speak, but so does some of their hard-earned money, which goes towards their infrastructure.

It’s not a bad idea, and there’s merit to this idea. We just wish that instead of taking an extra week off for the Premier-in-waiting — we’re all going to be here anyway; we have meetings already lined up; we’re going to be here — we’d open up the darn House. Let’s do the business while we’re here. It makes no sense for the Premier-elect to have a two-week party. The Prime Minister of England, who just got replaced, didn’t do that. The King of England didn’t do that. Let’s get to do the business that the taxpayers have paid us to do.

It makes no sense — especially when one takes a look at the massive amount of bills that are being put into this House — to not have the ability to discuss those bills, to critique those bills, and to make those bills better on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, especially on this bill, because it could affect every corner of British Columbia, and it could actually be beneficial to every corner of British Columbia. To shortchange the citizens of British Columbia by not allowing the debate is shameful, quite frankly. Let’s all get to work. We’re going to be here anyway.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Penticton is ready to speak.

D. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the little allotment of time to have a quick move. By the way, you’re spending a lot of time in that chair. Thank you for doing that today. I know there are extenuating circumstances, but thank you for covering.

I just want to start where my peer from Abbotsford South, just in his second- or third-last breath, started a conversation about the opportunity that is presentable to us here in the Legislature. I look across the Legislature at my friends that are in government. Also, I look up at the camera, and those in the offices, in the Legislature, in government and those that are going to be coming in — i.e., the Premier-in-waiting — and I would just ask a direct request.

[5:15 p.m.]

As the member for Abbotsford South said, we’re here. We had this time blocked off. We had the time allocated for the fall session. Yes, there have been changes, but there is an opportunity. It’s not fait accompli yet. I just, a few moments ago, came from the Douglas Fir Room where I looked at the member for Prince George–Valemount in discussion with the Minister of Health.

I looked at a binder for the new health regulations. It’s this thick. I know we can’t hide things, but the bill is about yea thick. The binder of questions is this thick. Right now, after two days of very good dialogue between….

Deputy Speaker: Of course, the appropriate position for discussion on the Health bill is at the Health bill. Let’s stay on Bill 42, the provincial sales tax.

D. Ashton: I appreciate that, but I was just using this as an analogy, that there is an opportunity to carry on with not only Bill 42, but with the other bills that are in the House at this point in time. Again, I would just ask — let’s have some sober second thought here and just think about this. We are scheduled to be here in Victoria. We have the opportunity. Staff are here. We’ve all made arrangements at our homes, with our families, with our constituency offices and more importantly, or as importantly, with the citizens that we represent to be here in Victoria over this specific period of time.

Yes, the government in their wisdom or whatever is bringing forward these bills and trying to get these things through, but democracy entitles the opportunity of scrutinization of these bills, whether it’s the Health bill or this brand-new bill, Bill 42, that is coming in that has, and could have, a dramatic effect on the area that I represent. We heard the member for Abbotsford South talking about the Abbotsford International Air Show. I don’t think I can count on my fingers and toes how many times that I’ve been to Abbotsford, flying down personally — I’m very fortunate to have that ability — to go to that show. That is a major international event in the province of British Columbia.

The bill appears to be built up around FIFA, which will be another incredible catch for British Columbia. When you look at Expo 86 and you look at the Olympics and bringing FIFA here, or bringing the Molson races that the member for Abbotsford South talked about…. But you know what’s just as big where I come from? Gran Fondo. A wonderful opportunity. Ironman. A wonderful opportunity. Another great one — Area 27, to the south of us, hosts international racers that come in.

Apex Freestyle, the Pacific Northwest attends one of the best ski hills in the province. I’m not going to say that Big White just got fourth in North America, but Apex is a wonderful ski hill to grow up on and to raise a family on and to be able to ski. I look at the opportunities that this bill could have, but as the member for Abbotsford South said, and also in the bill and some of the some of the requirements of this….

It establishes the criteria for regulation, enabling major events, accommodation taxes, including the circumstances by which a municipality must apply for the tax, and that the minister must be satisfied there is a major international tourism event. Additionally, section 12 limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality or a regional district for the respective tourism event.

Gran Fondo: regional district, city of Penticton, corporation of Summerland, and if I remember correctly, it still goes through the town of Oliver. All of a sudden, there are four there. These are the things that we should be able to debate, or more importantly, ask of the minister in committee stage to see if there can be amendments on it. Maybe this bill was designated and derived and conceived to help Vancouver with FIFA, but with all due respect to Vancouver, the Okanagan and other areas in this province….

We heard Barkerville being talked about. We heard about the Williams Lake Stampede. There are so many other things that happen in the province of British Columbia that bring people in from the Pacific Northwest. I look at wine fest, where I come from. The Okanagan produces some incredible world-class wines today.

[5:20 p.m.]

Right across the border is another opportunity that has grown, to my understanding, where we’re getting people from Washington state and Oregon and Idaho coming up to the Okanagan and areas to sample those incredible wines that we have. In reciprocity, we are able to go down there.

But when you have these events like what are being discussed here so far, the large events, if you put them on a scale…. My gosh, Granfondo. If I said 2,500, I’m underestimating. I think it was closer to 3,200 or 3,300 people. Well, put that on an appropriate scale to Vancouver; I mean, it could blow FIFA out of the water. It’s a huge event for our area that encompasses a regional district and those townsites that I just spoke about. Are they going to have the opportunity, underneath this bill, to have the same opportunity of getting an MRDT taxation put in to help offset some of the costs coming from local government?

No, it wasn’t a proud day in my life as the mayor of Penticton when we chose to drop the Ironman originally. Ironman changed hands. It became, by a hedge fund based out of Florida…. The local ownership, a gentleman that has homes in the Pacific Northwest but has always called Penticton his base, decided that he wanted to sell — you know, circumstances — and it was sold to this hedge fund. The hedge fund walked into city council and said: “Here’s the bill. This is what it’s going to cost you.” We took a look at what we had just come through in 2008, the downturn. Unfortunately, there were layoffs not only at the city of Penticton but also at the regional district, and we said: “No, we can’t afford that.”

We ended up going with a company by the name of Challenge, out of Europe — Germany, specifically — that came and they tried, but they only had 1½ events. They had the main Challenge event in Penticton and a half event on the east coast. They just didn’t have the depth of field.

To the attaboys, to the people of Penticton and to the last city council…. They went back with Ironman. If I remember correctly, there were 1,250, almost 1,300 participants in Ironman Penticton. But again, those people come in…. They don’t come in just for the race day. They usually come in two, three, four days, up to a week earlier. They’re always on the course. They’re always utilizing the facilities that we have in Penticton, whether it’s hotels, whether it’s bed-and-breakfasts, whether it’s Airbnbs.

That’s another question right off the top of my head right there. A lot of them collect provincial tax. Are they going to have that opportunity, also, which would help offset some of the other expenses? Would the minister be looking at the opportunity of letting Airbnbs, bed-and-breakfasts, short-term rentals, where provincial tax is paid and they’re part of it…? Would they be able to qualify underneath this new legislation, where that money stays in the community over a period of time and helps regenerate that event on a continual basis?

I know I don’t want to tell you right now how much the city of Penticton is forking over for Ironman. Is it worth it? I’m going to say yes. It’s bringing back an incredibly prestigious event to the area, but there’s a huge cost attached to it.

