2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements

Response to avalanche in east Kootenays

Hon. B. Bennett

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Chemainus fire victims

D. Routley

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 47)

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Standing Order 81

Hon. M. de Jong

A. Dix

Standing Order 81(Speaker's Ruling)

Second Reading of Bills

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 47)

Hon. B. Lekstrom

C. James

B. Ralston

H. Bains

Hon. C. Hansen

C. Wyse

S. Simpson

L. Krog

M. Karagianis

S. Fraser

D. Thorne

N. Macdonald

J. Kwan

M. Sather

J. McGinn

J. Horgan

S. Herbert

N. Simons

R. Chouhan

S. Hammell

J. Brar

D. Cubberley

G. Gentner

C. Evans

R. Austin

G. Coons

D. Routley

Hon. K. Falcon

R. Fleming

A. Dix

Hon. B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 47)

B. Ralston

Hon. B. Lekstrom

L. Krog

S. Simpson

R. Fleming

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 47)

Royal Assent to Bills

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 47)

[ Page 13411 ]

SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2009

The House 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 House today over 80 students with the provincial Francophone Youth 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 Ardagh, president of the B.C. Youth Council; Anike Charbonneau, executive director of the B.C. Youth Council; Yves Trudel, executive director of the B.C. Francophone Federation; Charles-Hugo Norman, coordinator of the Youth Parliament; and Tanya Target-Haj, Première ministre de Parlement Jeunesse Francophone. Please make them welcome. Merci .

A. Dix: [French was spoken.]

In my former life as executive director of Canadian 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. However, 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

response to AVALANCHE

in east kootenays

Hon. B. Bennett: A few weeks ago the little town of Sparwood in the southeast corner of the province suffered the terrible loss of eight young men. I wanted today to thank the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition for their quick, genuine and sincere responses in sending their condolences to the families of those eight men.

I also wanted to thank formally here in the House 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 Elk Valley community hospital 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 House, 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 Toporowski, and her husband Gerry Toporowski, who have joined us here today.

Tributes

CHEmainus fire victims

D. Routley: I would also like to ask the House to remember the five people who died in a tragic house fire on the Chemainus First Nation a few days ago in Ladysmith. Unfortunately, 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 services, but those matters can wait for another day. Today I'd ask the House 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 House 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 Cup old-timer hockey tournament is taking place. One of those teams, the Abbotsford Barley Hoppers, 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

Vancouver Charter

Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.

[ Page 13412 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I move that Bill 47, entitled the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, be read for a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I am pleased to present the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. On January 12 the city of Vancouver made an urgent request to the government of British Columbia to amend the Vancouver Charter, 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 further, 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: Hon. Members, this House stands recessed until 20 after 12.

The House 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 Chair 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.

As is frequently the case, Mr. Speaker, you and the House may seek guidance regarding the

interpretation 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 United Kingdom House 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.

Here in British Columbia, given the specific wording of our Standing Order 81, it seems clear that a key component 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 situation, I wish to refer you and the House to two specific documents that I will table. The first is a letter dated January 13, 2009, from Gregor Robertson, mayor of the city of Vancouver, to the Premier of British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition.

[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 amendment to the Vancouver Charter, which will enable us to protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial plan for completing the Olympic village project. The city's commitment to delivering the Olympic 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."

He 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.

"Currently the city, through its protective advances, is essentially providing bridge funding, and the interest alone amounts to approximately $87,000 per day."

On page 2 of the letter:

"The amendment to the Vancouver Charter we are requesting reflects the unprecedented situation we are facing. Public disclosure 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.

"All 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 Legislature undertake to pass it as quickly as possible upon introduction in the Legislature."

I do table that letter with the House.

The second document I wish to refer to is a letter dated January 15, 2009, from the Leader of the Opposition to Mayor Robertson, 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 completion of the Olympic 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 Legislature to consider the city of Vancouver's request for a charter amendment. We agree that it 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.

As I have said in public, we look forward to receiving the particular details of the amendment for consideration, and we look forward to hearing from the government regarding an urgent session of the Legislature to debate effective relief for the taxpayer.

Sincerely….

[ Page 13413 ]

It's signed by the Leader of the Opposition. 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 acknowledges, it seems to me, the urgency of the situation.

I suppose there are some who might suggest waiting next week, next month. To them, I would repeat Mayor Robertson's words: "Every 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 ultimately the cost of borrowing.

Lest 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 House's attention. This last aspect I'm going to submit to you is relevant as well to your consideration. I was also here 13 years ago when a previous government, with which some members of the House 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 Emery Barnes, who on that day in April 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 amendment 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. Certainly, 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 House today. The government's sense of urgency is further reflected in the unusual step of asking this chamber, on very short notice, to assemble on this Saturday.

Not only do I believe that the current situation and the bill before the House meet the test and requirements of Standing Order 81. I would respectfully submit to you and the House 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 Christmas. Happy 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 Columbia.

