H0117pm 06

H0117pm 06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session, 38th Parliament o FFicial rePort o F Debates of the Legis Lative a ssemb Ly (hansarD) the honourable bill bari So FF, SPeaker iSSn 0709-1281 Saturday, January 17, 2009 Afternoon Sitting Volume 36, Number 6

Pro Vince o F britiS h colu Mbia (entered c onfederation July 20, 1871) lieutenant -Go Vernor h is h onour the h onourable Steven l. Point, obc Fourth Session, 38th Parliament SPeaker o F the leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y h onourable bill barisoff eXecutiVe council Premier and President of the executive c ouncil ......................................................................................................h on. Gordon c ampbell Minister of State for intergovernmental r elations ...........................................................................................................h on.

Joan Mcintyre Deputy Premier and Minister of education and Minister r esponsible for early l earning and l iteracy ..................h on. Shirley bond Minister of a boriginal r elations and r econciliation .................................................................................................. h on. Michael de Jong Minister of a dvanced e ducation and l abour Market Development ............................................................................. h on.

Murray c oell Minister of a griculture and l ands ..........................................................................................................................................h on. Stan h agen a ttorney General and Minister r esponsible for Multiculturalism .......................................................................... h on.

Wally o ppal, Qc Minister of c hildren and Family Development ..........................................................................................................h on. t om c hristensen Minister of State for c hildcare ................................................................................................................................................. h on. l inda r eid Minister of c ommunity Development .............................................................................................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Minister of energy, Mines and Petroleum r esources ..................................................................................................h on. r ichard n eufeld Minister of State for Mining ................................................................................................................................................ h on.

Gordon h ogg Minister of environment .......................................................................................................................................................h on. barry Penner Minister of Finance and Minister r esponsible for the o lympics .................................................................................. h on. c olin h ansen Minister of Forests and r ange ....................................................................................................................................................... h on.

Pat bell Minister of h ealth Services ................................................................................................................................................h on. George a bbott Minister of h ealthy l iving and Sport .....................................................................................................................................h on.

Mary Polak Minister of h ousing and Social Development .................................................................................................................h on. r ich c oleman Minister of l abour and citizens' Services ................................................................................................................................ h on. iain black Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General .........................................................................................................h on.

John van Dongen Minister of Small business and r evenue and Minister r esponsible for r egulatory r eform ................................... h on. k evin k rueger Minister of technology, trade and economic Development and Minister responsible for the asia-Pacific initiative ...........h on. ida c hong Minister of t ourism, c ulture and the a rts ...........................................................................................................................h on. bill bennett Minister of t ransportation and infrastructure ...................................................................................................................h on. k evin Falcon leGiS latiVe a SSeMbl Y l eader of the official o pposition ...................................................................................................................................................c arole James Deputy Speaker ..............................................................................................................................................................................Sindi h awkins Deputy Speaker .....................................................................................................................................................................k atherine Whittred a ssistant Deputy Speaker ...............................................................................................................................................................Sue h ammell Deputy c hair, c ommittee of the Whole .......................................................................................................................................... h arry bloy c lerk of the l egislative a ssembly...................................................................................................................e.

George MacMinn, obc, Q c c lerk a ssistant ..................................................................................................................................................................................r obert Vaive c lerk a ssistant and l aw c lerk................................................................................................................................................. ian D. izard, Qc c lerk a ssistant and c lerk of c ommittees ................................................................................................................................. craig h.

James c lerk a ssistant and c ommittee c lerk .................................................................................................................................... k ate r yan-l loyd Sergeant-at-a rms .................................................................................................................................................................................

Gary l enz Director, h ansard Services ............................................................................................................................................................Jo-a nne k ern l egislative l ibrarian ............................................................................................................................................................................ Jane t aylor l egislative c omptroller .......................................................................................................................................................................

Dan a rbic

alP habetical liS t o F MeMberS a bbott, h on. George (l) ........................................................................ Shuswap a ustin, r obin (nDP) ................................................................................ Skeena bains, h arry (nDP) ....................................................................Surrey-n ewton barisoff, h on. bill (l) ............................................Penticton–o kanagan Valley bell, h on.

Pat (l) ...............................................................Prince George n orth bennett, h on. bill (l) ...................................................................e ast k ootenay black, h on. iain (l) ......................................................Port Moody–Westwood bloy, h arry (l) ....................................................................................burquitlam bond, h on. Shirley (l) ....................................Prince George–Mount r obson brar, Jagrup (nDP) .....................................................Surrey–Panorama r idge c ampbell, h on.

Gordon (l) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey c antelon, r on (l) ................................................................n anaimo-Parksville c hong, h on. ida (l) ..................................................... o ak bay–Gordon h ead c houhan, r aj (nDP) ........................................................... burnaby-e dmonds c hristensen, h on. t om (l) ..................................................o kanagan-Vernon c hudnovsky, Dave (nDP) ........................................... Vancouver-kensington c oell, h on.

Murray (l) ....................................Saanich n orth and the islands c oleman, h on. r ich (l) ............................................Fort l angley–a ldergrove c onroy, katrine (nDP) ...........................................West kootenay–b oundary c oons, Gary (nDP) .........................................................................n orth c oast c ubberley, David (nDP) ..............................................................Saanich South de Jong, h on.

Michael (l) ................................... a bbotsford–Mount l ehman Dix, a drian (nDP) ............................................................Vancouver-kingsway e vans, c orky (nDP) ..................................................................n elson-creston Falcon, h on. k evin (l) ..........................................................Surrey-c loverdale Farnworth, Mike (nDP) ............................. Port c oquitlam–b urke Mountain Fleming, r ob (nDP) ................................................................

Victoria-h illside Fraser, Scott (nDP) ...............................................................a lberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (nDP) .........................................................................Delta n orth h agen, h on. Stan (l) .................................................................... c omox Valley h ammell, Sue (nDP) .................................................... Surrey–Green t imbers h ansen, h on. c olin (l) .................................................. Vancouver-Quilchena h awes, r andy (l) ............................................................

Maple r idge–Mission h awkins, Sindi (l) ..................................................................k elowna-Mission h ayer, Dave S. (l) .................................................................... Surrey-t ynehead h erbert, Spencer (nDP) ..................................................... Vancouver-burrard h ogg, h on. Gordon (l) ......................................................

Surrey–White r ock h organ, John (nDP) .......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca h orning, a l (l) .............................................................k elowna–l ake c ountry ilich, o lga (l) .......................................................................... r ichmond c entre James, c arole (nDP) .........................................................Victoria–b eacon h ill Jarvis, Daniel (l) .................................................... n orth Vancouver–Seymour k aragianis, Maurine (nDP) ............................................e squimalt-Metchosin k rog, l eonard (nDP) ........................................................................... n anaimo k rueger, h on. k evin (l) .....................................k amloops–n orth Thompson kwan, Jenny Wai ching (nDP) ...........................

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant l ali, h arry (nDP) ........................................................................... Y ale-lillooet l ee, r ichard t . (l) .......................................................................burnaby n orth l ekstrom, h on. blair (l) ....................................................... Peace r iver South l es, John (l) ............................................................................c hilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, n orm (nDP) ....................................c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke McGinn, Jenn (nDP) .........................................................

Vancouver-Fairview Mcintyre, h on. Joan (l) ........................................ West Vancouver–Garibaldi Mack ay, Dennis (l) ....................................................... bulkley Valley–Stikine n eufeld, h on. r ichard (l) ....................................................Peace r iver n orth n uraney, John (l) .............................................................. burnaby-Willingdon o ppal, h on. Wally, Qc (l) ........................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, hon. barry (l) .............................................................c hilliwack-k ent Polak, h on.

Mary (l) ...............................................................................l angley Puchmayr, c huck (nDP) .......................................................n ew Westminster r alston, bruce (nDP) ................................................................

Surrey-Whalley r eid, h on. l inda (l) ...................................................................r ichmond e ast r ichmond, c laude (l) .........................................................................k amloops r oddick, Valerie (l) ..........................................................................Delta South r outley, Doug (nDP) ......................................................c owichan-l adysmith r ustad, John (l) .......................................................... Prince George–omineca Sather, Michael (nDP) .........................................

Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows Simons, n icholas (nDP) ................................... Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast Simpson, bob (nDP) ...................................................................c ariboo n orth Simpson, Shane (nDP) .....................................................Vancouver-hastings Sultan, r alph (l) ..................................................... West Vancouver–capilano Vacant ....................................................................................

Vancouver-l angara Thorne, Diane (nDP) .................................................c oquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, r ick (l) .................................................................. o kanagan-Westside t revena, c laire (nDP) .................................................................... n orth island van Dongen, h on.

John (l) ............................................a bbotsford-c layburn Whittred, k atherine (l) ........................................ n orth Vancouver–l onsdale Wyse, c harlie (nDP) ...................................................................c ariboo South Y ap, John (l) .......................................................................r ichmond-Steveston liS t o F MeMberS bY riD in G a bbotsford-c layburn .................................................... h on. John van Dongen a bbotsford–Mount l ehman ...........................................h on.

Michael de Jong a lberni-Qualicum ............................................................................. Scott Fraser bulkley Valley–Stikine ...............................................................Dennis Mack ay burnaby n orth .............................................................................. r ichard t . l ee burnaby-e dmonds ..........................................................................r aj c houhan burnaby-Willingdon .....................................................................

John n uraney burquitlam .......................................................................................... h arry bloy c ariboo n orth ................................................................................ bob Simpson c ariboo South................................................................................. c harlie Wyse c hilliwack-k ent.....................................................................h on. barry Penner c hilliwack-Sumas ..................................................................................

John l es c olumbia r iver–r evelstoke .................................................. n orm Macdonald c omox Valley............................................................................h on. Stan h agen c oquitlam-Maillardville............................................................... Diane Thorne c owichan-l adysmith ...................................................................

Doug r outley Delta n orth ......................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South..................................................................................Valerie r oddick e ast k ootenay .......................................................................... h on. bill bennett e squimalt-Metchosin .........................................................Maurine k aragianis Fort l angley–a ldergrove ...................................................h on. r ich c oleman k amloops ................................................................................c laude r ichmond k amloops–n orth Thompson ............................................ h on. k evin k rueger k elowna–l ake c ountry ................................................................... a l h orning k elowna-Mission .........................................................................Sindi h awkins l angley.......................................................................................h on.

Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca ....................................................................John h organ Maple r idge–Mission ....................................................................r andy h awes Maple r idge–Pitt Meadows ........................................................Michael Sather n anaimo ......................................................................................... l eonard k rog n anaimo-Parksville ...................................................................... r on c antelon n elson-creston ................................................................................ c orky evans n ew Westminster .................................................................... c huck Puchmayr n orth c oast.......................................................................................