Kudos to whoever initiated this, whether it was the city of Vancouver or whether it was the ministry staff that came up with this idea of being able to add a 2.5 percent MRDT tax for specificity of an event. Also, seven years that they’re giving. I heard a little bit earlier this could be seven years pre-, seven years post- to try and help it. What do you do with an annual event like Ironman? These are going to be some of the questions that I think, in committee stage, could make a great big difference in this House so that we all know.

I don’t know about some of the other events that are here on Vancouver Island that bring people up from Washington state. What qualifies, on that ratio basis, as an international event? I look at Peach Festival in Penticton. I look at the beautiful floats that come. Those representing the communities from Washington, Idaho and Oregon that come up to Penticton bring families up for a visit. Especially with the dollar the way it is, it’s an incredible bargain for those people to come up from across the line right now and be hosted by a city like Penticton. But you know what? They don’t just stay in Penticton. They go through the Naramata Bench. They go visit the orchards in whatever season.

[5:25 p.m.]

Right at the end, almost at the end of peach time — i.e., Peach Festival — is the start of some of the apple season, some of the cherries. These people are visiting everywhere in our community and making a difference. But do we have a chance to qualify under Bill 42? I’m not so sure.

I wish the minister was here, to be frank, that I could get the odd nod or the odd wink to say: “Yeah, you do.” But during committee stage, we’re able to go through this on a continual basis and ask about these things.

I had mentioned some of the other events. Let’s jump over to one. How about the international Shriners? On a regular basis, a rotational basis, they come into Penticton. Those people come literally from all over North America.

One that we’re missing, and we miss it terribly, is the annual Church of God. They would come into Penticton, set up a massive tent, utilize all of our facilities and have a wonderful convention. I can tell you, being a retailer…. We’re known as a big coat house, and a lot of these people came from everywhere. We would always have two tranches of fall goods coming in. It made a big difference. Don’t forget that the backbone of our community is those small businesses, my family’s business included.

One other one I’ve got for you right now is the Young Stars, a terrific event organized by Scotty Carter; Andrew Jakubeit, at the time a councillor; Stan Smyl, who happens to live in the neighbourhood that I live in. They all negotiated over the fence while I was cutting the lawn, and Andrew Jakubeit ran with it. We created the Young Stars in our South Okanagan Events Centre.

I mean, we draw people from everywhere, and the hope is that this will continue to build so we will start drawing not only the Canucks and people from Alberta, but — you know what? — just across the line, with the Kraken. It’s a new team. So we’re hoping that this is going to continue to jell. But would that have an opportunity to qualify underneath this? I’m just not sure.

I mentioned the opportunity of where this could fit, and I’d just like to bring it up again. Is the minister, because we want fairness and equity in our province and on a scale…. Is there an opportunity that we could have this so that it does apply to the Airbnbs that are rented out? Is there an opportunity that a bed-and-breakfast, when they’re paying provincial tax, that we could apply a MRDT to that, specific to an event, or short-term rentals? There are short-term rentals that take place in the Okanagan on a continual basis, especially during the summer months, and is that opportunity going to be there? I hope it will be.

Again, we just don’t have that opportunity to sit and have a good discussion and a fair and reasonable discussion and question, during the committee stage, the minister and the minister’s staff. I would really like to again just ask that we take another look at this, of what transpires in the Legislature and the opportunities that are going to be missed over the next couple of weeks.

We have so many of these bills. I understand the government wants to get a lot of this stuff forward and maybe clean the plates off for a new incoming Premier. But a lot of these bills mean a lot to most of us here, whether it’s in government or it’s in official opposition.

The democratic process has been talked about, where we have that opportunity to sit and discuss this — not argue about it — and ask questions about a direction and how was this perceived and how was this or did you think about this, Minister, or did you take into effect what Bill 42 would be doing to the Williams Lake Stampede or could do to the Williams Lake Stampede or Barkerville or, in the community that I come from, the Granfondo?

I look at the participation in that from kids. They have the race the day before for the little ones. They have all those stars that come literally from the Pacific Northwest to ride in it, that donate their time to get kids interested in riding bikes again and to get kids out and about and getting fresh air.

[5:30 p.m.]

How can we work this in so that Granfondo wouldn’t have to keep coming to the city of Penticton on a continual basis for the allowment — it’s a lot bigger than a stipend — that we have to give? The city gives money to these various organizations to host these events, which, in turn, is to draw people in to the city. This is a perfect opportunity to have an MRDT, which will help offset those costs.

Those people visiting, as the member for Abbotsford South said about Las Vegas…. You know, I think I overheard that Las Vegas was like 13 percent or something like that, where all that money gets jammed into making a bigger and better show down there. So if we could have that opportunity of discussions so that we could utilize some of those funds from Bill 42 in Penticton and area, in the regional district….

The regional district in our area, the regional district of Okanagan-Similkameen, that area is literally used in its full entity by Ironman, a lot by Gran Fondo. A lot of those smaller communities that have motels — that’s probably a good way to say it — could be making a contribution to it. It’s difficult because the tax base in some of these areas isn’t that large because it encompasses farms and orchards and vineyards and smaller wineries. If that opportunity would be able to be presented to them, it just gives them that much more to help promote some of the events that they do, like wine fest.

My gosh, I would invite everybody in this Legislature to come on up to the Okanagan. Come and see how the people in the Okanagan and areas — Okanagan-Similkameen — have learned how to put sunshine in a bottle. It makes a huge benefit for not only wine fest but for other opportunities to have this, where we could source that 2.5 percent additional tax specific to events, specific to the municipalities — plural.

In smaller areas…. Again, you heard the former speaker say that everybody combines for the Abbotsford Air Show. Well, we do the same thing. Yes, it’s on a different scale, but on a ratio, I’ll make you a bet that it’s just as good as the show being put on by the Abbotsford Air Show or the PNE, Pacific National Exhibition.

So please, I would just ask again, of the people across the way…. We’re here in Victoria. We have the opportunity to carry on and have these open discussions. I don’t know when — maybe some are more enlightened than I am — this is actually going to get to committee stage, if it’s going to get to committee stage here.

Being direct on the bill…. Section 1 of this new bill that’s coming forward defines a major event area. Again, you’ve heard my concerns and many concerns about what that actually is. Has it been considered as something outside of the Lower Mainland — i.e., a FIFA? We’ve heard talk in here today about where a proposal was being put forward for the first Indigenous Olympic event that could possibly be coming at some point in the future. Maybe, as what some of my peers have said, this could have made a difference on that.

We get into section 3. It enables the tax on accommodation in major event areas. Again, a major event area in the Okanagan might not be a major event in the Lower Mainland, but it sure is a major event for us. It sets that maximum tax rate at 2.5 percent.

Then we have to go back if the period of time for raising funds…. From what I understand, and I hope it’s true, there is the opportunity of up to seven years before and up to seven years after. That’s only perceived, I think, at this point in time. But what happens if you have an annual event? What happens to that event? Are you able to offset the amounts that are collected on a per-annum basis as that goes through? Having that type of funding for events like what I’ve mentioned here over the possibility of 14 years — unbelievable.

[5:35 p.m.]