Now, on the issue of the general assent of the House, we have a different practice in British Columbia and clearly a different operation. Sometimes those things would happen by leave, presumably if there was assent of the House. As there clearly is not, and despite the reading of the letter of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government House Leader 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 House 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 Columbia — in other words, very rarely: in 2004, 2002. You'll recall, hon. Speaker, that was not a great moment for that Legislature — that the bills in question at that time received another reading in the Supreme Court of Canada. 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 application are the letter from the mayor of Vancouver and the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, let us reflect on the government's approach, how they've acted and how that reflects specifically on the question of urgency.

You will recall, and this is our submission, that in January 2006, when VANOC sought $110 million in additional 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]

[ Page 13414 ]

In May 2006 due diligence reports made recommendations regarding stronger reporting on venue construction, costs and cost containment.

September 2006. The province and VANOC sign the agreement regarding an additional $55 million in venue funding. The agreement contained requirements to strengthen reporting between VANOC and the province.

April 2007. Partnerships B.C. reports on capital planning and budget for all Olympic venues. The report detailed enhanced reporting relationships between VANOC, the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia regarding all venue projects, including the Vancouver Olympic village, which is the subject of this legislation, in part. That finance committee was co-chaired by Ken Dobell and Annette Antoniak — one reporting to the Premier, the other reporting to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. The city annual financial report details a report expanding risk related to the Olympic 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 further $190 million Millennium loan.

October 2008. The council authorized $100 million to pay construction costs, as Millennium was out of money. And then we had the announcements around the municipal 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.

Now, this week, Monday, the government received the request. They'd been warned, they knew this was coming, and Monday they received the request. At that time — and this should deal with all questions around the letter from the Leader of the Opposition — the Leader of the Opposition was clear on Monday and Tuesday that this should proceed appropriately in this Legislature. And 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 Legislature. As soon as the amendment is appropriately drafted and passes muster with our Attorney General, it will be introduced in the Legislature before February 10."

In other words, the Premier said that there should be accountability. There should be oversight. And even if it takes an extra day or two days for the Attorney 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 Attorney General make that oversight in private. This is where the public oversight in British Columbia takes place: in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

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 Legislature.

Now, the question of urgency. As 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 House Leader 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.

Here'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 House sitting Saturday…. If we pass this issue — whenever we pass it — if you were to say yes to the Government

[ Page 13415 ]

House Leader'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 House. Presumably, if the Government House Leader 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.

Now, why is this requirement important? The requirement 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 Legislature, but this one in particular 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 Legislature. 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 Tuesday. It's the public's right to read and to hear what their government is proposing that those very provisions of Standing Order 81 are meant to protect.

They are meant to protect the public's right to scrutinize 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 alternatives 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 scrutinize 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 Columbians 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 House designed to protect the public but to maintain and respect those rules. That is what, fundamentally, Speaker Barnes was saying in 1996. He 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 House…. To make Standing Order 81 simply a whim of the convenience of the Government House Leader — 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 Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader. I will deliberate over this. Whenever we get a decision, we'll ring the bells, and we'll be back.

The House stands recessed.

The House recessed from 12:46 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81

(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the hon. Minister of Community Development has introduced Bill 47, intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. Following the introduction and the opportunity to peruse the contents of the bill, the Government House Leader 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 Charter, 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 Olympic athletes village. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the bill is sufficiently limited in scope to qualify under Standing Order 81.

[1430]

Reference has been made by both House Leaders 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 House at that time, failed to isolate the crisis which had to be addressed and was of considerably broader application than the problem which the House was attempting to

[ Page 13416 ]

resolve. Not 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 extraordinary occasion. The House Leader tabled a copy of a letter from Mayor of Vancouver Gregor Robertson 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 House Leader also tabled a copy of a letter of January 15, 2009, from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the mayor of Vancouver which reiterated the urgency of the situation and stated: "It 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 Chair that the mayor of Vancouver, the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition are all of the view that the need for legislation is urgent.

I've carefully considered the submissions of the two House Leaders, 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 guidelines outlined by previous Speakers' rulings, including those given in this House by Speaker Richmond on March 12, 2003, and April 28, 2004.

Respectfully submitted.

Second Reading of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER

AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move that Bill 47, intituled the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, be read for the second time now.

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to move that the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, be read for the second time. We have come to the House today under exceptional 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 Olympic and Paralympic Games. As 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 housing and sustainable community legacy for thousands of Vancouver residents.

We have chosen to respond to that request with the legislation that is before the House 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 Charter 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 provincial 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 Charter, permitting 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 publicly 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 straightforward 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 taxpayers. 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 contained 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.

Let'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.

Council members are accountable directly to their

[ Page 13417 ]

electors on how they want to use these tools and how they intend to meet the obligations they have before them. Nothing in this legislation changes that accountability, 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 specifically 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 House 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. As members of this House, we have the opportunity to assist Vancouver in realizing the parts of this vision.