Gary c oons n orth island .................................................................................. c laire t revena n orth Vancouver–l onsdale ............................................... k atherine Whittred n orth Vancouver–Seymour ...........................................................

Daniel Jarvis o ak bay–Gordon h ead ............................................................ h on. ida c hong o kanagan-Vernon ..........................................................h on. t om c hristensen o kanagan-Westside .........................................................................r ick Thorpe Peace r iver n orth ........................................................... h on. r ichard n eufeld Peace r iver South ...............................................................h on. blair l ekstrom Penticton–o kanagan Valley................................................... h on. bill barisoff Port c oquitlam–b urke Mountain ...........................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood .............................................................h on. iain black Powell r iver–Sunshine c oast ................................................. n icholas Simons Prince George n orth .......................................................................h on.

Pat bell Prince George–Mount r obson ............................................h on. Shirley bond Prince George–omineca ................................................................. John r ustad r ichmond c entre ................................................................................. o lga ilich r ichmond e ast ..........................................................................h on. l inda r eid r ichmond-Steveston ..............................................................................John Y ap Saanich n orth and the islands ........................................... h on.

Murray c oell Saanich South ........................................................................... David c ubberley Shuswap ...............................................................................h on.

George a bbott Skeena .............................................................................................. r obin a ustin Surrey-c loverdale .................................................................h on. k evin Falcon Surrey–Green t imbers ..................................................................Sue h ammell Surrey-n ewton ................................................................................. h arry b ains Surrey–Panorama r idge ...................................................................Jagrup brar Surrey-t ynehead ...........................................................................

Dave S. h ayer Surrey-Whalley.............................................................................. bruce r alston Surrey–White r ock ............................................................. h on. Gordon h ogg Vancouver-burrard ....................................................................Spencer h erbert Vancouver-Fairview .......................................................................Jenn McGinn Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................h on.

Wally o ppal, Qc Vancouver-hastings ....................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-kensington ........................................................David c hudnovsky Vancouver-kingsway..........................................................................a drian Dix Vancouver-l angara ....................................................................................Vacant Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ......................................... Jenny Wai ching kwan Vancouver–Point Grey .................................................h on.

Gordon c ampbell Vancouver-Quilchena ..........................................................h on. c olin h ansen Victoria–b eacon h ill .......................................................................c arole James Victoria-h illside ..............................................................................r ob Fleming West kootenay–b oundary ........................................................ k atrine c onroy West Vancouver–capilano ............................................................. r alph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................h on.

Joan Mcintyre Y ale-lillooet ......................................................................................... h arry l ali Party Standings: l iberal 44; n ew Democratic 34; Vacant 1

CONTENTS Saturday, January 17, 2009 a fternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13411 Statements .............................................................................................................................................................................. 13411 r esponse to avalanche in east kootenays h on. b. bennett introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13411 t ributes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13411 c hemainus fire victims D. r outley introductions by Members ................................................................................................................................................... 13411 introduction and First r eading of bills .............................................................................................................................. 13411 Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009 (bill 47) h on. b. l ekstrom Standing order 81 ................................................................................................................................................................. 13412 h on.

M. de Jong a. Di x Standing order 81(Speaker's r uling) ................................................................................................................................. 13415 Second r eading of bills ........................................................................................................................................................ 13416 Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009 (bill 47) h on. b. l ekstrom c. Jame s b. r alston h. b ains h on. c. h ansen c. Wys e S. Simpson l. k rog M. k aragianis S. Fraser D. Thorne n. Macdonal d J. kwan M. Sather J.

McGinn J. h organ S. h erbert n. Simon s r . c houhan S. h ammell J. brar D. c ubberley G. Gentner c. e vans r . a ustin G. c oons

D. r outley h on. k. Falco n r . Fleming a. Di x h on. b. l ekstrom c ommittee of the Whole h ouse .......................................................................................................................................... 13534 Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009 (bill 47) b. r alston h on. b. l ekstrom l. k rog S. Simpson r .

Fleming r eport and Third r eading of bills ....................................................................................................................................... 13553 Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009 (bill 47) r oyal a ssent to bills .............................................................................................................................................................. 13553 Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009 (bill 47)

13411 SaturD a Y , Januar Y 17, 2009 The h ouse met at 12:04 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Prayers. Introductions by Members Hon. J. McIntyre: it is with great pleasure that i have the honour of introducing to the h ouse today over 80 stu- dents with the provincial Francophone Y outh Parliament who, i have to say, in fact hoped that they would be in these very chambers this weekend, but are now viewing us in action. We want to thank them for their cooperation. [1205] [French was spoken.] Joining the group are David a rdagh, president of the b.c .

Y outh c ouncil; a nike c harbonneau, executive director of the b.c. Y outh c ouncil; Yves t rudel, executive direc- tor of the b.c. Francophone Federation; c harles-hugo n orman, coordinator of the Y outh Parliament; and t anya t arget-h aj, Première ministre de Parlement Jeunesse Francophone. Please make them welcome. Merci. A.

Dix: [French was spoken.] in my former life as executive director of c anadian Parents for French, i was very much involved in this extraordinary event, and i think it will be unlikely that the debates in the chamber this weekend will meet the standard that these extraordinary students set every year. h owever, we'll do our best. i want to join the minister in wishing everyone welcome to Victoria and good luck with all your work. Statements reSPonS e to a Valanche in ea St kootena YS Hon. B.

Bennett: a few weeks ago the little town of Sparwood in the southeast corner of the province suf - fered the terrible loss of eight young men. i wanted today to thank the Premier and the l eader of the o pposition for their quick, genuine and sincere responses in send - ing their condolences to the families of those eight men. i also wanted to thank formally here in the h ouse the efforts of the volunteer search and rescue group out of Fernie for those few days. i also wanted to thank the rcMP , who did a fantastic job dealing with very difficult circumstances and also the e lk Valley community hos - pital in the iha for all the work that they did. it was a really difficult time for that part of the province, and the two communities really pulled together, as did the rest of the province. i did also hear from members on both sides of the h ouse, and i appreciate that. on behalf of the families, i want to thank everyone for their support during a very difficult time.

Introductions by Members D. Routley: i'd like to introduce my ca, Debra t oporowski, and her husband Gerry t oporowski, who have joined us here today. Tributes cheMainuS Fire VictiMS D.

Routley: i would also like to ask the h ouse to remem- ber the five people who died in a tragic house fire on the c hemainus First n ation a few days ago in l adysmith. u nfortunately, these people died while trying to rescue other people from the home that was burning. it was a great tragedy. it brings our attention to housing conditions of first nations and fire protection and fire prevention ser- vices, but those matters can wait for another day. t oday i'd ask the h ouse to help me bring remembrance and condolences to the broad extended families and the whole community that's affected by this terrible tragedy.

Introductions by Members Hon. B. Lekstrom: it is an important day. We are here to do important business, but i do want to ask the h ouse to join with me to wish a very important person in my life a happy birthday. My wife Vicki — it is her birthday, and she's celebrating today. i just want to wish you a very happy birthday, Vicki, and i look forward to seeing you soon. Hon. M. de Jong: This weekend Victoria is playing host to hundreds of old-timer hockey teams.

The Pacific c up old-timer hockey tournament is taking place. one of those teams, the a bbotsford barley h oppers, was plying its trade this morning and had me sitting on the bench with them. Their name, of course, reveals what their real talent is, but they are here, and they are celebrating yet another victory from their game this morning. [1210] Introduction and First Reading of Bills V ancou Ver c harter aMenDMent a ct, 2009 h on. b. l ekstrom presented a message from h is h onour the l ieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver charter a mendment a ct, 2009.

british c olumbia Debates13412 Saturday, January 17, 2009 Hon. B. Lekstrom: i move that bill 47, entitled the Vancouver c harter a mendment a ct, 2009, be read for a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. B. Lekstrom: i am pleased to present the Vancouver c harter a mendment a ct, 2009. on January 12 the city of Vancouver made an urgent request to the government of british c olumbia to amend the Vancouver c harter, permitting city council to borrow money and undertake other financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project and ensure the best possible outcome for Vancouver taxpayers.

This bill is the provincial government's response to the urgent request by the city of Vancouver. it allows the city to borrow and lend the funds required to continue with the construction of the athletes village. Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, before we go any fur - ther, i wonder if we might distribute the bill and recess for maybe ten minutes so members have an opportunity to look at what it is we're dealing with today. Mr. Speaker: h on. Members, this h ouse stands recessed until 20 after 12. The h ouse recessed from 12:12 p.m. to 12:23 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Standing Order 81 Hon.

M. de Jong: i rise to request a ruling from the c hair pursuant to Standing order 81 that bill 47 be permitted to advance through all stages this day. The application of Standing order 81 following introduction of a bill is not uncommon. it is, however, by convention to be used sparingly in this chamber. a s is frequently the case, Mr. Speaker, you and the h ouse may seek guidance regarding the inter - pretation and application of our standing orders from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia .

Standing order 81 is considered at page 169 of the 3rd edition of that publication, where the author observes — and this is a quote: "There are numerous precedents in the u nited k ingdom h ouse where bills after first reading have passed through all remaining stages in one day." The author makes further reference to erskine May, the 21st edition, pages 530 and 531. h ere in british c olumbia, given the specific wording of our Standing order 81, it seems clear that a key com - ponent of the test that must be met is that the occasion or circumstances giving rise to the application must be urgent or extraordinary. in addressing that test and the urgency of the situa - tion, i wish to refer you and the h ouse to two specific documents that i will table.

The first is a letter dated January 13, 2009, from Gregor r obertson, mayor of the city of Vancouver, to the Premier of british c olumbia and the l eader of the o pposition. [1225] i'll quote portions from that letter and then table the entire document. The mayor writes: "i am writing to request your urgent support for an amend - ment to the V ancouver c harter, which will enable us to protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial plan for completing the o lympic village project.

The city's commitment to delivering the o lympic village to Vanoc for the games has been placed at risk by the cessation of funding flowing from the loan made by Fortress, the lender on the project, to Millennium, the developer for the project." h e continues: "There is an urgent need to restore the flow of funding to the developer and the project to allow completion in a way which is sustainable and which will mitigate the financial and reputational risks to Vancouver citizens and the city itself.