What if there’s more than one event? I’ve just named some of the events that are international to our area because of the people where we draw from, that catchment area. Is that going to be an issue, or is it just one event that you’re allowed to have? Can it be a multitude of events?

You heard me talk about section 12. I’ll repeat it again. It establishes the criteria for regulation enabling major event accommodation taxes, including the circumstances by which a municipality must apply for the tax and that the minister must be satisfied. There’s another step.

I say this with the utmost of respect to those in government. Do we have to literally beg, get our hands and knees and say, “Here is a major event for us. Yes, it’s not FIFA. No, it’s not Expo. No, it’s not the Olympics, but it’s a major event for the area that we live in,” to the minister? That is a major international tourism event.

Additionally, subsection 12 limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality. You’ve heard me speak about this and heard other people, because in the smaller areas, we all have to work together. And by the way, if you want to talk about a large area like the Lower Mainland, just think if they all worked together on it. Think about that. That would be stunning.

Think about Victoria here, with all the various municipalities all within a stone’s throw of each other. If they collectively worked on something to bring tourism back…. A major international tourism event like the sailing race that’s based out of Victoria that goes around the Island or the sailing race based out of Victoria that goes to Hawaii — two that I can just think off the top of my head, but just think if they were all able to work together.

I can tell you, I walk a lot in this community when I’m here, and Government Street don’t look so good these days. There are a lot of empty places and a whole bunch more empty places coming where it says close-out sale. If we could collectively make a difference here in this community and other communities, it would be better for all of us.

But again, this is an opportunity that is given to us when we get into committee stage, where we get to ask those questions of not only the minister but ministerial staff that have made these regulations up.

I just really hope that the new incoming Premier — I’ll issue congratulations; he’s not sworn in yet, but I’ll issue congratulations — will take a look at this and think and listen to what is being said from the opposition side of the House. And I’ll make you a bet. I’ll make you a bet in here that there are those in government side that are saying: “We’ve got a few questions on this that we ourselves maybe should be contemplating in here.”

We’re here in Victoria. We have that opportunity to extend the session, to not only talk about Bill 42, not only talk about the new health act that’s coming through, not only talk about a bill that was just introduced today, where we’re not going to have the opportunity, as it appears, to be able to have these discussions during committee stage.

I just really hope also that we encompass First Nations in this. I look at home, over the years, how the powwows that the Penticton Indian Band has had…. Is there an opportunity for those on reserves and Indian bands? Would they have that opportunity to source some of those funds? They’re part of our community, Penticton and the Penticton Indian Band. The only thing that separates this in Penticton is a river canal that goes down the middle. So many people in Penticton have always wanted to fill that damn thing in so that there is not amalgamation but that opportunity of more things back and forth.

I really think there is a good opportunity here to be inclusive of those here in the province who we recognize all the time. We are building stronger and stronger relationships with them, but they’re continually challenged financially. So how could we work together on something like that? How could we work with all those bands in the Lower Mainland? They themselves have functions that may fit underneath this.

I’ll make you a bet that municipalities and regional districts would be taking a look at some form of funding to help out with that. But right now literally everybody is a little bit tight and probably going to, unfortunately, get a little bit tighter as this economy…. Everything I read, all the pundits are saying we’re not at the top of the bell curve anymore. We’re on the slippery side of the bell curve and heading down.

[5:40 p.m.]

You read everything that is transpiring, not only in British Columbia, Canada or North America but around the world, and we’re going to have to be cognizant of that. That means we’re all going to have to work a lot harder together, a lot smarter and a lot more efficiently, to be able to continue to draw people to the area that we know is literally famous around the world for tourism events and tourism opportunities. To bring them in, we have to be cognizant that times are changing in this world.

Hon. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity you’ve given me to kind of extend the bounds around Bill 42. It is an important bill, just like other bills here in this House are important. What’s really important is the opportunity to continually partake in what this House gives every one of us — and, more importantly, the citizens of British Columbia that each of us represents, from our specific areas: democracy. I really, really think that the government — the government of British Columbia, governed by the New Democratic Party — and democracy are incredibly important to each and every one of us.

We take a look around the world today at what’s happening in Europe, what’s happening in South America. We have the opportunity to shine brightly here in British Columbia. We have the opportunity to show the people that we represent that we do things that other countries’ citizens wish they had an opportunity to partake in: watching their elected officials conduct the business of the country, the province or the state — the province, for us — in a democratic process.

Unfortunately, there are many, myself included, that think the democratic process has been unfortunately pushed aside for the incoming new Premier and the events that have been scheduled around it. We have the opportunity to say, “Okay, yes, those can happen over here,” but the rest of us in this House can do the work that we’re elected here to do, which is to do the work of the citizens and the people of British Columbia and to do it in a demo­cratic way.

E. Ross: It’s my honour to get up and speak to Bill 42, the Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act. Really, at first glance, this is something that speaks to what has been important in my political career since 2004: economic development for British Columbians, for Canadians and especially for First Nations in this day and age.

From 2004 to 2017, the economy and the inclusion of First Nations economy is what has actually turned things around for my community, the members of my community and my band council. It has been 180 degrees. We’re no longer talking about poverty or the Indian Act, mainly because we got included in the economy, and especially under the principles of section 35 and the pursuant case law.

In respect of what I’ve listened to my colleagues talk about — the process that’s in place for the B.C. Legislature, in the context of what we do down here as MLAs — it relates to the debates that we have on all the bills in this House. I do like to use my time, here in the Legislature as well as back home, to try and educate people on the process and what we’re doing down here, because it’s quite complicated. For new MLAs, it takes at least a year or two years just to find the bathroom, let alone try to figure out the process.

For all the people watching at home, this is second reading of Bill 42, the Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act. First reading is more or less just an announcement to announce it: “Yes, this is what we’re going to be talking about.” But second reading, mainly, is an opportunity for every MLA in this Legislature to get up and speak, up to half an hour, on what they think about a bill that’s actually being presented.

[5:45 p.m.]

So far, we’ve heard a lot of conversation and a lot of debate on this side of the House. Really, where the in-depth discussion happens, in terms of Bill 42 — or any bill, for that matter — is at committee stage. For the many people at home, that means that every single clause in a bill like Bill 42 is examined, debated and voted on, as to whether or not each single clause should pass.

If you consider a bill like the Health Professions and Occupations bill that’s being discussed right now in the other House, 645 sections, the minister, the critic and any other interested MLAs will go in there, and they’ll analyze every single clause, 275 pages. It’s quite the job, but it’s part of the Westminster model. This is what I like so much about this style of governance, because it’s a fundamental component of accountability and transparency.

Normally, we were all considering, before last week, that November 7 to 10 would be our break week, meaning we wouldn’t be here in the Legislature. That was planned a long time ago. We all knew it. It’s not necessarily a break week in the context that we all go home, sit around and watch TV, because we’ve all got constituency work to do. We’ve all got files and meetings that we have to attend to back home. It’s not necessarily a break week. I don’t want people thinking it’s a holiday.

What’s going to happen is that we’re going to have an extra week of break in this Legislature. That’ll be from the 14th to the 18th. Why this matters is that we’ve got massive issues that we’re debating here in this Legislature, but we will not get to committee stage on many of these bills. I don’t know what stage we’re at in terms of that massive health bill that they’re debating right now, but it’s questionable whether or not we can accomplish the full debate on every single bill in this House in one week.