To 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 village at the 2010 Olympic 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 NDP 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 scrutiny that's at the root of spiralling Olympic costs and plummeting confidence in the Liberal government's truthfulness about those costs. It is that lack of scrutiny that created the need for us to be here to debate Bill 47.

To restore confidence, I would think that the Premier would be eager to demonstrate accountability. To restore confidence, I would think that he'd be eager to answer questions. To restore confidence, I would think that the Premier would want to come clean about the true costs of the Olympics and give us full time to debate Bill 47.

[1440]

But true to form, the Premier has no such intention. True to form, this Premier is ducking accountability. True to form, the Premier is ramming through legislation in order to avoid legitimate and persistent questions about taxpayer liability for the games.

British Columbians deserve better than they're getting from this government. British Columbians 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 Olympic spending.

In just four months they're going to send this Premier and every member on that side of the Legislature a message 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 Olympic Games.

We're here to debate Bill 47, an amendment to the Vancouver Charter allowing the city to borrow an unlimited sum of money. Now, 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 Columbian, 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 Olympic 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 projects in this province. It's an approach that has brought us to this chamber to help Vancouver taxpayers cope with a potential financial crisis.

Let me say first that I want to thank the new mayor of Vancouver and his council for demonstrating leadership 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 financial 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 government must have known what was going on with the Olympic village. After all, it was the provincial government that set up a series of reporting arrangements to ensure they would know. I want to take a moment to

[ Page 13418 ]

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 recommendations to increase the flow of information and knowledge between the city and VANOC and between their partners in the provincial and the federal governments.

VANOC created a village advisory committee to oversee the completion of both the Vancouver and Whistler Olympic villages. The city's project manager, Jody Andrews, who this week resigned, met weekly with VANOC's project manager. Mr. Andrews 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 Olympic village venue that has brought this bill in front of us.

[1445]

The co-chairs of VANOC's finance committee, who reviewed and considered these reports, were, through this period and remain today, Ken Dobell, who reported to the Premier, and the CEO of the B.C. Olympic Secretariat, who reports to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics — a direct reporting relationship between the special committee set up and the government; a direct reporting relationship on how things were going on the Olympic village between VANOC and their special committee and the government. Former city manager Judy Rogers 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 Rogers 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.

Under its various signed agreements, the city had an obligation to share that information with VANOC. 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 Olympic village — the city had an obligation to share their information with VANOC. VANOC, through its finance committee, in turn shared information with the Premier, with the province, with the Finance Minister.

Let there be no doubt: the Liberal 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 knowledge with the people of British Columbia. As the spring of 2008 turned into the fall, the problems escalated. In April of '08 the city auditors reported publicly on the financial risk to the project and to the taxpayers.

As we all know, Millennium ran out of money. The financier, a New York 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 complete 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. Taxpayers were put on the hook without their knowledge for hundreds of millions 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.

Now, 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 continue 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 Olympic 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 Olympic spending. Taxpayers 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 House to ensure the taxpayers are protected. So today I again repeat my call for the government to appoint B.C.'s Auditor General as the auditor for the 2010 games now. I believe the Auditor 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 independent oversight, we might not be here. The citizens of Vancouver would have known about this project and the risks long ago.

Had this government actually done what they should have done, which is ensured independent oversight, the public might have a little faith in the Olympic numbers. Had the government ensured taxpayers had someone looking out for them, British Columbians 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.

[ Page 13419 ]

Now, when we all welcome the world to B.C. next year, it's a moment that all British Columbians 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 Olympic Games are in tune with the times that they're staged in, and today in British Columbia and across the world, times are very uncertain. Next year, as we all know, the central credit union expects B.C. to lose 42,000 jobs — 42,000 jobs.

In British Columbia, 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.

Now more than ever, British Columbians can't afford Olympic cost overruns. Now more than ever, they can't afford scarce resources — their resources — to be diverted from fundamental priorities like health care and education. Now more than ever, British Columbians don't want the crowds to go home and all they're left with is a legacy of debt and red ink.

Now more than ever, British Columbians want their government to focus on the fundamentals, and that's what every member on this side of the Legislature is going to continue to do: fight for the fundamentals in this province.

In coming into the Legislature to take a look at a piece of legislation, I had British Columbians in every corner of this province talking about their worries about a government 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 Olympic spending.

Every 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 Olympics is $600 million, 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 Auditor General says that the B.C. Liberals aren't giving him the information he needs to investigate the real costs of the Olympics, the taxpayers that I talk to are asking: "What do the B.C. Liberals have to hide? What is this government 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 Canadians that it simply wasn't true that the Olympics were over budget. In fact, he spoke directly to the issue that we're here debating today in Bill 47. He said on national TV that the Olympic village itself wasn't over budget, and I'd like to quote the Premier. Here's what he said on CBC TV: "No. 1, there aren't cost overruns in the Olympic 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. You can't keep your stories straight. That's exactly what happened yesterday, and later the Premier had to apologize. He said that what he meant to say was that the Olympic Games, in total, weren't over budget. Now, who can believe that? Tell that to the Auditor General, who said that the costs are now in the billions. Tell that to the taxpayers, who know that they're covering the $400 million in convention centre cost overruns. Tell that to the taxpayers in Vancouver who are going to pay in the end for the Olympic 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 Olympic costs for months. He 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 Olympics for the taxpayers of this province.