"c urrently the city, through its protective advances, is essen - tially providing bridge funding, and the interest alone amounts to approximately $87,000 per day." on page 2 of the letter: "The amendment to the V ancouver c harter we are requesting reflects the unprecedented situation we are facing. Public dis - closure through the media briefing on January 9, 2009, and at yesterday's council meeting was critical to allow our citizens to understand the seriousness of the issue and the urgency to act responsibly and quickly given the short time lines.

"a ll the evidence we have gathered to date supports our need to be able to find alternatives to the current loan arrangement in order to protect the taxpayers of Vancouver." Finally, in the penultimate paragraph: "every day that passes increases our risk. in view of this and with great respect, we are asking that as soon as the necessary and appropriate legislation is drafted, all members of the l egislature undertake to pass it as quickly as possible upon introduction in the l egislature." i do table that letter with the h ouse.

The second document i wish to refer to is a letter dated January 15, 2009, from the l eader of the o pposition to Mayor r obertson, which was also kindly copied to the Premier. it is a shorter letter, and i'll read it in its entirety.

Dear Mayor robertson: Thank you for your letter of January 13 outlining the critical situation the new council faces in order to protect taxpayers' interests while meeting pre-existing obligations relating to com- pletion of the o lympic village. i want to assure you that i, along with my caucus, fully understand the urgency of the situation, and we fully support the principles of openness and respect for the taxpayer that underlie the new council's approach to solving the financing problems. in that light, we support an urgent recall of the l egislature to consider the city of V ancouver's request for a charter amendment.

We agree that it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to delay con- sideration of legislation which may provide relief from financing deals that harm the public interest. a s i have said in public, we look forward to receiving the par- ticular details of the amendment for consideration, and we look forward to hearing from the government regarding an urgent ses- sion of the l egislature to debate effective relief for the taxpayer. Sincerely….

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13413 it's signed by the l eader of the o pposition. i table that document as well. i'm obliged to the opposition leader for her letter and the candid and forthright manner in which she acknow- ledges, it seems to me, the urgency of the situation. i suppose there are some who might suggest waiting next week, next month. t o them, i would repeat Mayor r obertson's words: "e very day that passes increases our risk." The significant costs being borne by the civic ratepayers continue to accrue on a daily basis.

We have begun to read how, left unresolved, the situation could have implications for the city's credit rating and ultim - ately the cost of borrowing. l est i forget, let us not overlook the thousand-plus workers involved in this project for whom failure to resolve this matter quickly could have catastrophic consequences. [1230] There's one last component to this that i wish to bring to your and the h ouse's attention.

This last aspect i'm going to submit to you is relevant as well to your con - sideration. i was also here 13 years ago when a previous government, with which some members of the h ouse were well acquainted, brought a similar application on a rare weekend sitting. i mention that because i also specifically remember the cautionary words of Speaker e mery barnes, who on that day in a pril 1996 emphasized the need that the bill in question should deal with the specific situation giving rise to the urgency. i would submit to you that the bill before you does just that and also meets this test. it's short, but more importantly, its provisions deal exclusively with the specific development project.

This is not something the government was planning for or contemplating. For reasons set out in its letter of January 13 describing the situation that has arisen, the city of Vancouver requests a specific legislative amend - ment on an urgent basis. if i have read the opposition leader's letter accurately and fairly, it seems to me that she agrees this is an urgent situation. c ertainly, that is the view of the government. immediately upon receiving the formal request from the city earlier this week, we began the work of drafting the bill before the h ouse today.

The government's sense of urgency is further reflected in the unusual step of asking this cham- ber, on very short notice, to assemble on this Saturday. n ot only do i believe that the current situation and the bill before the h ouse meet the test and requirements of Standing order 81. i would respectfully submit to you and the h ouse that it was precisely in contemplation of this type of circumstance that Standing order 81 was created, and it is therefore, in my view, appropriate to invoke its application today. A. Dix: Wow. Merry c hristmas. h appy new year, and happy new year to everyone, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important occasion, an important piece of legislation. We're here on a Saturday, of course, and the issues involved are significant not only for taxpayers in Vancouver but potentially for the taxpayers of british c olumbia. The Government h ouse l eader makes reference to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. in particular, you'll find in the reference to Standing order 81 a quote from Mr. Speaker brand from the english Parliamentary Debates in 1880. h e says: "i t is occasionally the custom to pass bills through their different stages at one and the same sitting.

That, of course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency and with the general assent of the h ouse." n ow, on the issue of the general assent of the h ouse, we have a different practice in british c olumbia and clearly a different operation. Sometimes those things would happen by leave, presumably if there was assent of the h ouse. a s there clearly is not, and despite the reading of the letter of the l eader of the o pposition, the Government h ouse l eader knows well that that's not our view with respect to this issue. Those words…. interjections. A. Dix: Well, you know…. interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Members. Members. A. Dix: i know that the h ouse has only sat five days since May, but these are submissions that we're making to you, and the members of the government side may be out of practice. This is unusual. That test of extreme urgency is reflected in the way that this has been used in practice in british c olumbia — in other words, very rarely: in 2004, 2002. Y ou'll recall, hon. Speaker, that was not a great moment for that l egislature — that the bills in question at that time received another reading in the Supreme c ourt of c anada. in 2000, 1996, 1986, 1984, 1968….

The Speaker is well aware and i'm sure has been considering these different examples. but since the sole issues raised in support of this appli- cation are the letter from the mayor of Vancouver and the letter from the l eader of the o pposition, let us reflect on the government's approach, how they've acted and how that reflects specifically on the question of urgency.

Y ou will recall, and this is our submission, that in January 2006, when Vanoc sought $110 million in addi - tional funding from the b.c. and federal governments, the b.c . and federal governments required due diligence reports prior to agreeing to the funding requests. [1235]

british c olumbia Debates13414 Saturday, January 17, 2009 in May 2006 due diligence reports made recom - mendations regarding stronger reporting on venue construction, costs and cost containment. September 2006. The province and V anoc sign the agreement regarding an additional $55 million in venue funding. The agreement contained requirements to strengthen reporting between V anoc and the province. a pril 2007. Partnerships b.c. reports on capital plan - ning and budget for all o lympic venues.

The report detailed enhanced reporting relationships between Vanoc, the city of Vancouver and the province of british c olumbia regarding all venue projects, includ - ing the Vancouver o lympic village, which is the subject of this legislation, in part. That finance committee was co-chaired by k en Dobell and a nnette a ntoniak — one reporting to the Premier, the other reporting to the Minister r esponsible for the o lympics. The city annual financial report details a report expanding risk related to the o lympic village. June 2007. a $190 million financial guarantee was approved to backstop Fortress's loan.

The Premier and the government knew or ought to have known about that. September 2007. The city approves a completion guarantee to Fortress for the full $750 million loan to Millennium. May 2008. The city manager reports that Millennium is in anticipatory default. The government knew or ought to have known about that. June 2008. The city manager reports that Millennium is in anticipatory default, and the city guaranteed a fur - ther $190 million Millennium loan. o ctober 2008.

The council authorized $100 million to pay construction costs, as Millennium was out of money. a nd then we had the announcements around the muni - cipal elections. in December 2008 we had a new council that was dealing with this mess. The mayor of Vancouver at the time spoke to the Premier — at least according to the quotes from the Premier, which we will provide to the Speaker and the Speaker's office — at that time about the possible need for legislation. This was the door by which Vancouver was going to exit from this fiasco. n ow, this week, Monday, the government received the request.

They'd been warned, they knew this was coming, and Monday they received the request. a t that time — and this should deal with all questions around the letter from the l eader of the o pposition — the l eader of the o pposition was clear on Monday and t uesday that this should proceed appropriately in this l egislature. a nd it is our public role, especially in regards to a matter that had been kept from the public eye, to ensure that there was significant scrutiny of this matter. on Monday the Premier received the request and, as i understand it, indicated that the government was likely to go forward with the request.

That was Monday. That was five days ago. Wednesday the Premier said — and i want to quote him in support of our case in this matter: "We're right now drafting an amendment that we can bring into the l egislature. a s soon as the amendment is appropriately drafted and passes muster with our a ttorney General, it will be introduced in the l egislature before February 10." in other words, the Premier said that there should be accountability.

There should be oversight. a nd even if it takes an extra day or two days for the a ttorney General to approve and even if that's another $87,000, the Premier said that oversight should take place. That oversight takes place, of course, as it ought to, in private. The lawyers of the a ttorney General make that oversight in private. This is where the public oversight in british c olumbia takes place: in the l egislative a ssembly of british c olumbia. i would say that the government's actions on this issue have not reflected urgency up to now.

The only time they want urgency — and this is relevant to the issue of urgency — is when it avoids significant debate in this l egislature. n ow, the question of urgency. a s you know, most of those cases in the past where Standing order 81 has been applied generally have related to labour relations issues in the broadest sense. one occasion is different than that, in 1986, and was actually rejected by the Speaker at the time. The urgency in many of those cases was people being able to get to services that they needed: children to classrooms, patients to hospitals, and so on.

What is the urgency in this case? [1240] i understand and respect that everybody who wants legislative change — and that includes the mayor of Vancouver, who has been doing an excellent job on this issue on behalf of the taxpayers of Vancouver — wants legislative change right away. We know that.

We've all heard, for example, from the insurance industry, which has been waiting for legislative change for five years, and from aboriginal people, who wanted legislative change last fall. of course, when you need legislative change, you want it right away, but it's our responsibility to ensure that the appropriate oversight is done. That's our responsibility. i understand the request of the mayor of Vancouver.

The Government h ouse l eader refers to $87,000 a day. it was $87,000 a day when the Premier talked to the mayor of Vancouver in December. it's been $87,000 a day for a long time, and action hasn't been taken. it was $87,000 a day on Monday. h ere's the important point. Whether we pass this today — or what we call today, because in these days we tend to delink the calendar Saturday from the h ouse sitting Saturday…. if we pass this issue — whenever we pass it — if you were to say yes to the Government

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13415 h ouse l eader's request…. if we were to do that, then we would still be paying $87,000 on Sunday and $87,000 on Monday. That is the fact of the matter. The city of Vancouver knows this legislation is before the h ouse. Presumably, if the Government h ouse l eader chooses to call us back tomorrow, he'll know it will have passed second reading. There is not urgency as between Saturday and Monday, and no evidence has been brought before you, hon.

Speaker, to suggest that there is. i understand that the proponents of the legislation, the mayor of Vancouver, would want it done as soon as possible. i understand that, but no evidence — none — has been brought before you. n ow, why is this requirement important? The require- ment that a proposal of the government may not become law without being considered and debated at various stages on different days is an old tradition, but it's a good tradition. There's a reason why we don't deal with this very often, don't avoid that very often. The reason is….