That’s all we’ll have left: one week. We haven’t really gotten to committee stage yet on what I think is a bill that is that is meant to address what has been characterized as Canada’s shame: the situation that Aboriginals find themselves in, in B.C. and Canada. That’s a bill that’s meant to give the option to First Nations to have jurisdiction over children in care.

The Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, Bill 42, is an important bill. I can’t really think of any other bill that doesn’t have importance. A lot of bills, like the children-in-care bill, really speak to society and social ills, whereas the Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act, for the most part, speaks to economic development and a revenue base for municipalities to raise money in the event of an international event being proposed for their cities or municipalities.

In saying that, we would’ve been able to address whether or not this government consulted First Nations, as promised in the UNDRIP bill. Up to now, every single bill that has passed through this House has not been consulted on as per the terms of the UNDRIP bill that was passed in this House. In committee stage, we would’ve asked those same questions, and we probably would’ve got the same response: “No, we did not consult the 204 bands that hold title in B.C., but we consulted the leadership council. Or maybe we consulted the First Nations taxation authority, that has actually done work in addressing PST and GST.”

I don’t know the answers to that. I doubt I’ll get those answers, because we won’t get to committee stage on this. If we do, it’ll be very short-lived. There’ll be a short time limit on whether or not we can get some of the answers to that.

[5:50 p.m.]

I do note that this bill was specifically to fund the FIFA soccer games, the 2026 games, which will be partly hosted in Vancouver. I also understand that there are provisions in this where the minister has to decide whether or not the minister is satisfied that the event in question is actually a major international event.

Well, a number of my colleagues have talked about international events. I guess the definition is going to be important. We could have debated that, especially the definition in terms of what has been happening in B.C. since 2004.

From 2004 to 2017, there was true reconciliation happening in B.C. You could see it in terms of the partnerships between First Nations and municipalities, between the provincial government and First Nations. In terms of a definition…. First Nations and municipalities have been working together for years, for decades. They’ve slowly started to understand that they actually need each other.

I’ll give you an example — the North American Indigenous Games. I mean, everywhere from North America to South America, they have, annually, games. First Nations can’t host these massive games on their own. They need partnerships. They don’t have the facilities. They don’t have the hotels. They need partnerships with municipalities and the province.

Bill 42 could have spoken to a component of that, in terms of some of the topics that always get brought up and in terms of funding these types of events. I don’t see any mention, in the amendment of Bill 42, of First Nations, which is quite surprising.

Revenue-sharing has been a topic in B.C. for as long as I’ve been in politics, since 2003. It has never really materialized the way First Nations envisioned, but it did come out over ten years ago with the mining ministry, for example. There are smaller examples where there were, maybe, pilot exercises in this respect.

I think this would be a great opportunity, if there was consultation with the 204 bands in B.C. in terms of this, not for the purposes of First Nations, basically, collecting the revenue coming from a proposed provincial sales tax of 2.5 percent but talking about sharing in the collection and in the disbursement.

These huge events benefit everybody. First Nations, more than ever…. We know they don’t want to be excluded. We know, more now, they want to be included in everything that’s happening around them, in everything that’s happening in B.C.

I don’t see any language in that, in terms of Bill 42. In fact, I don’t see anything in relation to First Nations in this amendment, which is quite surprising, given the amount of work that First Nations have done on taxation.

I don’t even see any mention of treaty First Nations, who are no longer bands under the Indian Act. They’re no longer Status Indians under the Indian Act. They’re a bit of a hybrid now under the Constitution of Canada. They’re almost categorized now as a municipality, with the ability to create and collect taxes. I know there’s a complicated agreement that they have, between Canada and B.C., as a vehicle to make that happen, but there’s no mention of that, in terms of treaty bands, in terms of Nisg̱a’a or Tsawwassen.

I’m sure Nisg̱a’a, who I know very well…. We celebrated a 19-year anniversary here, just last year, of the signing of the treaty. I know they’d be very interested in understanding the nature of Bill 42 and what that would mean to them and what that would mean to the region.

I’ll give you another example, the All-Native in Prince Rupert, one of the biggest Aboriginal tournaments in B.C. It’s been around for over 35 years. My father played in it. I played in it. I’m actually in the hall of fame.

I had to put that in there, for vanity’s sake, Mr. Speaker. Sorry about that. Can we strike that from the record?

Any other basketball players in here? No other basketball players?

I digress. Sorry about that.

[5:55 p.m.]

The All-Native tournament in Prince Rupert actually has international components. Basketball players come from Alaska. They come from Heidelberg. They come from Neah Bay, just south of the border. In fact, the last time I played we had players coming from places like Indiana. Does this define an international event? We could’ve debated that. We could have debated not only for this, but, as my colleagues have said, we could have debated whether or not rodeo events could qualify under this.

We also could’ve debated, in committee stage, the idea of fairness. It’s a great bill. I agree — 2½ percent for municipalities to help bear the costs of hosting these events. That’s actually a pretty good idea. But will it be fair? As an example, what will the approval process for municipalities look like? How do we ensure a level playing field between communities, especially given the fact that this bill limits the designation of a taxable area to one municipality or regional district per respective tourism event.

It would have been perfect to debate this at committee stage, clause by clause, but we’re not going to have that opportunity to the full extent of what our process is designed to do, in terms of this Legislature.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

There are a number of different important clauses in Bill 42. Like I said, I think it’s an important bill, but it excludes First Nations. I do understand that if I did get to ask questions in committee stage, which I probably won’t get to because we’re going to take an extra week off from this Legislature, I would’ve asked about the consultation process. But this one would’ve gone deeper, because, in the news for the last six months, we knew there was a First Nations group that was putting together a bid to host the Olympics.

This goes back to the idea of what I said when First Nations are appreciating the fact that they’re being included in the society and economy of B.C. to the level where they want to promote economic development in B.C. They want to bring tourism and infrastructure projects to B.C. that benefit all of us, First Nations and non–First Nations alike. This Olympic bid was a perfect example of that.

So it was quite disappointing. I agree with the Minister of Tourism when she said that they were incredibly disappointed. I can only imagine the disappointment, given the amount of money these band leaders, these Aboriginal leaders, must have put into it just to put this bid together — an incredible accomplishment not only to get the First Nations together to collaborate, to work together, but also to have the courage to go out on the international stage and, for the first time, promote something that benefits British Columbia and Canada.

In this case, it was a group of First Nations leaders who were promoting, at the highest level, reconciliation. I don’t think we’ve really examined or understood the full impact of what these Aboriginal leaders felt when they were told — not to their face, by the way, but over a Zoom call — that they would not be supported by this government, even though we’ve had many debates in this House about UNDRIP and self-determination. We’re supposed to have an in-depth investigation of the children in government care bill that’s been tabled here in the Legislature.

[6:00 p.m.]

Elected Councillor Wilson Williams went so far as to say that their group felt very disrespected, not only that the provincial government wouldn’t support their bid but also the way it was communicated to them and the way they were treated, in terms of the provincial government’s decision. He said that it feels like he got kicked in the teeth.

For those of you that don’t know what it’s like to be a First Nations leader…. There’s an incredible amount of pride in being a First Nations leader. You take a lot of hits. I mean, if you think that it’s bad enough being a non–First Nations leader and taking all these insults, try being a First Nations leader.