Earlier this week I was in Kamloops. Yesterday I spent time in Ladysmith and in Cowichan. 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 additional dollars for cost overruns in the Olympics, 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 Columbia.

That's what this debate on Bill 47 is about. It's about the true costs of the Olympic Games. It's about the Liberals 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 Kamloops and in Cowichan 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 Columbia. It's also about learning the lessons to protect British Columbians from more surprises.

Now, we all know that the B.C. Liberals want to duck debate here in this chamber. That's very clear. But they

[ Page 13420 ]

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. Olympic cost overruns are a concern for every British Columbian. They're a powerful symbol of this government's arrogance and neglect.

So I put this challenge to the Premier again. Let's not walk away from this debate on Bill 47. Let's not walk away from this House 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 Olympic Games, until the Premier comes clean and takes steps to protect the taxpayers. Until the Premier does that, his government has profoundly failed the people of B.C. and jeopardized the success of the Olympic 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 Columbians the real cost of the Olympic 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 Olympic village refinancing.

In the letter from the mayor of Vancouver, which was tabled by the Government House Leader, it's significant that he mentions: "The VANOC deadline is nine months away. The Olympic village is the central venue for the Olympic and Paralympic Games." And 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 Olympic 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 Olympic Games. It's crucial.

It's not just another real estate project that gets into trouble, where construction could halt, other arrangements 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 VANOC. 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 Olympic 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 Auditor General, who is an independent officer of the Legislature, not a politically appointed person, and who has a profound obligation and, indeed, some considerable powers to investigate and report to the Legislature on the financial obligations and risks to the citizens of British Columbia…. He and his predecessors have, of course, examined the Olympic project and those agreements — that series of interlocking agreements I spoke of just moments ago.

What the Auditor 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 opinion, responsibilities for games costs could be shifted to the province. The province has guaranteed to the IOC" — that's the international organizing committee — "that it will cover any financial shortfall of VANOC. This cost could arise if VANOC is not successful 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.

"Also, the province has agreed to indemnify the city of Vancouver for any losses flowing from the city's signing the host city contract. In turn, the host city contract requires Vancouver to indemnify the IOC against any damages suffered by the IOC, including all costs, loss of revenue and also the damages the IOC may have to pay to third parties, including but not limited to Olympic sponsors and broadcasters, resulting from acts or omissions of VANOC or the city.

"The host city contract also makes the city, VANOC and the Canadian Olympic Committee jointly liable for all of the obligations of VANOC related to staging the games and places the financial responsibility for the games with VANOC and the city."

[1505]

The Auditor General goes on — and this is the point of disagreement between the province and remains a point of disagreement between the province, a significant 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."

Now, the position of the province and the Minister of Finance and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics is that this guarantee is very narrowly drawn. The province couldn't possibly be drawn in, in a legal sense. But when you reflect upon what the Auditor General is saying, it's obvious — the wisdom of his position and, indeed, the correctness of his position.

Could the province stand by while the Olympic village, 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 arrangements weren't worked out between the city, the province

[ Page 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 Canada, 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 Auditor General has quite properly pursued 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 arguments. 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 conditions, 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 Olympic 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. And that's why the mayor is talking, in the letter tabled by the Government House Leader, about the VANOC deadline.

In nine months the city has an obligation to deliver that Olympic 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. Ultimately, in the words of the Auditor 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 Auditor General, has been to say: "No, 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 Auditor 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 Olympic costs and Olympic 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 Olympic costs and resist any even rational, reasonable suggestion that things such as the Olympic secretariat….

I see that my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Newton in estimates debate asked the Minister Responsible for the Olympics whether the Olympic secretariat was an Olympic 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 Olympic cost.

The minister has persisted in that narrow definition of Olympic cost and therefore avoided taking on the potential 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 Auditor General has been, since 2006, at the very least — and there have been discussions before that…. As 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 Auditor General.

"The second piece of work relates to costs and risks to the province associated with the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games — the games. My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that British Columbia'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 Auditor General goes on to say is to confirm the longstanding position of the government to minimize the cost to the taxpayers of the Olympic Games. He 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 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with them."

Has that taken place? No, 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 Olympic/Paralympic Games in 2005: "We are very confident — and VANOC 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 Olympic Games and living up to the obligations we made to the IOC. To 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 Columbia, $600 million for the

[ Page 13422 ]

staging of the Olympic 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. Hosting the Olympic Games is $600 million. There is a $600 million budget."

The Minister of Economic Development, responsible for the Olympics, 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 Olympic 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 Olympics: "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 provincial 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 Leader of the Opposition 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 taxpayers of British Columbia for the cost of the Olympics.