We often think of the standing orders and parliamentary rules as protecting the rights and obligations and responsibilities of members of the l egislature, but this one in particu - lar also, and most importantly, protects the rights and responsibilities and the opportunities of the public and not of hon. members. it's the public's right to read legislation before it is passed in this l egislature. it's the public's right that is being thrown into question because the government believes it's more convenient for them to go Saturday and pass it Saturday instead of Monday or t uesday. it's the public's right to read and to hear what their govern - ment is proposing that those very provisions of Standing order 81 are meant to protect.

They are meant to protect the public's right to scru - tinize those laws that government wants to make and to assess what impacts they will have on themselves, on their families, on their communities, on the taxes that they pay. They are meant to protect the public's right to comment to us and to criticize and to propose alterna - tives to the measures that the government seeks to make the law of the province. The standing orders require that virtually all laws be made deliberately and on separate days to protect the rights of the citizens — in particular, in this case, the rights of the taxpayers of Vancouver.

Their right to scru- tinize is what they want to overrule here — their right to scrutinize how this government has responded to a request from their newly elected city government for the powers to deal with a serious problem left behind by the outgoing council. These responsibilities, these rights, are meant to protect the rights of all british c olumbians who want to scrutinize this government's proposal to deal with a serious problem which, in my view — and they may not share this — they've been an important contributor to. That's why we have to debate these issues.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, not just $87,000 a day — hundreds of millions of dollars — and we have an obligation over the next few days to hear from the public, to debate these thoroughly — not to waive rules of the h ouse designed to protect the public but to main- tain and respect those rules. That is what, fundamentally, Speaker barnes was saying in 1996. h e was correct then, and he ruled against a government that was led by the nDP . [1245] That's what we are asking you to do today.

The rules of the h ouse…. t o make Standing order 81 simply a whim of the convenience of the Government h ouse l eader — that it would be more convenient to pass it Saturday instead of Monday — would be to take away from Standing order 81 its fundamental meaning. i ask, hon. Speaker, that you reject this request. Mr. Speaker: i want to thank both the o pposition h ouse l eader and the Government h ouse l eader. i will deliberate over this. Whenever we get a decision, we'll ring the bells, and we'll be back. The h ouse stands recessed. The h ouse recessed from 12:46 p.m. to 2:29 p.m. [Mr.

Speaker in the chair.] Standing Order 81 (Speaker's Ruling) Mr. Speaker: h on. Members, the hon. Minister of c ommunity Development has introduced bill 47, intituled Vancouver c harter a mendment a ct, 2009.

Following the introduction and the opportunity to peruse the contents of the bill, the Government h ouse l eader requested that the bill be permitted to advance through two or more stages in one day due to its urgency. i've had an opportunity to peruse the bill and note that as an amendment to the Vancouver c harter, it only applies to the municipality of Vancouver, and it is, in fact, limited to borrowing authorization with respect to one project — namely, the construction of the o lympic athletes village. u nder these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the bill is sufficiently limited in scope to qualify under Standing order 81. [1430] r eference has been made by both h ouse l eaders to the decision of Speaker barnes on a similar application. on that occasion the reason that Speaker barnes rejected the government's request to apply Standing order 81 was that the legislation, which was before the h ouse at that time, failed to isolate the crisis which had to be addressed and was of considerably broader application than the problem which the h ouse was attempting to

british c olumbia Debates13416 Saturday, January 17, 2009 resolve. n ot so with today's application, which in my respectful view has been carefully drawn to cover the specific problem which has arisen in Vancouver. The second test which applies under Standing order 81 is that the matter involves an urgent or extraordin - ary occasion. The h ouse l eader tabled a copy of a letter from Mayor of Vancouver Gregor r obertson to the hon. Premier dated January 13, 2009. in that letter the mayor made it clear that the situation was unprecedented and that the legislation was urgently required.

The h ouse l eader also tabled a copy of a letter of January 15, 2009, from the l eader of the official o pposition to the mayor of Vancouver which reiter - ated the urgency of the situation and stated: "i t is not in the interests of the taxpayer to delay consideration of legislation which may provide relief from financing deals that harm the public interest." it would appear to the c hair that the mayor of Vancouver, the Government h ouse l eader and the l eader of the official o pposition are all of the view that the need for legislation is urgent. i've carefully considered the submissions of the two h ouse l eaders, and in my view, this occasion is clearly one of urgency and scope which qualifies under Standing order 81.

Standing order 81, which provides an alternative process for considering legislation on an extraordinary occasion, should be used sparingly. This case is an example of an appropriate usage of the standing order. in making this ruling, i'm mindful of the guide - lines outlined by previous Speakers' rulings, including those given in this h ouse by Speaker r ichmond on March 12, 2003, and a pril 28, 2004. r espectfully submitted. Second Reading of Bills Vancou Ver charter aMenDMent act , 2009 Hon. B.

Lekstrom: i would move that bill 47, intitu- led the Vancouver c harter a mendment a ct, 2009, be read for the second time now. h on. Speaker, i am pleased to move that the Vancouver c harter a mendment a ct, 2009, be read for the second time. We have come to the h ouse today under excep - tional and urgent circumstances in response to a request from the elected council of the city of Vancouver for amendments to the Vancouver charter.

The council has made this urgent request because they have told us that they require legislative amendments providing them with the tools they need to see that the Southeast False creek project is completed in time for use as the athletes village at the 2010 o lympic and Paralympic Games. a s well, the project is financed in a way that provides the best possible deal for Vancouver taxpayers, and they can keep the hundreds of workers currently employed on the site working to build a hous- ing and sustainable community legacy for thousands of Vancouver residents.

We have chosen to respond to that request with the legislation that is before the h ouse today. i would like to provide the hon. members with a brief description of the events that have led to the introduction of this bill. on January 5, 2009, the mayor of Vancouver approached the Premier to ask for an amendment to the Vancouver c harter to enable the city of Vancouver to address the financing issues of which we are all now aware.

The Premier asked that as minister responsible for local government i consider the request and respond to the mayor on this matter. in a January 7, 2009, letter, i responded in writing to the Vancouver mayor and council with a commitment that if the council passed a formal resolution requesting this amendment, the province would move quickly to conclude the necessary due diligence so that the prov - incial government could make an informed decision on the matter. on January 12, 2009, the city of Vancouver responded with a resolution, carried unanimously by its council, requesting that we amend the Vancouver c harter, per- mitting city council to borrow money and undertake other financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project.

The city also assembled the background information on the matter, which is pub - licly available on their website, and made a persuasive case that proceeding with this legislation on an urgent basis provided the city with the means to get the best possible deal for its taxpayers. Since then, the provincial and city officials have worked together to finalize the required wording of the amendments to meet the urgent time lines of the city.

Through this process, it has become clear that straight - forward legislation allowing Vancouver to borrow and lend funds would give the city the tools it needs to manage this situation in the best interests of its taxpay - ers. it also became clear that in order for the city to effectively address this situation, the legislation would need to be put in place quickly. [1435] i want to be clear.

The city did not ask for a bailout. it requested urgent adoption of the legislative tools con - tained in the amendments before you today so it could manage the situation to protect Vancouver taxpayers, and it asked for this legislation on an urgent basis. The city itself has underscored this urgency in its letter and in its public comments, noting that the current situation is costing taxpayers $87,000 each day. l et's be clear. We are here today to debate legislation that will give the council additional financing tools it needs to meet its obligations.

The decision on whether to borrow, how to borrow and if to borrow at all is solely and completely the decision of that duly elected council. c ouncil members are accountable directly to their

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13417 electors on how they want to use these tools and how they intend to meet the obligations they have before them. n othing in this legislation changes that account - ability, an accountability that every council holds to its electors. i should note that the legislation itself is specific to the Southeast False creek development site. The bill spe- cifically defines the development area to be the 17-acre site that is currently under development as the athletes village. The powers in the bill are limited to financing in relation to this development site.

Finally, i do want to comment on the larger picture before the h ouse today. The development of Southeast False creek is a vision that has been alive in the city of Vancouver for 20 years, a vision of turning industrial lands into a sustainable community and a landmark for the city of Vancouver.

The athletes village is just the beginning of that vision. it's a vision of providing homes for Vancouver residents — 1,100 units of housing that will house thousands of residents, including 250 units of affordable housing for members of the community who are most in need. it is also a significant vision for Vancouver's economy, employing over 1,500 workers every single day with family-supporting jobs.

Vancouver's commitment to this project means that every one of those workers and their families will have the security they need to make choices for the future. a s members of this h ouse, we have the opportunity to assist Vancouver in realizing the parts of this vision. t o conclude, we are putting this legislation forward in a response to an urgent request from the city of Vancouver.

The legislation provides Vancouver with the tools it needs to see that (1) the Southeast False creek project is completed in time for use as the athletes vil - lage at the 2010 o lympic and Paralympic Games, (2) the project is financed in a way that provides the best possible deal for Vancouver taxpayers and (3) they keep the hundreds of workers currently employed on the site working to build a housing and sustainable community legacy for thousands of Vancouver residents. i ask that all members lend their support to this piece of legislation. C.

James: i rise to speak on bill 47. i also want to say that the n DP intends to support bill 47. but unlike the government, we don't believe that that support comes at the cost of scrutiny. it's precisely that lack of scru - tiny that's at the root of spiralling o lympic costs and plummeting confidence in the l iberal government's truthfulness about those costs. it is that lack of scru - tiny that created the need for us to be here to debate bill 47. t o restore confidence, i would think that the Premier would be eager to demonstrate accountability. t o restore confidence, i would think that he'd be eager to answer questions. t o restore confidence, i would think that the Premier would want to come clean about the true costs of the o lympics and give us full time to debate bill 47. [1440] but true to form, the Premier has no such intention. t rue to form, this Premier is ducking accountability. t rue to form, the Premier is ramming through legisla - tion in order to avoid legitimate and persistent questions about taxpayer liability for the games. british c olumbians deserve better than they're get - ting from this government. british c olumbians are tired of this b.c. government's arrogance and neglect.

They're tired of a government that is profoundly out of touch with their needs. They're tired of a government that won't come clean on o lympic spending. in just four months they're going to send this Premier and every member on that side of the l egislature a mes- sage that will be heard across this province: it's time for accountability. They're going to say loud and clear that this Premier and this government have to come clean with the taxpayers on the costs of the o lympic Games.

We're here to debate bill 47, an amendment to the Vancouver c harter allowing the city to borrow an unlimited sum of money. n ow, it's not a complicated amendment, but its implications for taxpayers and the Winter Games are profound.