Now these leaders have got to go back to their people and explain to them that all their time, money and effort, in terms of putting together an Olympic bid…. It is not going to happen. There’s a good chance it’s not going to happen. They say this bid is not dead. But how do they accomplish this without the provincial government’s support? How do they go back to their people and explain to them that the grand idea of full inclusion in the economy and society of B.C. is basically…? It’s over. How do they do that?

We would have had this reference. We would have had this context when we were talking about Bill 42. This is exactly what Bill 42 is talking about — a municipality hosting an international event like FIFA. We could have had this debate in the Legislature and used the Olympic bid, which was put together by these First Nations, as one of the reasons why we needed the inclusion of different clauses. Maybe, at the end of the debate, we could have found things that could have turned it around, for the B.C. government to turn around and say, “Yes, we can do this, then,” based on this debate.

It’s been a long time since I read anything or heard anything about the disappointment of a First Nation in a provincial government. I had disappointment in provincial governments — the B.C. Liberals at the time. But that disappointment turned into a collaboration. We both understood that we were both trying to achieve the same thing. It took a lot of courage. It took a lot of angst. It took a lot of hard conversations to get the B.C. Liberals and bands like my band on the same page, but we never gave up. The B.C. government didn’t give up on us, and we didn’t give up on them.

There was never the word “no” said to us. Really, where that comes from…. It’s coming from the LNG export facilities that were proposed in Kitimat. It came from the forestry agreements that were signed with a number of First Nations, between the B.C. government and bands. There was never the word “no.”

At that time, people were still trying to figure out the Haida court case of 2004. I’ve said it before, a number of times, in this House. The word “reconciliation” has been twisted around so much, for politics, that people don’t even understand what it means anymore. If you want a good understanding of it, don’t look at the UNDRIP bill. Don’t look at any other document except the Haida court case that was decided in 2004. There’s a dictionary definition. Two parties that once were together are now split apart. Now they’ve got to reconcile. They’ve got to come back together.

The judge in the Haida court case said we’ve got to reconcile the impacts on Aboriginal rights and title now. Let’s face it. None of us is going anywhere. First Nations have accepted this concept. It’s unrealistic to think that all non-natives are going to leave B.C.

[6:05 p.m.]

We’ve got to learn how to work together. Saying no to an Olympic bid is not working together. That negotiation could have kept on until today. Maybe, at the end of the day, you still come up with the answer that it’s not feasible. But you still created that trust. You still created that relationship. That could be the groundwork or the framework or the foundation for the next big bid. Whether we’re talking about the Indigenous games…. There could be so much more events if we had just stuck to negotiating and keeping those lines of communication open, without saying no.

The members of the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh and Líl̓wat First Nations…. What they did was extra­ordinary. I’ve only seen First Nations come together, in my lifetime, for the Pacific Trail pipeline coalition. That was every First Nation from Prince George to Kitamaat Village and a couple of First Nations down channel that said: “Yes. We’ve got to put our politics aside, and we’ve got to work together for the benefit of bringing the LNG export industry to B.C. We’ve got to do that.”

We did it. That entity is still alive today. In fact, it morphed into another group called the First Nations LNG Alliance, all with the idea of uplifting everybody in B.C.

The amount of work that First Nations have put into the economy and in trying to be a part of the system is staggering. We could have brought in the First Nations taxation authority, and we could have got their perspectives on Bill 42, the Provincial Sales Tax Amendment Act. We could have got that perspective, but we can’t. There’s just not enough time. Instead of two weeks left in this session, we have one week.

It’s kind of sad. During that extended break week, I’m going to be down here anyway. I’ve got meetings I’ve got to attend to that I already planned. There are outreach meetings down here that are already planned. I’ll be here. So I’m still going to do the work. I’m just going to have to divide it up between my constituency of Skeena…. I’m still going to commit to the meetings that I planned a month ago. Those outreach meetings are still important as well.

I’ve heard a lot about reconciliation. I’ve heard a lot about the UNDRIP bill. We already know the commitments that were made by this NDP government under UNDRIP to consult every rights and title holder on every piece of legislation that passes through this House…. To align every single law in B.C. with UNDRIP is unrealistic. We knew that from day one. We now know that there is no intention of this government to consult 204 bands in B.C. on every piece of legislation. We know that.

There have also been a number of references to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action. I was even asked myself: “Do I not believe in it?” I believe in lifting First Nations out of poverty. I believe in First Nations being a part of society to the point where they don’t need Indian Act funding agreements anymore. That is the fullest definition of dependence.

My band is there. We were there ten years ago because of forestry agreements, because of LNG agreements, because of mining agreements. We were there. That’s what turned us around from one of the poorest bands in B.C. to one of the wealthiest, to the point where we’re probably ready to take a step up in terms of what the next conversation is.

It would have been nice to actually go back and say…. We’ve got to develop the capacity in our band to talk about Bill 42, the provincial sales tax, and how we can work with the provincial government and municipalities to make this a reality for all of us in the spirit of cooperation and in the spirit of reconciliation.

[6:10 p.m.]

Councillor Wilson actually mentioned that as well. He mentioned that No. 91 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action says: “We call upon the officials and host countries of international sporting events such as the Olympics, Pan Am and Commonwealth Games to ensure that Indigenous peoples’ territorial protocols are respected, and local Indigenous communities are engaged in all aspects of planning and participation in such events.”

There has been no legislation in this House that I know of and that actually implements this or even considers it. What we have are three First Nation communities in the Lower Mainland that actually picked up the ball and said, “Okay, we’ll do it. We’ll do this on behalf of everybody in British Columbia,” because they wanted infrastructure projects — just like in the last Olympics. They wanted the tourism industry to be picked up again, across the board. They wanted all those jobs.

You know, the thing we’re not talking about and that nobody has mentioned yet in terms of this failed Olympic bid and it has nothing to do with the work that was done by First Nations: sport is a great way to promote good citizenship. It’s one of the only things happening in many impoverished First Nation communities that offers a ray of hope. If you’re lucky, it can carry you through adulthood. That can actually be passed on to the next generation.

It’s not just taxation that we’re talking about here. Is this not the idea of reconciliation? Sport is a fundamental component of a strong society. Given that we’re going through a drug crisis right now, I think we need good, clean, living role models more than ever — something to encourage our young people, who are dying from overdoses, to say: “Look, you have options. There are different things you could be doing, like basketball.”

Madam Speaker, you weren’t here when I made my comment that I was inducted into the All-Native Hall of Fame in Prince Rupert. I’ve said it again, just for vanity’s sake.

There are a lot of things that we could have discussed, whether it be the Indigenous children-in-care jurisdictional bill, which we should be discussing in detail in committee stage. Or we could be discussing, in detail, Bill 42, on the provincial sales tax, and why that omits First Nations and treaty First Nations. But we can’t. We’ve only got one week left, and for these huge, important bills, that’s not enough time.

We’re not doing our job if we don’t get to committee stage on these bills. As MLAs, we’re not doing our job. That’s why we came down here. That’s what people understand: that when we come down here, we’re actually doing real work.