The pattern has been to resist the mounting objective 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 Olympics. Those series of quotations 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 minister responsible and the Premier to come to terms with the reality of Olympic costs that are escalating — as in necessitating, in this case, this piece of legislation — is in this area. That's one example.

Another 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 Heiberg, said even back on March 5, 2003: "We feel that it's not enough." That's quite a while ago.

Sen. Colin Kenny, a Senator in the Canadian 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 Kananaskis G8, where we spent $140 million to isolate eight people in one resort, and that's not far off the mark for a whole Olympic Games. Salt Lake was $310 million, and we're talking about something still four years away."

He said in the same article: "It 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 Lehman, Salt Lake 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]

Rob Rothwell, 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 Canada: "There are yet-to-be-determined costs associated with security." He said that on January 17, 2008.

The Auditor General — the same Auditor General, not a politician — an independent officer of the Legislature charged with scrutinizing financial commitments and obligations of the province and risks to provincial taxpayers: "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 carefully 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 Olympic costs. The mayor of Vancouver has referred to a hard deadline and commitments of the city to VANOC. The Auditor General has said that the province is responsible in a broad sense to backstop those, and these are other instances of the same problem.

As 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 Columbia, 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

[ Page 13423 ]

of the taxpayers of British Columbia and those people that I represent in Surrey-Whalley and speak on behalf of more broadly in the province.

Certainly, the Auditor General has asked and, when it comes to potential cost overruns and potential liability, 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 responsible 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 Responsible for the Olympics is increasingly compromised when his statements continue 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. As we will recall, somewhat like the Olympic village that is being discussed in this piece of legislation, due to market conditions — and in the Auditor 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 Accounts just weeks ago to a cost closing in on $900 million.

[1525]

Every step of the way, somewhat like the question of security costs and somewhat like the denial of the broader legal obligation that the Auditor 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 million would be the final cost. He said: "Count on it. There are contingencies built into the project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. Kaputski. Done." That was in 2004. As 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 Auditor 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 Columbia that will have to be met in order that the games be successful.

It's very clear that, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the government has dodged and weaved and does not want to come clean with a real calculation of Olympic costs. They've resisted pressure from the Auditor General, as recently as December of 2008, to engage in a realistic discussion of Olympic costs.

The Premier appeared…. Perhaps it was a misstatement. One doesn't know, but he certainly apologized later on. As recently as a couple of days ago he claimed that the Olympic 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 scrutinize the obligation and the failure of this government to be candid, to come clean about the real cost of the Olympics 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 Charter to give authority to Vancouver city council to borrow money to pay for the Olympic 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.

Not only in Vancouver. We want to take a look…. Vancouver is certainly part of the overall Olympic cost and overall Olympic family. Why is Vancouver in this difficult situation or in this bind that they find themselves 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 Olympics, which the Vancouver Olympic 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 minister created a culture of secrecy when it comes to the Olympic cost.

[1530]

First, when VANOC was established, it was established 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 Economic Development. When these sneaky reporters or the opposition tried to grab their hands on those minutes,

[ Page 13424 ]

they said: "Uh-oh, we've got to stop that." So VANOC 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 amending the Vancouver Charter.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, 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. He 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 House Leader, in his presentation — keeping us here to go to second reading — made reference to the centrepiece, the Olympic Games. Had 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 House Leader for the government feels that he can use the Olympic 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 Amendment Act, 2009.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

H. Bains: That's exactly what my intention is, Madam Chair.

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 arrangements 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 Charter so that they can do what they are required to do under this legislation. We need to examine 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 Olympic 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 House 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 House…. They have done that so successfully out there, hoping that no one will find out what the total cost of the Olympics is.

People are more intelligent than this government gives them credit for. The taxpayers know that the numbers 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 Olympics is to them. This minister 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 Olympic village 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.

Ask 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 Olympic 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 writing 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 Auditor General's report in 2006, he pegged it at $190 million, because that's the information he received from the government.

[ Page 13425 ]

But today the city of Vancouver taxpayers are given a huge, big Olympic-sized surprise. The bill they are facing could be $875 million for that Olympic 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.

You can't just isolate one Olympic 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 Olympics is going to be to them.

Here is another example. They were told $190 million for the Vancouver Olympic 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 Olympic cost. When people are worried about their pensions, are worried about their jobs, are worried whether they will be able to pay the next payment for their homes, this government continues to give them surprise after surprise when it comes to the Olympic cost.

I want to quote the Auditor General, who tried…. Three different Auditors 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 Auditor General, who has no political axe to grind with anyone…. He is an independent watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers, monitoring taxpayers' dollars, where the taxpayer dollars 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 Auditor General was supposed 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 Auditor General say that those, those and those should be considered as Olympic 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 Olympic costs and the Auditor General on the other side, who has no political axe to grind with anyone — completely independent body — who would you believe and trust? Ten out of ten times I would go with the Auditor General, looking at the record of this government when it comes to the Olympic cost.