The reasons for bill 47's introduction in this chamber today are deeply troubling, deeply concerning to every british c olumbian, because those reasons involve a culture of government secrecy and arrogance — at the city, with the past government and right here in Victoria. it's an approach that shuts citizens out and that treats taxpayers like they have an infinite amount of money to fuel o lympic cost overruns.

Quite frankly, this Premier has forgotten that these are taxpayer dollars that we're talking about here, not his private fund for his pet pro - jects in this province. it's an approach that has brought us to this chamber to help Vancouver taxpayers cope with a potential financial crisis. l et me say first that i want to thank the new mayor of Vancouver and his council for demonstrating leader- ship and accountability on this issue. They've taken an important first step towards restoring public confidence. They're doing what they can to protect taxpayers from an extraordinarily bad deal.

That's one of the reasons we're here today dealing with bill 47 — to help the city of Vancouver out of the finan - cial mess that has been left to it. but with that comes responsibility to ask some tough questions of the Premier and of his government, because try as they might, this Premier can't escape responsibility for this fiasco. in fact, there's little doubt that the provincial govern - ment must have known what was going on with the o lympic village. a fter all, it was the provincial govern - ment that set up a series of reporting arrangements to ensure they would know. i want to take a moment to

british c olumbia Debates13418 Saturday, January 17, 2009 review those arrangements and the history that brings bill 47 here today. in the middle of 2006 Vanoc came to the provincial and federal governments asking for more money. both governments commissioned due-diligence reports as one of those conditions of considering that request. The report and a subsequent one, which were prepared by Partnerships b.c., made a number of recommenda - tions to increase the flow of information and knowledge between the city and V anoc and between their part - ners in the provincial and the federal governments.

Vanoc created a village advisory committee to oversee the completion of both the Vancouver and Whistler o lympic villages. The city's project manager, Jody a ndrews, who this week resigned, met weekly with Vanoc's project manager. Mr. a ndrews also provided monthly written reports to Vanoc.

Vanoc's finance committee, according to its own public minutes, received reports regularly on both venues — the venue that we're here talking about today, the o lympic village venue that has brought this bill in front of us. [1445] The co-chairs of V anoc's finance committee, who reviewed and considered these reports, were, through this period and remain today, k en Dobell, who reported to the Premier, and the ceo of the b.c. o lympic Secretariat, who reports to the Minister r esponsible for the o lympics — a direct reporting relationship between the special committee set up and the government; a direct reporting relationship on how things were going on the o lympic village between V anoc and their special committee and the government.

Former city manager Judy r ogers was and still is a member of the finance committee considering those reports. So what happened at the city of Vancouver during this time period? in May and June of 2007 former city manager Judy r ogers reported to city council that the Millennium group, the developer of the village, was in anticipatory default. in other words, Millennium was running out of money. u nder its various signed agreements, the city had an obligation to share that information with V anoc.

When there was a problem with the exact issue on bill 47 that we're here debating today — there was an issue around the financing of the o lympic village — the city had an obligation to share their information with Vanoc.

V anoc, through its finance committee, in turn shared information with the Premier, with the province, with the Finance Minister. l et there be no doubt: the l iberal government had to have known what was going on from the start. but as we all know now — and the reason we're here today debating this bill — they refused to share their know - ledge with the people of british c olumbia. a s the spring of 2008 turned into the fall, the problems escalated. in a pril of '08 the city auditors reported publicly on the financial risk to the project and to the taxpayers. a s we all know, Millennium ran out of money.

The financier, a n ew Y ork hedge fund in deep financial trouble, escalated its demands. There followed a range of commitments by the city of Vancouver to underwrite both the developer and the financier in order to com - plete the development on time.

That's the sad history that brought us here today to deal with this bill. if one thing stands out, it's the fact that this government, in every step of the way, has refused to be open and transparent and accountable to the taxpayers of this province. t axpayers were put on the hook without their knowledge for hundreds of mil - lions of dollars in overruns and carrying charges.

The final bill still isn't known, and we're here today providing, in fact, the ultimate commitment — an open- ended waiver allowing the city of Vancouver to borrow as much as it needs to complete the village. n ow, i've heard the government say that this isn't a blank cheque, but the government is wrong. This bill has no dollar figure attached to it. Most importantly, this bill has no accountability built into it. Things can just con - tinue on the way they've been. The public will know only what the government decides it wants it to know. Well, that's not good enough.

Passage of this bill cannot and should not end the debate about o lympic costs. From this individual experience related to bill 47, we have to leave this chamber with a plan to ensure ongoing oversight and accountability for o lympic spending. t axpayers expect no less from their legislators than accountability for their money. [1450] We're here debating a bill, bill 47, that gives the city of Vancouver the power to borrow an unlimited sum. That puts a special onus on all of us in this h ouse to ensure the taxpayers are protected.

So today i again repeat my call for the government to appoint b.c.'s a uditor General as the auditor for the 2010 games now. i believe the a uditor should be charged with protecting the public interest and with ensuring highest standards of transparency and accountability for 2010 spending. Mr. Speaker, had the government taken this step from the beginning, had they actually ensured independ - ent oversight, we might not be here.

The citizens of Vancouver would have known about this project and the risks long ago. h ad this government actually done what they should have done, which is ensured independent oversight, the public might have a little faith in the o lympic numbers. h ad the government ensured taxpayers had someone looking out for them, british c olumbians might have some confidence that the games won't leave them with a legacy of debt and unpaid bills. if the government had done what it should have done, we might not have needed bill 47 in front of us today.

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13419 n ow, when we all welcome the world to b.c. next year, it's a moment that all british c olumbians hope will be full of pride, a moment for the world to come together and to celebrate human achievement. but let's remember that successful o lympic Games are in tune with the times that they're staged in, and today in british c olumbia and across the world, times are very uncer - tain. n ext year, as we all know, the central credit union expects b.c. to lose 42,000 jobs — 42,000 jobs. in british c olumbia, families i talk to are worried about managing to pay their rent or their mortgage.

They're worried about the declining value of their homes.

They're worried about rising costs and stagnant wages, and some communities are just barely struggling to survive. n ow more than ever, british c olumbians can't afford o lympic cost overruns. n ow more than ever, they can't afford scarce resources — their resources — to be diverted from fundamental priorities like health care and education. n ow more than ever, british c olumbians don't want the crowds to go home and all they're left with is a legacy of debt and red ink. n ow more than ever, british c olumbians want their government to focus on the fundamentals, and that's what every member on this side of the l egislature is going to continue to do: fight for the fundamentals in this province. in coming into the l egislature to take a look at a piece of legislation, i had british c olumbians in every corner of this province talking about their worries about a gov- ernment introducing a piece of legislation that would put them on the hook for additional costs, that will put them on the hook for additional debt.

Families in this province are tired of this Premier's pet projects. Families in this province want the games to be a legacy for sport, a legacy for people, a positive legacy for the economy, a legacy in which we can take great pride. but that legacy is threatened by spiralling cost overruns, threatened by this Premier's refusal to come forward and tell the truth about o lympic spending. e very time the costs go up, every time we see the Premier and the Finance Minister continue to stand up and say that the total cost of the o lympics is $600 mil - lion, public confidence is further eroded.

When i hear the members of government say over and over again that $175 million is enough for security…. People know in this province how laughable that is. When the a uditor General says that the b.c. l iberals aren't giving him the information he needs to investigate the real costs of the o lympics, the taxpayers that i talk to are asking: "What do the b.c. l iberals have to hide? What is this govern - ment trying to keep away from us? What are they trying to hide?" [1455] Mr.

Speaker, just yesterday the Premier appeared on national television, and he told c anadians that it simply wasn't true that the o lympics were over budget. in fact, he spoke directly to the issue that we're here debating today in bill 47. h e said on national t V that the o lympic village itself wasn't over budget, and i'd like to quote the Premier. h ere's what he said on cbc t V: "n o. 1, there aren't cost overruns in the o lympic village. What there are, are some challenges in terms of one of the opportunities to finance it. There aren't cost overruns." Well, that's what happens when you don't come clean.

Y ou can't keep your stories straight.

That's exactly what happened yesterday, and later the Premier had to apolo- gize. h e said that what he meant to say was that the o lympic Games, in total, weren't over budget. n ow, who can believe that? t ell that to the a uditor General, who said that the costs are now in the billions. t ell that to the taxpayers, who know that they're covering the $400 million in convention centre cost overruns. t ell that to the taxpayers in Vancouver who are going to pay in the end for the o lympic village with this piece of legislation passed. it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

We know the Premier has been twisting and turning on o lympic costs for months. h e owes more than an apology to the taxpayers of this province. it is time for some straight talk, for the Premier to cut the nonsense and come clean with the real costs on the o lympics for the taxpayers of this province. e arlier this week i was in k amloops.

Y esterday i spent time in l adysmith and in c owichan. in each of those opportunities i met with seniors and their families. i heard story after story about the lack of quality seniors care. i heard anger in those people's voices. i heard despair from families who have seen broken promise after broken promise from this government. i heard people ask how the Premier can find addi - tional dollars for cost overruns in the o lympics, the issue that we're talking about today, and yet can't find enough money to make sure that their relative gets good- quality care or their child gets a good-quality school in their neighbourhood. i'm sorry, but this Premier has his priorities wrong, and the public knows that in british c olumbia.

That's what this debate on bill 47 is about. it's about the true costs of the o lympic Games. it's about the l iberals finally coming clean with those costs. it's about helping the city of Vancouver cope with a financial mess that's been left to it by the Premier's friends at city hall. it's about protecting the taxpayers in k amloops and in c owichan and in Vancouver. it's important that we remember that, as we go through this debate.

This isn't about the Premier's project; this is about liability to the taxpayers of british c olumbia. it's also about learning the lessons to protect british c olumbians from more surprises. n ow, we all know that the b.c. l iberals want to duck debate here in this chamber. That's very clear. but they

british c olumbia Debates13420 Saturday, January 17, 2009 can't cut and run from the voters. The day isn't far away where their record is going to be judged, and they're going to be held accountable. o lympic cost overruns are a concern for every british c olumbian. They're a power- ful symbol of this government's arrogance and neglect. So i put this challenge to the Premier again. l et's not walk away from this debate on bill 47. l et's not walk away from this h ouse and pretend as though we fixed the problem, because we haven't.

We haven't fixed this problem until the Premier acknowledges the truth, until he acknowledges the real cost of the o lympic Games, until the Premier comes clean and takes steps to protect the taxpayers. u ntil the Premier does that, his gov - ernment has profoundly failed the people of b.c. and jeopardized the success of the o lympic Games. [1500] We will get into discussion on bill 47.