J. Sturdy: Sorry for my slow rise, but I thought I’d give government a chance to stand up and speak to this bill. No takers, though. No takers, as there hasn’t been. I think we had one speaker or two speakers on the government side. Perhaps the member for North Coast might want to speak. No, no, maybe not.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 42, the PST Amendment Act. Like many of my colleagues, I have to say that I think it’s a very interesting and useful piece of legislation, and the timing on this is rather interesting as well. Clearly, this is a bill that is relevant to many of the discussions that are going on right now and the major announcements that have been made just this week.

Actually, I guess it was last Friday. Isn’t that when you make these announcements? If you don’t want to make the press, you do them on a Friday. I think that happened last Friday: the decision not to support an Olympic bid for 2030. Maybe we’ll get back into that conversation for 2035.

[6:15 p.m.]

This piece of legislation clearly could have an impact on communities all around the province, specifically in the proposed host communities for 2030 or 2034, around how you pay for these events. That’s a huge issue. How do you pay for these events?

There is merit to the concept here. I think many of us in this House who have spent time in local government so very clearly understand that local government has limited tools, limited financial tools.

The vast majority of the revenues that are raised are to provide services like water or sewer. They’re limited in terms of what money can be raised for that, and that money can’t be extracted and spent on something else — typically, anyway. But the bulk of it is property taxes. Property taxes are truly a blunt instrument and very much are on the shoulders of homeowners and business owners. I think we all understand and appreciate the…. Well, some of us do, anyway. This part of this side of the House understands the impacts to business of property taxation are onerous and are difficult and do crush the soul of some small businesses, certainly.

This is a useful tool. Like many of my colleagues, I do understand how these type of events — these international events, destination events — can impact the community. How do they recover? How do they manage through those events?

I had the privilege of being the mayor of Pemberton on the lead-up to 2008. That’s a year that, if you lived in Pemberton, you certainly remember — maybe not so much on a provincial level. But that year, that summer, we had a three-day event where one of the biggest bands in the world showed up. Coldplay was in Pemberton. Tom Petty was in Pemberton. Jay-Z was in Pemberton. Who would have thought? Sam Roberts, Tragically Hip, Nine Inch Nails. It was the Pemberton Festival of 2008. It was a huge event.

Now, what was Pemberton in 2008? I think there were about 2,200 residents in the municipality and another couple of thousand spread out over a pretty big area. But how many people did we bring in? I think it was like 80,000 people over the course of a couple of days. I can say with confidence, based on my experience, that we were overwhelmed. There is no question about that.

So can 2,000 taxpayers in a small municipality…? Well, it’s 2,000 residents. That’s not even 2,000 taxpayers. I think our total property tax base was something like $1.5 million. I think Coldplay got paid more than that.

For a community like that to manage an event like this is a huge, huge challenge. It really, obviously, can’t fall on the shoulders and be a burden to local taxpayers. Already, the event was impactful in a way that I don’t think many will forget. To add a huge financial burden is just too much.

We can anticipate some of the challenges that a community would face, especially a small one, but any community: traffic management, waste management, water and sewer operations and provision, policing, fire, impact on recreation services.

[6:20 p.m.]

It was funny. We had people looking for a shower coming into our community centre. There was a lineup that you would not believe of people looking for a shower. Obviously, just the impact on the community centre alone was significant and not otherwise anticipated or paid for.

Capacities can be pretty severely strained, and there are few tools that local governments can deploy. The only real opportunity for us was to look at the special events licence or the temporary use permit that was applicable, but we weren’t exactly negotiating from a position of strength either. I would say that overall it was absolutely worthwhile, but it did come with its consequences.

I think the concept of this type of bill is one that I certainly support, and I feel it’s important that we explore it. As my colleague earlier said, it’s unfortunate, but I don’t think we’re going to have that opportunity. There’s just too much on the plate right now, and it’s going to be hard to find the time to dive into it. I’ll talk about a few of the pieces that I think are important that we look at.

There’s certainly going to be…. I think where the problems arise when it comes to Bill 42 is in the development and the execution of the concept. The concept’s good, but how is it implemented? There are concerns. There are many, many questions.

As we look at bills being introduced just very recently or whether they’ve been introduced over the course of this session, I keep finding myself saying, in many ways, the same thing: this is enabling legislation. And on a piece of enabling legislation, there’s just no question that the devil is in the details. In this case, the details aren’t there.

What’s part of…? What’s encapsulated? What’s incorporated? What is in? What is out? What is an eligible cost? That’s a fair question. What’s eligible? Like the provision of garbage removal — is that a…? I mean, who knows? The questions are almost endless. But let’s have some definitions. Let’s have some criteria associated with it. There are none, unfortunately, and again, it’s going to be very challenging to find the time to actually get answers to those questions.

What’s an eligible cost? Well, “What’s an ineligible cost?” is equally valid. Who qualifies? I think we have some idea of some of the entities, but not all of them. Who qualifies? Who doesn’t? What qualifies? What doesn’t?

How long will this tax last? I’ve heard other speakers say we could put it in place up to seven years in advance of an event, although I’m not sure where that comes from because I don’t see it. That’s one of those details that we don’t see in the legislation itself. And then potentially it goes seven years after the event. That’s a pretty broad approach. How do you justify that kind of length of time? Is that length of time, in fact, what we will be talking about? Is that what will be approved or not? Or is there a sunset? Are there potential sunset clauses at all?

And then I think another one that’s important is: can it be stacked? In many cases, you’re going to have an event. You may be collecting for a period of years, either before or after or both. And it can only be in one jurisdiction, not in another. So I can see that there’s some potential for conflict there. But then what happens when another event comes along and you’re still collecting for that event?

[6:25 p.m.]

So you have a…. And it’s probably not going to happen in Pemberton. But what about in Metro, where I think I heard comments around Indy coming back — an e-Indy or an e-Formula 1? There are impacts. It’s a major event. Presumably, something like that would qualify.

But then you want to have another event that has a similar impact, maybe in the same jurisdiction or in an adjacent jurisdiction or in that same regional district or not. Can you be collecting an additional 2.5 percent of MRDT or MRDT-plus, or whatever it is, and collect it at the same time so we could stack this so that we could see our MRDT tax, which is 3 percent, and another 2½ on a special MRDT, or whatever we’re calling this tax, and then another tax on top of that?

Again, these are issues that need to be explored and deserve some time. Yet we’re clearly not going to have it. We’re not going to have the time. What criteria are going to be used to answer some of those questions? What are the parameters? What are the metrics that we’re going to use? Will safeguards be put in place?

As I say, will we be able to stack it? This is all very subjective, and it will be subject to decision-making in one place. That place has closed doors and a cone of silence. We’ll never know how the decision was made because that decision will be made in the cabinet room by order-in-council.

I think that this House deserves some time on those issues. I think this House and these legislators deserve to understand how these decisions will be made.

As I say, it is true that the communities around the province have faced extraordinary cost. My community, for one, on these types of events…. They shouldn’t be a burden on the local taxpayer. The premise of this bill is basically that Bill 42 allows for municipalities, regional districts or “eligible entities” to request and be granted the ability to collect a new 2.5 percent MRDT-style tax on a designated major event accommodation area in the case of international tourism events.

So right off the bat, you have to…. Okay, I know what a municipality is. Pretty clear on that. I think we probably know that. I think most of us know what our regional district is. But I’m really curious what an eligible entity is. Could be pretty much anything, I guess.