We are today again talking about another Olympic cost escalation, another cost that the Vancouver taxpayers were told is only $190 million. Now 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 Olympics and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia.

This agreement was signed 29th of March, 2004. Under this agreement there are certain requirements and obligations by the province and by the Vancouver organizing committee. Under 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 VOCOG," 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 Hastings Park skating and $9 million for the Hastings Park venue; $10 million for the Hillcrest venue; $2 million for the capital cost of designing, planning 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 VOCOG will ensure that the venues are completed in accordance with the venue development strategic plan. That's the responsibility 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 supporting 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

[ Page 13426 ]

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. As we have heard in the last few weeks…. "Well, we are just the bystanders. It's not our problem," the Premier will say. "It'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 Liberals. 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.

Here'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 responsibilities 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 Auditor General went on to warn them, you know, what goes on all over in the Olympic cost, especially what we are talking about, this amendment here today. All 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 Charter so that they can go out there and borrow money. The Auditor General, as my colleagues have earlier said, said on page 3: "There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opinion, responsibility 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. You can't simply say: "Let's narrow down the debate. Let's keep everything under secrecy. Let's make sure the taxpayers don't find out what's going on."

[1550]

It's true to form. Ever 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 Olympics — 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 Olympic cost is on budget. Who believes that? No one believes that except that minister. No one believes him. The taxpayers in Surrey don't believe him. The taxpayers in Vancouver don't believe him. Even some of those members 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 Auditor 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 million 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 province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished."

The Auditor General is wrong. Three of them are wrong. The CEO of Torino, who told this minister that the cost of security is going to be way higher, is wrong. The two high officials from Salt Lake City told this minister that the security costs are going to be much, much higher than $175 million. The minister said they are wrong. Even 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 Liberals and this Premier. It's about

[ Page 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 Olympics 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 Olympics. People are starting to say: "What did we do by saying yes to the games and giving our confidence to this government in their attempt to run the games?" "What a mistake that was," they are saying.

Any file you look at, whether it is through the municipalities…. There are extra costs off-loaded to them. Or if you go to B.C. Hydro, there's a hand for Olympic costs in people's pockets. Vancouver Olympic 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 House.

They need the help of this House, 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 supporters of that. I might say that they must go back to their constituencies…. I don't know how they face those constituents. You need to go and look them in the eye. "We're not telling the truth about the true cost of the Olympics." Can you do that? I don't know how you do that.

Whether it's the B.C. Lottery Corp., the Royal Canadian Mint, B.C. Hydro, ICBC, the B.C. Olympic 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 passing 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. At least on this side of the House 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 taxpayers are worried that this is a never-ending saga about Olympic costs. They want to make sure that the games are successful, but they're worried about the way this whole file on Olympic costs is being handled.

Whether it is, in Vancouver, the case of Vancouver Olympic athletes village or it is security or it is all of the other costs that are attached to the Olympics, 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.

You know, the international community is watching us. It's not only that we want to promote our athletes through the Olympic Games; it is also about economic opportunities. People are worrying now whether those opportunities are evaporating because of the additional and continual escalating costs of the Olympics. That's what the problem is. Like I said, I think it is a problem when you continue to add costs to the project, continue to hide or continue to deny the right of the taxpayers to know what the cost is.

But I think people are worried whether these games will deliver on the economic benefit side as they were promised. When they don't have jobs to go to, as we have seen in the forest industry….

There are many who live in Vancouver. In Vancouver mill after mill has been shut down. Those are the people who will be asked to pay for this cost — the cost that we are saying here is going to go perhaps close to $875 million. That's what Vancouver city has to borrow, or they have to cosign.

The other point that one of the taxpayers, one of my constituents, asked me…. He said: "Isn't this a P3 project?" I said: "Well, the Auditor General report said that yes, it is." He said: "Well, isn't this how this minister and the Premier have been selling P3s — that the risk is now shifted to the private contractor?" I said: "Yeah, that's the way the P3 is supposed to work." He said: "Explain it to me now. Ask this question of the minister or the Premier. How does that argument work? We thought we signed a P3 agreement in Vancouver. We thought the risk went to the private contractor, but lo and behold, it's not so."

Mr. Speaker, those are the questions they want us to ask in the question period, but what can we do? No question period. We can't ask those questions, but this is our opportunity to put those questions to the minister, to the Liberal government, to the Premier.

Where is that risk now? The risk was supposed to be to the private sector. Now Vancouver city taxpayers are asked to take over that risk again.

[1600]

Mr. Speaker: Before anybody speaks, hon. Members, let me make a brief observation in relation to the scope of debate during second reading of the bill presently before the House.

As stated earlier, the bill has been carefully drawn to cover the situation in Vancouver brought to the attention of this House by the mayor of Vancouver. As such, it is neither throne debate nor budget debate, permitting the widest possible range of discussion, but it is second reading debate related to a narrowly drawn bill presently before the House. I would ask all hon. members to bear this in mind when commenting on this legislation during second reading debate.