We'll have the opportunity to talk about the specifics as we move along in the debate, but let's not forget that the reason we are here today is because of a government that refuses to tell british c olumbians the real cost of the o lympic Games and continues to try and hide those costs. B. Ralston: it's my pleasure to rise to speak to bill 47, which i think could be fairly described, in short form, as

an act to assist o lympic village refinancing. in the letter from the mayor of Vancouver, which was tabled by the Government h ouse l eader, it's significant that he mentions: "The Vanoc deadline is nine months away. The o lympic village is the central venue for the o lympic and Paralympic Games." a nd Vanoc is, of course, the organizing committee responsible for the conduct of the games. So this is no ordinary project. This is the central venue for the o lympic Games.

There is a hard deadline of nine months away, which requires that that deadline must be met — it's a matter of provincial pride and a matter of national pride; these are national games — and that this province be in a position to offer the warm embrace to the citizens of the world who come here to participate in the o lympic Games. it's crucial. it's not just another real estate project that gets into trouble, where construction could halt, other arrange - ments could be worked out — maybe a write-down of the costs — and a number of deadlines be bumped through and maybe come onto the market in 2011 or 2012.

Those alternatives aren't there. The mayor properly speaks of the obligation that the city owes to V anoc. it's significant, in beginning to understand this legislation and the potential risk and liability to the province, to understand the series of interlocking agreements that not only the city, as an o lympic city, but the province has signed with Vanoc. [k.

Whittred in the chair.] in pursuit of representing the financial interests of the citizens of the province, the a uditor General, who is an independent officer of the l egislature, not a politically appointed person, and who has a profound obligation and, indeed, some considerable powers to investigate and report to the l egislature on the financial obligations and risks to the citizens of british c olumbia…. h e and his predecessors have, of course, examined the o lympic project and those agreements — that series of interlock - ing agreements i spoke of just moments ago.

What the a uditor General said in his report in 2006…. i'm going to quote, just because i want to be accurate and i don't want there to be any suggestion of error on my part. i'm going to quote from page 3 of that report: "There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opin- ion, responsibilities for games costs could be shifted to the prov- ince. The province has guaranteed to the ioc" — that's the inter - national organizing committee — "that it will cover any financial shortfall of Vanoc.

This cost could arise if V anoc is not suc - cessful in meeting its revenue or expense targets or does not build in sufficient contingencies to cover items it cannot control, such as inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, the state of the economy, world threats or world events.

"a lso, the province has agreed to indemnify the city of Vancou- ver for any losses flowing from the city's signing the host city con- tract. in turn, the host city contract requires Vancouver to indem- nify the ioc against any damages suffered by the ioc, includ - ing all costs, loss of revenue and also the damages the ioc may have to pay to third parties, including but not limited to o lympic sponsors and broadcasters, resulting from acts or omissions of Vanoc or the city.

"The host city contract also makes the city, V anoc and the c anadian o lympic c ommittee jointly liable for all of the obli - gations of Vanoc related to staging the games and places the financial responsibility for the games with Vanoc and the city." [1505] The a uditor General goes on — and this is the point of disagreement between the province and remains a point of disagreement between the province, a signifi - cant one — to say: "We acknowledge that legally, the guarantee is provided only to the ioc . in our opinion, however, the obligation of the province to ensure the financial success of the games has the potential to cause the guarantee to be subject to a much broader exposure. in the province's view, the guarantee to the ioc is not as broad as we interpret and should not be relied upon by parties other than the ioc .

This report uses the broader

interpretation of the guarantee, beyond the legal

interpretation." n ow, the position of the province and the Minister of Finance and the Minister r esponsible for the o lympics is that this guarantee is very narrowly drawn. The prov - ince couldn't possibly be drawn in, in a legal sense. but when you reflect upon what the a uditor General is saying, it's obvious — the wisdom of his position and, indeed, the correctness of his position. c ould the province stand by while the o lympic vil- lage, for one reason or another, didn't get completed? of course not. Would the province stand by if any of these venues weren't completed on time? of course not.

Would the province stand by if the security arrange - ments weren't worked out between the city, the province

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13421 and the federal government — the rcMP obligation, perhaps? Would the province stand by and simply let that happen? of course not. The obligation of the province goes beyond strict legal liability, sometimes called reputational liability. in other words, our reputation as a province and on behalf of our country globally, as c anada, is engaged in this process. We all want it to be successful, and the province could not and would not stand by if there were to be a failure or a liability that narrowly and legally fell to the city alone.

The a uditor General has quite properly pur - sued the government and asked repeatedly for broader accountability beyond the narrow accountability that the province has been willing to accept. These are not, i would hasten to say, technical argu - ments.

They may appear on the surface to be technical arguments, but when the provincial guarantee is engaged, that means, in more colloquial terms, that the province is backstopping financial problems. in the market con - ditions, the global economic conditions, that we now find ourselves in, the risk of the province's guarantee, the province being the backstop, is obviously greater.

While it may have been more academic a few years ago, it's certainly more of a reality now, and the problems with the o lympic village are just one good example of the kind of havoc that the change in market conditions can bring to these kinds of projects, particularly where they're up against a hard deadline. a nd that's why the mayor is talking, in the letter tabled by the Government h ouse l eader, about the Vanoc deadline. in nine months the city has an obligation to deliver that o lympic village completed.

They need to make sure that they do that, and the province's interest is engaged in making sure that that takes place. u ltimately, in the words of the a uditor General, there's a broader potential liability on behalf of the province. but the response of the province, when confronted with that report of the a uditor General, has been to say: "n o, we don't agree with that. We fall back on the narrow legal liability. We don't accept that. We don't see that as a responsibility. We're not responsible for those risks — reputational, financial, whatever.

We don't accept that." in her response to the a uditor General in 2006 on behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance indeed says words to that effect at the back of the report. [1510] This is part of a pattern that the government, in its stance towards o lympic costs and o lympic liabilities…. There's a very clear pattern that has emerged and is only now, under pressure, beginning to crumble.

That has been to draw a very narrow definition of o lympic costs and resist any even rational, reasonable suggestion that things such as the o lympic secretariat…. i see that my colleague the Mla for Surrey-n ewton in estimates debate asked the Minister r esponsible for the o lympics whether the o lympic secretariat was an o lympic cost. The minister said no. imagine that. We were floored. We were astounded. The very agency set up to run the games was not to be included as an o lympic cost.

The minister has persisted in that narrow definition of o lympic cost and therefore avoided taking on the poten- tial of broader financial liability and, indeed, broader liability — reputational risk — as well. That's a pattern that has been consistent. in fact, in pursuit of just that understanding, the a uditor General has been, since 2006, at the very least — and there have been discussions before that…. a s recently as a letter to the Speaker of the assembly here, which was conveyed to him in December of 2008 — there's no specific date on it — he says…. i'm going to quote from the a uditor General.

"The second piece of work relates to costs and risks to the prov- ince associated with the 2010 o lympic and Paralympic Games — the games. My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that british c olumbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that has often been quoted.

Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risk that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished." So this piece of legislation merely illustrates one aspect of potential growing risk to the province.

What the a uditor General goes on to say is to confirm the long - standing position of the government to minimize the cost to the taxpayers of the o lympic Games. h e says: "i have but one recommendation — that government expand its definition of games-related costs to include all items that are reasonably attributable to hosting the 2010 o lympic and Paralympic Winter Games and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with them." h as that taken place? n o, it hasn't. indeed, there's been a litany, with regular and repeated statements by various ministers over the last at least four or five years, of purporting to claim, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that the games will only cost $600 million. i will quote from the minister responsible for the o lympic/Paralympic Games in 2005: "We are very confident — and V anoc is very confident — they're going to be able to deliver the games without additional revenues from the province beyond the $600 million we have created." That's october 4, 2005, in Hansard.

The same minister, in an interview with a national radio station: "The taxpayers who entrust us with the money at the provincial government level are on the hook for $600 million, and that is the direct cost of us staging the o lympic Games and living up to the obliga - tions we made to the ioc. t o this date there is nothing that indicates we will need anything over and above that $600 million." That was on September 13, 2006, in a cbc radio interview. The same minister: "We have committed, on behalf of the taxpayers of british c olumbia, $600 million for the

british c olumbia Debates13422 Saturday, January 17, 2009 staging of the o lympic Games. i have every reason to expect the games will be delivered without any increased obligation to the taxpayers over and above that $600 million." That's from Hansard, May 9, 2006. [1515] The Premier, May 9, 2006: "Mr. Speaker, i don't know how you can say this more clearly so that members of the opposition understand this. h osting the o lympic Games is $600 million.

There is a $600 million budget." The Minister of e conomic Development, responsible for the o lympics, May 4, 2006: "The province is not on the hook for any increased costs…. it's because of the leadership of the Premier that we put in place a $600 million commitment for the province as their cost of staging the 2010 o lympic Games in this province…. We are quite confident that with the obligations that are coming forward, the province will live within its $600 million commitment." Move on to 2007.

The same minister responsible for the o lympics: "Within the $600 million envelope that we have to live up to our obligations for the staging of the games, we have half of the $175 million — the provin - cial share for security. We also, within that $600 million, have remaining about $76 million of contingency." That was in Hansard on February 14, 2007. i will return to the issue of the growing potential risk to the province and the lack of realism in these numbers a little bit later in my comments, particularly when it concerns security costs.

The l eader of the o pposition referred to the statement of the Premier just days ago, on January 15, to the national media about denying that there were any cost overruns or increased risk to the tax- payers of british c olumbia for the cost of the o lympics.

The pattern has been to resist the mounting object - ive evidence, this growing skepticism of the public, the growing skepticism of the media, the repeated questions, the reality of the economic climate — this being this legislation arising out of just one of those examples, how changing market conditions have affected the potential costs of staging the o lympics. Those series of quota - tions that i've given increasingly begin to fly in the face of reality.

Perhaps one of the most obvious and dramatic examples of the refusal of the government and the min - ister responsible and the Premier to come to terms with the reality of o lympic costs that are escalating — as in necessitating, in this case, this piece of legislation — is in this area.

That's one example. a nother example is the example of security costs. in the original budget — i referred to a quotation from the minister — the government has insisted on a number of $175 million, and that has been long doubted as being the final number, as being a realistic number, for the security costs, the provincial cost of security. The head of the ioc , Gerhard h eiberg, said even back on March 5, 2003: "We feel that it's not enough." That's quite a while ago.