Now, I hope that one of the things they were thinking, the drafters of this legislation, was, in answer to my friend from Skeena, that that eligible entity could be a First Nation. But there’s not a whole lot of tourism accommodation on First Nations lands. I mean, there are some, certainly in the Okanagan, and some other places and probably other places I don’t know about. But I know accommodation on reserve is not typically a big thing. It’s not a big revenue driver. But maybe that’s…. I’m not sure how this eligible entity would be identified or defined. Is it a tourism organization? I guess that’s a possibility.

I talked about some of the costs. So maybe those could be…? But then, no, they wouldn’t have accommodation associated with it. So I’m not sure. I think First Nations are logical. But then, what would that mean? That the eligible entity would be a First Nation that could cast a net wide and collect tax on an accommodation in their traditional territory? I’m not sure. I’m not sure what an eligible entity is.

[6:30 p.m.]

Could it be a company? Potentially, I guess, it could be a company. Whistler-Blackcomb, for example, hosts some pretty major international events — Whistler Ski and Snowboard Festival. They do have some accommodation, but then they could tax themselves already and then collect from themselves. I’m not really sure what we’re talking about when we’re talking about an eligible entity.

It’ll be up to cabinet to make these decisions, because it’s a Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council decision. They may make regulations designating the area of tax, the rate of tax — so I guess up to that 2.5 percent. They don’t mention about whether they can stack that tax. But they do talk about how, potentially, they can make decisions around the purpose for which the tax is paid and what it is spent on, who it is paid to and who is exempt. In other words, they can make a decision on pretty much anything.

That’s why we need the time to be able to understand this, to explore it, to dive into it, because it’s not simple. I’ll give you one example. Let me quote from the bill, because I’m not sure how many members in this House will have actually read the thing — maybe some.

Just listen to this. This is clause 12, sub (7). You’ll have to bear with me on this, okay. “Despite section 240 (5), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate a designated recipient for a designated major event accommodation area that is different from the designated recipient designated under section 240 in relation to a designated accommodation area that is designated as all or part of the designated major event accommodation area.” Please explain that to me. I would love to have the minister….

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: I think maybe there will be a designated speaker on the other side.

Interjection.

J. Sturdy: I very much would like to unpack that, as my colleague points out, in committee stage. The question is whether or not we’ll get to committee stage, and I have my doubts.

Now, in fairness, there are some limitations identified in the bill. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is not allowed to impose the tax unless the muni, regional district or whatever that eligible entity is has asked for it. So that’s a good thing. They can’t be imposed, in other words. I think that’s reasonable.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is also not al­lowed to make regulations unless the minister is satisfied that it is “a major international tourism event in or near the proposed designated major event accommodation area.” That’s a limitation, but not much of one, because that can be something…. The minister just needs to be satisfied. I very much hope we could see some criteria around that, so we could better understand how the minister becomes satisfied. What are they basing their decisions on?

[6:35 p.m.]

Other people have asked the same question. What is a major international tourism event? One imagines it could be a sporting event. That’s certainly the one that has been raised in reference to the 2030 Olympic bid. But it could be a fair. We had a world’s fair in ’86, which is a pretty major event. It went on for a long time. That event, one would imagine, would qualify. It could be a cultural event, I suppose, because in cultural events, you’ll have people travelling from all around the world.

It will become…. Now cultural events are obviously…. There are cultural events or religious events that are global destinations. There’s just no question about that on an annual basis or a one-off. It could be a music event, as I referenced in Pemberton. Squamish has had musical events as well. Merritt music festival doesn’t exist any longer. But that’s quite an event, with the impacts.

I’d also pose the question: could it be every day in Whistler? Whistler sees 50,000 visitors on any given day in both summer and winter. That’s a major event. But other people talk of Gran Fondo. We have the member for Penticton talking about, what, 2,000 or 3,000 people. We have 8,000 people at the Gran Fondo in August. Is that…? But also, that that ties into Whistler. The Whistler Ski and Snowboard Festival, Cornucopia. We did have Ironman, but that’s gone away.

Nonetheless, these are big numbers. These are a lot of people. I think it’s worth, at this time, just looking a little bit at what we’re talking about here.

With regard to just Whistler alone, Whistler generates $1.44 billion in consumer spending every year — $1.44 billion. I would argue that that’s a pretty major event. It generates $500 million in tax revenue. You’d say to yourself, “Well, it should have plenty of tax revenue,” except that isn’t tax revenue that goes to the municipality, unfortunately, or fortunately. It comes to the province. The munis get a share, not of the…. That’s of the global tax revenues, so property taxes, but also PST, MRDT, GST and other fees. But $500 million. That’s $1.37 million a day in tax revenue.

It also produces 25 percent of British Columbia’s export tourism revenue. That’s a huge amount of money. What export tourism revenue is, is money that’s new. That is not recirculated British Columbia dollars. That is money from outside of the country coming into this region. So 25 percent of the export tourism revenue generated in this province is generated by Whistler and its 2.7 million unique visits. This, I would argue, is a major event. Does it qualify? I think that’s not an unreasonable question.

It’s clear, I think, that it doesn’t need to be an Olympics to be an international tourism event, or it doesn’t even need to be a FIFA. That’s what I think. But I don’t know what the minister thinks, and I don’t know if we’ll have a chance to see what the minister thinks. I don’t know if there will be thresholds. I don’t know if a major event…. Is that the $1.37 million a day in tax revenue? Does that make it a major event? Is it the 2.7 million visits? Does that make it a major event? The number of attendees, the participants?

[6:40 p.m.]

It’s an international event too, so is it where the participants are coming from that makes it international? Is it, in the case…? In Pemberton, we saw people coming from all over the place at the Pemberton Festival, but it wasn’t dominated by international visitors, although it was dominated by international artists.

Which is it? What makes it an international event? Is it the footprint? I guess, in the case of the Abbotsford Air Show, they’re probably flying across borders, so maybe that makes it international. Or is it the economic impact of the event? It’s hard to say. I don’t know. I’d like to know. I’d like to have the opportunity to explore that with the minister, but I don’t think we’ll have that chance.

Lots of questions, obviously — lots of questions. I think that the people of this province — the people in communities around the province, municipalities or regional districts or our First Nations or that murky “eligible entity” — deserve to know answers to these questions. I’m sure they’d be interested. I know they’d be interested. I know I am interested in understanding that criteria, in understanding what the minister is going to be using to judge this, to make decisions.

Given the fact that this is the most secretive government, the award-winner of the most secretive government in this country, you probably can anticipate that we will never know. It will be delivered to us. It will be announced to us, and that will be that, because we only have five sitting days left, as of a few minutes from now.

We have three bills that haven’t even gone to second reading yet. We had a bill introduced today, and this is, in a truncated session, stacked on top of a bill that has — what? — 646 clauses. I’m not sure what it is. It’s clauses until they’re approved, and then they’re sections. Or is it sections until they’re approved, and then they’re clauses? Regardless, 646 of them. When I left my little House, duty earlier, I think we were at clause 18 or something. It was noted, as well, that this was a respectful dialogue.

I see that the red light has come on. I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this bill.

M. Bernier: Before I get into my remarks…. I actually didn’t know exactly how I was going to frame my comments speaking to this bill. It’s important, though, to have the opportunity to speak to bills. I just want to acknowledge the colleague that spoke before me and all the other colleagues on this side of the House who have exercised their proper democratic right — why we’re here, which is to get up and speak to bills — to really talk about and digest and scrutinize and ask the tough questions of bills that are put in front of this House.