[ Page 13428 ]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Hon. C. Hansen: It's interesting to listen to the official opposition trying to pretend to British Columbians that they're supporting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games when, in fact, they're using so much misinformation and spreading so much fear among British Columbians that they are, in fact, doing the exact opposite.

What we have with the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games is the makings of a tremendous success story for British Columbia, one that is actually going to shape the future of this province and one that is going to provide huge economic stimulus to the province of British Columbia.

When you look, for example, even at the Millennium project that's on the waterfront in False Creek, that is an opportunity for the tremendous redevelopment of a significant neighbourhood in the city of Vancouver. It is an opportunity for the city to create a very significant new neighbourhood that is going to be a model to the world in terms of sustainability, environmental protection and new technologies and new innovations that will, I think, be acclaimed around the world as an example of how British Columbia and how Vancouver are leading in terms of innovation.

This particular project is one that, while it is creating a neighbourhood that is going to be there to serve generations to come, will serve the Olympic Games for a period of 17 days while we host the world in February of 2010.

There has been discussion from members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, this afternoon about the various reports of the Auditor General. I think that what's important to emphasize in all of the reports that have been done to date is that none of those reports have identified any undisclosed money — any undisclosed costs that somehow the government is aware of but has not made known to the public.

What those reports really come down to is the question about what should or should not be considered Olympic-related costs. The Leader of the Opposition, in her remarks, talked about the Auditor General identifying cost overruns, I think she said, in the billions of dollars. That is simply not the case.

For example, in the first Auditor General's report that came out in 2006…. There were in that particular report a lot of costs. They were on the public record as to what these things cost, but that particular Auditor General at that time thought they should be classified as "Olympic-related costs." I pointed out at the time, just to pick one example, that there was a station on the Canada line at 6th and Cambie that the city of Vancouver chose. They were going to name that station the Olympic station. This station is not even being used for the Olympics.

The reason they chose that name is that it happens to be in close proximity to where this Olympic village would be located. We are not going to be transporting the athletes from the athletes village to General Motors Place or to B.C. Place when the Canadian athletes go down to accept all their gold medals. We are not going to be transporting the athletes — or VANOC will not be — on the Canada line. That is a station that is simply not being built for the purposes of the Olympics, and yet that particular Auditor General's report decided that that should be included as an "Olympic cost."

[1605]

What I have said consistently is that anybody can come up with whatever definition of Olympic-related costs they want, and they can plug the numbers into that that they see fit.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Hansen: The latest work that has been done by the Office of the Auditor General was a very thorough and comprehensive piece of work. I can tell members that the staff from my ministry, both in the Ministry of Finance and the office of the Olympic Games secretariat, spent countless hours working with the staff from the Office of the Auditor General to identify exactly what costs were there, to answer all questions that they might have, to make sure that all information was provided to the staff of the Auditor General in a timely fashion during that process.

I know for a fact that the Office of the Auditor General spent countless hours putting that information together and assembling a report that we had every expectation was going to be made public — and I think the member referred to this — in the fall of 2008. As happens with Auditor General reports, they will provide a draft copy to government in confidence so that we can review it and we can prepare for public disclosure our written response, which would be combined into the same publication and released at the same time as the Auditor General's report.

That's actually what happened in 2006. You know, anybody is welcome to go back and read what the Auditor General's office wrote at that time, and they can also read in the same document our response and our rationale as to why we felt that some of the conclusions of the Auditor General at that time we had to respectfully disagree with.

We had assumed that this would be the same process with regard to the 2008 work that was done. I had an opportunity to read that report, and I quite frankly thought that it was a constructive piece of work. Once again, we still had some concerns with it, and so we wrote our response, which would be provided to the Office of the Auditor General in time for it to be printed and released as one package.

[ Page 13429 ]

So it actually came as quite a surprise to us when the Auditor General sent a letter to Mr. Speaker indicating that he had decided that he was going to treat that as an internal document, because I felt that that 2008 report of the Auditor General, combined with our response to it, was actually going to be a very useful piece of information for the public better understanding what the cost dynamics were around the provincial government's participation in the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

As the Auditor General himself indicated in media interviews that he did in early December, what he identified in that report, which has not been released, is costs over and above our $600 million envelope of $170 million. In our response we indicate why we do not believe that those should be "Olympic-related costs." Nevertheless, I think it was further evidence that numbers are on the table for public inspection. People can actually look at them and draw their own conclusions.

I have actually urged the Auditor General to reconsider the release of that report. We believe that it will be helpful in helping the members of this assembly better understand the costs and where the Auditor General is coming from in his latest review, and we think that that would be helpful to the public, as well, as we go forward.

I think that that additional $170 million of cost that the Auditor General thinks should be Olympic-related is a far cry from what the members of the opposition have been talking about. The exaggerations that have come out of that side of the House today are the cause of some of the concern that British Columbians have, which is unjustified, as I think the release of that Auditor General's report would underscore.