Sen. c olin k enny, a Senator in the c anadian Senate, has pursued this issue with some diligence and has stated — i'm quoting from a news report July 8, 2006: "i compare it to k ananaskis G8, where we spent $140 mil - lion to isolate eight people in one resort, and that's not far off the mark for a whole o lympic Games. Salt l ake was $310 million, and we're talking about something still four years away." h e said in the same article: "i t wouldn't surprise me in the least if the price tag for Vancouver more than doubled.

The way one wants to err on issues like this is on the side of caution, and no one wants a problem to happen on their watch." Matt l ehman, Salt l ake city's managing director of operations: "it becomes pretty clear as you look through these topics. i would seriously doubt that $175 million can do the job. i would suspect that something around $300 million to $500 million would be required." [1520] r ob r othwell, the head of the counterterrorism unit at the Vancouver police department, back on June 6, 2006: "My expectation is that we will certainly require, as we move closer to 2010, additional funding resources in order to properly address the threat." The Prime Minister of c anada: "There are yet-to-be- determined costs associated with security." h e said that on January 17, 2008.

The a uditor General — the same a uditor General, not a politician — an independent officer of the l egislature charged with scrutinizing financial commitments and obligations of the province and risks to provincial tax - payers: "We recommend that the province update its medical estimates and also update the security costs as soon as the required information is available from the rcMP ." Deputy Speaker: Member, i am listening very care - fully to your remarks, and i think that you are straying from the content of the bill. i wonder if you could direct your remarks at the content of the bill that's being discussed.

B. Ralston: i certainly will. i use this as an example. This bill is dealing with an aspect of o lympic costs. The mayor of Vancouver has referred to a hard deadline and commitments of the city to V anoc.

The a uditor General has said that the province is responsible in a broad sense to backstop those, and these are other instances of the same problem. a s i understand it, Madam Speaker, debate at second reading is relatively broad, and i'm simply trying to focus and set that bill in context about potential risks and liabilities to the taxpayers of british c olumbia, as well as to the taxpayers of Vancouver. i bear in mind your admonition, and i hope that i'm not straying too far. My intention is to illustrate that concern on behalf

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13423 of the taxpayers of british c olumbia and those people that i represent in Surrey-Whalley and speak on behalf of more broadly in the province. c ertainly, the a uditor General has asked and, when it comes to potential cost overruns and potential liabil - ity, has expressed extreme concern about security costs. it has become increasingly clear that the $175 million that's in the budget was not based on a real assessment of the likely cost. indeed, the federal minister respon - sible has said as recently as a few days ago that they are hoping they can keep it below $1 billion.

That's a long way from $175 million. it's increasingly clear that the credibility of the Finance Minister and Minister r esponsible for the o lympics is increasingly compromised when his statements con - tinue to fly in the face of a growing reality that's emerged over a lengthy period of time that the $175 million is far from accurate. indeed, the template that the Minister of Finance appears to be working from is a template that was set during the saga of costs for the convention centre.

The convention centre costs. a s we will recall, some - what like the o lympic village that is being discussed in this piece of legislation, due to market conditions — and in the a uditor General's report on the convention centre — and a number of factors that were examined in a separate report, the cost escalated.

The risk to the provincial taxpayer directly escalated from an estimated cost of $495 million when we last spoke of this at Public a ccounts just weeks ago to a cost closing in on $900 million. [1525] e very step of the way, somewhat like the question of security costs and somewhat like the denial of the broader legal obligation that the a uditor General spoke of, we saw ministers repeatedly, including the Premier, come out and offer repeated assurances that whatever the latest cost escalation was, was the final one.

The Premier, most notably in 2004, said that $565 mil- lion would be the final cost. h e said: "c ount on it. There are contingencies built into the project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. k aputski. Done." That was in 2004. a s we know now, the cost is closing in on $900 million. So the concern that is raised by this piece of legislation is the increasing potential risk to the taxpayers' interests.

The provincial guarantee more broadly conceived that, in the way in which the a uditor General has described in his report in 2006, the provincial interest will be engaged and that there will be a further obligation on behalf of the taxpayers of british c olumbia that will have to be met in order that the games be successful. it's very clear that, as the l eader of the o pposition has said, the government has dodged and weaved and does not want to come clean with a real calculation of o lympic costs.

They've resisted pressure from the a uditor General, as recently as December of 2008, to engage in a realistic discussion of o lympic costs. The Premier appeared….

Perhaps it was a misstate - ment. one doesn't know, but he certainly apologized later on. a s recently as a couple of days ago he claimed that the o lympic village itself, the very subject of this legislation, wasn't running over the estimated cost, and that's obviously not the case. it's significant that this bill is before us. it gives us an opportunity and the public an opportunity to scrutin - ize the obligation and the failure of this government to be candid, to come clean about the real cost of the o lympics and the real risk to taxpayers.

We will pursue this, doubtlessly, in other speeches, and we'll pursue this at committee stage. There are some questions about the nature of the obligation that taxpayers in Vancouver will be assuming and the broader risk that taxpayers in the province will be assuming. With that, i conclude my remarks. H.

Bains: it is my pleasure to be here today and talk about this very, very important document before us — the amendment to the Vancouver c harter to give authority to Vancouver city council to borrow money to pay for the o lympic village. i think we will have that debate, and we will examine why we are in the financial mess that we are in here today. n ot only in Vancouver. We want to take a look…. Vancouver is certainly part of the overall o lympic cost and overall o lympic family. Why is Vancouver in this difficult situation or in this bind that they find them - selves in?

We need to examine the deal that the city of Vancouver signed as a host city. What are the provisions of that? What were some of the obligations of the city of Vancouver, of the province and of Vanoc? We must examine why we are in such a financial mess around the cost of the 2010 o lympics, which the Vancouver o lympic village is a part of. i think we can describe that in three words: lack of scrutiny. That's why we are here today.

That's why the people of Vancouver and the taxpayers of Vancouver find themselves in…. it's not only in this particular venue that this lack of scrutiny applies. it is because this Premier and the min - ister created a culture of secrecy when it comes to the o lympic cost. [1530] First, when V anoc was established, it was estab - lished as an entity that is not subject to freedom of information so that no taxpayer will ever know what goes on behind those doors and how those decisions are made with their tax dollars.

Vanoc used to send its minutes to the secretariat office, which were then available under Foi because the secretariat office is part of the Ministry of e conomic Development. When these sneaky reporters or the opposition tried to grab their hands on those minutes,

british c olumbia Debates13424 Saturday, January 17, 2009 they said: "u h-oh, we've got to stop that." So V anoc stopped sending those minutes to the secretariat office so that we cannot get those minutes. We are here to talk about how this lack of scrutiny got us to this issue we are facing today, the issue of amend - ing the Vancouver charter. Point of Order Hon. G.

Abbott: Madam c hair, you mentioned to a previous speaker that he ought to address the issues in and around the bill we are debating today. it seems to me that you have been extraordinarily generous in terms of the latitude that has been permitted to this point. i would suggest to the current speaker that Standing order 40 and the relevancy that is demanded by Standing order 40 is something that he should consider in his remarks. h e is straying dramatically from the issue at hand in the bill we are debating. J.

Horgan: it's a little bit rich for the member for Shuswap to stand and tell us about straying from the bill when the h ouse l eader, in his presentation — keeping us here to go to second reading — made reference to the centrepiece, the o lympic Games. h ad i not had to run down the hall, i would have had a more reasoned interjection, but it's our view, hon. Speaker, that if the h ouse l eader for the government feels that he can use the o lympic Games as the argument to stay here, then we have that latitude.

Deputy Speaker: i thank both members for their remarks, and i do remind speakers that the debate is about bill 47, the Vancouver charter a mendment act, 2009. c ontinue, Member. Debate Continued H. Bains: That's exactly what my intention is, Madam c hair. The minister responsible, in his submission of this bill, said clearly that this amendment would allow, through legislation, for the necessary — quote from the minister who put forward this package — "financing arrange - ments in order to complete the athletes village project." That's exactly what my remarks were around.

We find ourselves in a position where we have to amend the Vancouver c harter so that they can do what they are required to do under this legislation. We need to exam - ine why we are in this position in the first place so that we don't repeat the same mistake over and over again and we don't make the same mistake in other venue arrangements that we have around the olympic costs.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for reminding us, but that is exactly the scope of my comments, and that's where i want to be. i think our taxpayers deserve to know what is going on around the o lympic costs, what is going on around the Vancouver athletes village. Why are we here sitting on Saturday, when the government will not be subject to question period?

My constituents have given me dozens of questions around this issue, and they want me to ask — they want the opposition to ask — those questions, but they will not have that opportunity, because that's the way this whole h ouse procedure is set up. [1535] We need to provide them with the information that they need and that they deserve, because they are paying the bill at the end of the day and you cannot deny them that right under the democratic system that we have.

Despite the fact that the government members will try to stifle that debate, try to again deny them that right and that information right here in this h ouse…. They have done that so successfully out there, hoping that no one will find out what the total cost of the o lympics is. People are more intelligent than this government gives them credit for. The taxpayers know that the num- bers this minister has given them time and time again…. They don't believe those numbers. They know that they are going to pay a lot more than what this minister is saying the cost of the o lympics is to them.

This min - ister says the cost to the taxpayers is $600 million. The Premier just the other day said the cost is $600 million. by the way, part of that cost is to go to the o lympic vil- lage in Vancouver that we are talking about. That's why we want to talk about whether that cost is $600 million or $6.7 billion, which the taxpayers think is the true cost. it is about time this minister and this Premier come clean with the taxpayers, especially at a time when they're worried about their jobs. a sk the forestry workers in my constituency, on Vancouver island, in the interior. They are asking….

They are watching this debate, and they don't want us to give this government a blank cheque. Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance to bill 47, please. H. Bains: of course, Madam Speaker. i am talking about the Vancouver o lympic village, because people are worried about how much, at the end of the day, it's going to cost them. is this another blank cheque, those forestry workers think, that we are writ - ing for this minister today or to Vancouver city? They need those answers before we say yea or nay to this bill.

They deserve and have the right to know and get those answers. i want to talk about how much this total bill is going to be. i want to talk about the total bill for the Vancouver athletes village. if you look at the a uditor General's report in 2006, he pegged it at $190 million, because that's the information he received from the government.

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13425 but today the city of Vancouver taxpayers are given a huge, big o lympic-sized surprise. The bill they are facing could be $875 million for that o lympic village. That's what they are worried about. They need some assurances from this government. They need answers on what was going on behind those closed doors when those decisions were made. Why was it that the previous city council, who happened to be friends of this government, signed that deal behind closed doors?