I think we need to acknowledge…. Remember, that’s not for us. That’s for the people of British Columbia. That’s our job as opposition, to actually get up and talk in second reading to all these bills, to make sure we understand, through that debate and dialogue, what these bills are.

I say I’m a little bit perplexed by some of the lack, though, of information that’s being presented. I would have hoped, when the government saw that this was an important bill, when we’re standing up and speaking to it, that members of government would have stood up and maybe put our minds at ease and maybe would have answered some of the unknowns.

[6:45 p.m.]

That’s really what second reading is about. It’s the oppor­tunity for us to have that dialogue, for government to stand up and explain why this is an important bill, why they want to have this in front of the House and why we want to pass or debate a bill in this House.

With Bill 42, we heard the member before me talking about this. Let me just quickly…. When we talk about Bill 42, it’s really about giving the opportunity for a municipality or regional district, as we’ve heard, when we’re talking about a major tourism event — maybe a major sporting event or…. We’ve heard examples of different parts of the province already of what major events are, and then the opportunities for that local government to apply an additional tax to generate revenue for the impacts that’ll be seen in that municipality during that major sporting event.

What is a major sporting event or a major tourism event? I look at the city of Dawson Creek. We’ve been very fortunate to hold the World Juniors. Everybody says the World Juniors is a world event. I can’t tell by reading this bill, though, with the lack of details in this bill….

Sorry, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure if holding up the bill is a prop or not, so I’ll be careful with that. I don’t think it is, because it’s actually in the House here.

There is nowhere I can find, in reading this bill, whether the city of Dawson Creek, when we hold the World Juniors…. Is that designated as an international event? It says “worlds.” We’ve held world curling events. Does that qualify? All I see in this bill is that the decision can be made at a later date through Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, through a designation and an application process.

I’m already getting phone calls from some rural communities — Prince George, Dawson Creek, and you look at Kamloops; we’ve heard that commentary — who have been very privileged and lucky to be able to hold and host what we would classify as international events. But we can’t get a straight answer from this government on whether that will qualify. We’re told we have to wait till later. When is that later, usually, when we find out? That’s in committee stage.

Now, it’s important during second reading that everybody gets up and expresses what’s important for their riding, what they’re hearing in the public or what feedback we’re starting to get. Unfortunately, I know we’ve got the most secretive government in Canada here, right now, with the NDP. This kind of fits into that narrative.

The public and the stakeholders really don’t know, until a bill is in this House and presented, what’s going on. Of course, a bill is presented, just yesterday, that says that a municipality may or may not, if they’re designated, under a sporting event or tourism event that may or may not be designated as qualification, be allowed to add an additional tax depending whether they do or don’t qualify. That creates all the questions.

Now our inbox and our voicemails are getting full, saying: “What is government doing? Do I qualify?” My first response, typically, when the government puts a bill on the floor, and I start getting that my colleagues start getting those questions, we say: “Very good questions. It’s up to government to answer those when we get to committee stage. So thank you, because we can’t answer them right now, but we’ll make sure, during our second readings, that we highlight your opinions and the fact that you feel like you weren’t notified or part of the consultation.” I’ll get to some other issues afterwards around that. But it’s important that we do our job and bring those questions forward.

Now, some of my colleagues have said that there are only five sitting days left. Well, actually, that’s not the case yet. When I look at this, we still have nine sitting days after today. We’re hearing that government wants to take away four of those sitting days on the second last week in November. They haven’t done that yet. They still have a chance to change their mind.

[6:50 p.m.]

I do find it very odd that they’re ramming this House full of legislation, which they have the right to do and which we expect government to do. The whole point of calling the session here in this House is to debate and bring forward legislation. That’s why we’re here. That’s our job.

What makes me a little skeptical, or nervous, I guess, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, on the intentions of this government…. They have not yet taken away those four days, but I am hearing that all the members from the NDP caucus are actually going to be in Victoria that entire week that they say they want to cancel anyway.

I do have to ask why they are considering cancelling four sitting days if they’re all going to be here anyway. We’re all going to be here. It’s our job. Our flights are booked. Our meetings are scheduled. We’re going to be here. I’m hearing the members opposite are going to be here. If tomorrow they bring forward changes to the standing orders for the sitting, that will be very, very interesting indeed — how they justify the fact that we’re all going to be here but we don’t want to actually work.

I hear an “oh my god” from the member for North Coast. Maybe she wants to quantify. She has a chance to stand up. Well, of course we all work when we go home. My comment is we also work when we’re here. There’s no need to cancel a week, because we have work to do. If all of the members from the NDP are actually going to stand up and say they now all want to be home on the week that the Premier-designate is being sworn in….

They’re all home, I guess, is what I’m hearing. They’re not coming for the Premier’s swearing in. They’re not coming for meetings that have all been scheduled for that entire week. I do find it interesting if the members want to say, “Oh my god,” because I do say: “Oh my god.” If you’re all going to be here, why are we not working? Why are we not in this House, doing the people’s work that we’re supposed to be doing, which is on the calendar?

The reason why we need to be here is because we have a lot of bills still to debate. We’ve heard about some of them that are still in this House, the work that needs to be done. If — it’s still an if until tomorrow — the government wants to take away four sitting days…. That is where we are supposed to be, in here debating and questioning legislation before the government rams it through and passes it. That’s important work to do. But if they take away those four days, I think it’s also important to remind members and the public watching this that bills don’t have to finish at the end of this session.

If there’s still work to do, if there are still questions to be asked on behalf of the people of British Columbia, who have very important questions on so many of these pieces of legislation that are in the House, they don’t have to pass. They could be held over and brought back in the spring. A lot of these bills that are here are actually not time-sensitive. Most of them say: “Don’t worry. It’s important to us, but we’re going to make all the decisions at a later date in regulation anyway.”

Well, if it’s being made at a later date in regulation, there’s really nothing stopping this government on Bill 42 from actually saying: “You know what? We’ve presented it in the House.” We can have rigorous debates. We can go through committee stage on it, and if we don’t have enough sitting days because this government wants to get rid of them for whatever reason, then we can actually finish debate in the spring. Or we can come back and work through December. There’s nothing stopping that.

If government at any time can take away days, they can also add them. I’m game. Why don’t we sit through the first couple of weeks of December, then, and we’ll actually do this.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: The member wants to debate when sessions have or have not been cancelled, and I’ll say, on the record, yes. In 16 years, there were two or three that I remember when there were sessions where we did not bring forward legislation that needed to be dealt with. Here is the difference.

Interjection.

M. Bernier: Well, we just finished hearing that working in the constituency is important, so it’s unfortunate the member from Richmond maybe doesn’t work in her riding when we’re not sitting. But there’s lots of opportunity if the members want to stand up and speak to this bill, because there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I appreciate seeing the Speaker come in. That tells me we’re getting close to the end. I think it’s….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Member.

M. Bernier: I’m just acknowledging the disrespect that I was receiving from the other side at the time. I was pausing to let that sink in so they could acknowledge how they’re personalizing things.

I’m assuming, with the Speaker here, I will note the hour, reserve my place and move adjournment of the debate.

M. Bernier moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. R. Kahlon moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.