They need to know whether this is it or if this government is going to come from some other, different side and get its hand into their pocket for more money for something else. Y ou can't just isolate one o lympic venue from all of the other costs. This government tried, as i said, to create a culture of secrecy so that people will not know — or they hope that they will not know — what the true cost of the o lympics is going to be to them. h ere is another example. They were told $190 mil - lion for the Vancouver o lympic village, total cost, but now they're faced with a bill approaching $875 million.

Someone said that that's like $1,400 per man, woman and child in Vancouver — unbelievable. [1540] These ministers and people on the government side think that we shouldn't talk about the o lympic cost. When people are worried about their pensions, are wor- ried about their jobs, are worried whether they will be able to pay the next payment for their homes, this gov - ernment continues to give them surprise after surprise when it comes to the o lympic cost. i want to quote the a uditor General, who tried….

Three different a uditors General tried to warn this government about their obligations and a lack of scrutiny that this government is putting around the olympic cost. instead of working with the a uditor General, who has no political axe to grind with anyone…. h e is an independent watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers, monitoring taxpayers' dollars, where the taxpayer dol - lars are going, whether they're getting bang for their buck, whether the government is using those dollars in a prudent manner, whether they are wasting, whether they can do a better job with those dollars than they're doing. instead of working with that office, they've frustrated that office.

They've frustrated that office to a point where in his last report, where the a uditor General was sup - posed to come up with a full report in the fall of 2008, he said in his letter posted on his website…. basically, if you interpret it this way, he threw up his hands in the air, saying: "if the government isn't going to cooperate, i don't basically have time to fight with them." i think that's how you interpret that letter. i'm not quoting that letter, but that's how i would interpret it — that the government is continually fighting with that office, continuing to disagree with them.

Why would the a uditor General say that those, those and those should be considered as o lympic costs and the government continue to say they are not? When you have a government, this government, on one hand telling you and giving you some information about the o lympic costs and the a uditor General on the other side, who has no political axe to grind with anyone — com - pletely independent body — who would you believe and trust? t en out of ten times i would go with the a uditor General, looking at the record of this government when it comes to the o lympic cost.

We are today again talking about another o lympic cost escalation, another cost that the Vancouver taxpay- ers were told is only $190 million. n ow the surprise is there that it could be $875 million. Madam Speaker, it's not that the government didn't know about this agreement. it's not that this government didn't know what was going on in Vancouver. i will refer you to an agreement that was signed by Vancouver, as soon as i find it. This is the agreement that was signed between the Vancouver organizing committee for the 2010 o lympics and h er Majesty the Queen in right of the province of british c olumbia.

This agreement was signed 29th of March, 2004. u nder this agreement there are certain requirements and obligations by the province and by the Vancouver organizing committee. u nder the contribution clause here: "The province will disburse its contribution to the Vancouver organizing committee in the following manner." Then in the next paragraph it goes on to talk about "notwithstanding any provisions in this agreement, in no event will the province be or become obligated to pay to V oco G," which is the Vancouver organizing committee of the games, more than $51 million.

Then there is a breakdown: $30 million for the athletes village, the very village that we're talking about today; $19 million for the h astings Park skating and $9 million for the h astings Park venue; $10 million for the h illcrest venue; $2 million for the capital cost of designing, plan - ning and developing of venues. That's the commitment of the province as far as the dollars were concerned. but then there was some undertaking by the Vancouver organizing committee. it says that the V oco G will ensure that the venues are completed in accordance with the venue development strategic plan.

That's the respon- sibility that the Vancouver organizing committee took on behalf of the taxpayers of Vancouver. [1545] Then it goes on to page 5, 5.01(b). it says that the responsibility of the Vancouver organizing committee to: "permit the province at any time or times during normal business hours to copy or audit, or both, any or all of the books of account and records, including sup - porting documents, referred to in

section 5.01(a)…." So they had a perfect opportunity and a right to go in there and audit and get that information from Vancouver. The

british c olumbia Debates13426 Saturday, January 17, 2009 Vancouver organizing committee has the obligation to provide that information. Then it goes on. The obligation of the Vancouver organizing committee under 7.01(

d) is to: "provide the province with a copy of the venue development strategic plan in draft, final and amended forms, as the province may request from time to time." They had a right and an opportunity all the time to get the information that they needed to have from Vancouver on what is going on with the Vancouver olympic village. They can't just stand here now. a s we have heard in the last few weeks…. "Well, we are just the bystand - ers. it's not our problem," the Premier will say.

"i t's a Vancouver problem." We are in the mess that we are today because of a lack of attention by this minister and a lack of attention by these l iberals. it goes on again. There is supposed to be so much scrutiny. There was so much work that the province could have done as far as due diligence is concerned on behalf of the taxpayers. but because they created a culture of secrecy, despite the fact that they had all the rights in these agreements, they chose not to act on those and kept people in the dark. h ere's another one. The report, 8.01.

The Vancouver organizing committee "will prepare and deliver to the province such written reports, in form and content satisfactory and prepared by a person acceptable to the province, as the province may, from time to time, request in connection with this agreement." What more do you need as far as the scrutiny and the right to scrutiny is concerned? but because they chose not to act, or they knew what was going on, they chose not to tell the taxpayers. in either case, that's a bad deal for the taxpayers — a bad deal — and this government failed in its duty to the taxpayers. it failed to protect the taxpayers. it goes on. i mean, there are all kinds of responsibil - ities that the province took on behalf of the taxpayers, and they chose to neglect all of that.

That is true to the form of this government — neglect, out of touch. instead of accountability, they chose arrogance. instead of transparency, they chose secrecy. That's their choice. They made that choice. The a uditor General went on to warn them, you know, what goes on all over in the o lympic cost, espe - cially what we are talking about, this amendment here today. a ll of those agreements and the clauses that i read to you, Madam Speaker, from that agreement pertain to this agreement that the province signed with the city of Vancouver.

Vancouver is now asking us to come here and amend the Vancouver c harter so that they can go out there and borrow money. The a uditor General, as my colleagues have earlier said, said on page 3: "There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opinion, responsibil - ity for games costs could be shifted to the province.

The province has guaranteed to the ioc that it will cover any financial shortfall of Vanoc." We all know that the minister has said from time to time that the province has signed that indemnification agreement with ioc on behalf of the city of Vancouver, Vanoc and Whistler — that if there's any shortfall left by any of those three, the province is ultimately responsible. What we are talking about here is Vancouver. We could be ultimately responsible for what's going on in Vancouver.

Y ou can't simply say: "let's narrow down the debate. l et's keep everything under secrecy. l et's make sure the taxpayers don't find out what's going on." [1550] it's true to form. e ver since Vanoc was established, ever since this government took this file, they created that culture of secrecy. That is the core of the problem we have here today: a lack of scrutiny, a culture of secrecy and trying to find ways to off-load the true cost of the o lympics — hide it from the taxpayers — onto the municipalities, onto the other government or taxpayer- supported entities — institutions such as ubc.

They set it up, like i said. Then they thought: "Maybe if we stick to the $600 million number, we will tell that we are such good money managers, that we delivered those games for $600 million and that everything is on budget." The Premier said just the other day that the o lympic cost is on budget. Who believes that? n o one believes that except that minister. n o one believes him. The taxpayers in Surrey don't believe him.

The taxpayers in Vancouver don't believe him. e ven some of those mem - bers are laughing over there, and people are actually laughing at this government for not telling them the truth, for trying to tell them that the total cost is $600 million, when the a uditor General, like i said, who had no axe to grind with anyone, said it was close to $215 billion. That was in 2006. Since that time he has come out with another report that said there's another $170 mil - lion this government doesn't admit. Then he went on to say — this is part of a letter he sent to the hon.

Speaker: "Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the prov - ince, each report highlights significant risks that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished." The a uditor General is wrong. Three of them are wrong. The ceo of t orino, who told this minister that the cost of security is going to be way higher, is wrong. The two high officials from Salt l ake c ity told this minister that the security costs are going to be much, much higher than $175 million.

The minister said they are wrong. e ven the president of the ioc in 2003 said that the $175 million is not sufficient. The minister said he's wrong. Madam Speaker, you know who's wrong? it's that minister and these l iberals and this Premier. it's about

british c olumbia DebatesSaturday, January 17, 2009 13427 time — especially in the time now when taxpayers are worried about their jobs, worried about their future — that this government comes clean with them and tells them what the true cost of the o lympics is. They are excited about the games. There's no question about that. i am too. but this government is putting a damper on that trust and the confidence that they've given this government by continuing to hide, continuing to not tell the truth about the true cost of the o lympics.

People are starting to say: "What did we do by saying yes to the games and giving our confidence to this gov - ernment in their attempt to run the games?" "What a mistake that was," they are saying. a ny file you look at, whether it is through the munici- palities…. There are extra costs off-loaded to them. or if you go to b.c. h ydro, there's a hand for o lympic costs in people's pockets.

Vancouver o lympic village, which we have before us — again: "We need more money." The city of Vancouver is saying: "look, we can't build this village on time if this condition continues the way it is." So they need the help of this h ouse. They need the help of this h ouse, but it's all because the culture of secrecy put in and designed by this Premier and this minister, and all of the ministers are support - ers of that. i might say that they must go back to their constituencies…. i don't know how they face those con - stituents. Y ou need to go and look them in the eye.

"We're not telling the truth about the true cost of the o lympics." c an you do that? i don't know how you do that. Whether it's the b.c . l ottery c orp., the r oyal c anadian Mint, b.c . h ydro, icbc , the b.c . o lympic secretariat, all of those costs are going to pay for the olympics. [1555] [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] We need to truly, on behalf of the taxpayers, provide as much scrutiny as we can when we talk about pass - ing bill 47.

This bill 47 is giving authority to Vancouver city council, on behalf of the city taxpayers, to borrow money so that they can get themselves out of this mess. a t least on this side of the h ouse we will make sure that that scrutiny is there. We will make sure the taxpayers in Vancouver get all of those answers that they deserve and have the right to, because they are paying the bill at the end of the day. i think b.c. taxpayers are worried. Vancouver taxpay- ers are worried that this is a never-ending saga about o lympic costs.

They want to make sure that the games are successful, but they're worried about the way this whole file on o lympic costs is being handled. Whether it is, in Vancouver, the case of Vancouver o lympic athletes village or it is security or it is all of the other costs that are attached to the o lympics, we are becoming an international disgrace — that we cannot manage this file. This government has exemplified so clearly that they do not know what the total cost is, or if they know that, they don't want to tell the taxpayers. Y ou know, the international community is watching us.

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0117pm 06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0117pm 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	048e62653d0c0e54b03e9b923eceb3f40c6b20c5

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