I want to talk for a minute just about the $600 million envelope that we've talked about and where the provincial government's financial participation in the Olympic village fits in. If you break down that $600 million envelope…. This, again for the benefit of members, is the cost of the province living up to its commitments that it made at the time of the bid for the staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

[1610]

Part of that is $290 million for venues. Part of that $290 million is $15 million, which came from the province, was transferred to VANOC and became part of the $30 million that VANOC provided to the city of Vancouver for the Olympic village project.

That whole Olympic construction is actually a phenomenal success story. What we have seen is the completion now of virtually all of the sports venues. When you think about it, we're still more than a year away from the opening ceremonies, and most — in fact, virtually all — of the sports venues are already finished. That has never happened before in Olympic history.

When you think about these venues…. Just as I mentioned earlier in terms of the Olympic village, which is going to become a phenomenal neighbourhood that's going to serve this province for many, many decades to come, so will the rest of the Olympic venues that will be there. Whether it's the speed skating oval in Richmond, which is going to become a phenomenal sportsplex after that….

The Nordic centre up at Whistler is going to show to the world that British Columbia is a destination not just for downhill skiing but a destination for phenomenal cross-country skiing as well. I think that we'll attract a whole new visitor to British Columbia. I think the Olympics will actually demonstrate to them that this is a phenomenal destination to come to and enjoy.

If you look at the new curling rink which is still being built in Vancouver, it is going to be, again, a phenomenal asset to serve British Columbians for many generations ahead.

In addition to that, we've got $20 million that has gone in to provide for legacy projects all around this province. I've had the opportunity to visit many of these sites and to realize how important they are to small communities in all corners of the province — that they, too, can be part of the Olympic legacy that will benefit their communities with these projects, this infrastructure that will be there for generations to come.

Out of that $600 million also comes $55 million for an operating endowment, and that's to make sure that some of these sports venues can be funded on their operational costs for years to come.

There are the medical costs. Actually, it was one of the things that was flagged in the latest Auditor General's discussion. That is something that has been resolved. It's a firm, hard cost that the province will transfer $13 million to VANOC, and they will take all responsibility for those medical costs, with no further obligation to the province.

You know, the next one is security, and this one has received lots of comment. I think that's deservedly so, because as has been pointed out, we are still trying to finalize what the obligations are. But I'll tell you what I take exception with, my approach being quite different than that of the member for Surrey-Whalley. The member for Surrey-Whalley would probably have us say: "Oh, sure. You know, how much more do you want? What's the blank cheque you want for security costs?" We're not going to do that.

I've made it quite clear right from the get-go that we accept that we have an obligation for $87.5 million on security costs. We have a security agreement, which is on the website — anybody that wants to read it can go and read it — in terms of the scope of our obligation. The scope of our obligation is that we pick up 50 percent of the security costs for the venues and the athletes, and they have to be incremental costs over and above base cost.

[ Page 13430 ]

Deputy Speaker: Minister, I wonder if we could get back to the bill at hand.

Hon. C. Hansen: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: I accept your caution, Madam Speaker. I think that in the context of discussing the Millennium project and the bill that's before us today, there has been a lot of misinformation put on the floor of this House today. I will focus my remarks on the specifics of the bill, and perhaps we can have that debate at a later time.

[1615]

The bill that is before us today, Bill 47, is specifically to extend powers to one of the Olympic partners, and that is the city of Vancouver. In some of the discussion earlier today I have found a very interesting tone coming from the official opposition, and I think someone needs to challenge them on what their policy is in terms of the relationship between the province of British Columbia and the municipalities in British Columbia.

What I heard in some of the remarks that have been said in this House this afternoon is an attitude that basically says that the province should be the Big Brother to the municipalities, the Big Brother to the city of Vancouver — the implication that somehow the city of Vancouver doesn't have the capabilities or the capacity to deal with its responsibilities.

Well, the city of Vancouver is a partner to the multiparty agreement for the Olympics, just as the province is and just as the federal government is and just as VANOC is and just as the four host first nations are, and each of the parties that sign the multiparty agreement comes to the table with its obligations, its resources and its responsibilities. The city of Vancouver comes to the table in that regard as well.

The member for Surrey-Whalley made some comments about the financial relationship between the province of British Columbia and the city of Vancouver that I think need to be corrected. The member at one point said that the province is providing financial backstop. I think those were the words. That is not the case.

I think it's unfortunate when a member of this Legislature puts comments, like he did, in Hansard , because at some point in the future I would hope that those remarks would not be used to somehow undermine the

interpretation that we have from the Attorney General's office in terms of the province's financial responsibilities.

It is very clear….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Excuse me, Minister.

I want to remind members that if you wish to participate, you must be in your seat.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a provision in the agreements between the province and the city of Vancouver for the province to indemnify the city of Vancouver in certain situations. What the member failed to read out when he was quoting from those agreements is that the only way that that indemnity can be exercised or operationalized is if there has been specific written instruction from the province of British Columbia agreeing to an action by the city of Vancouver.

In the case of the athletes village, there has been no such undertaking, and the city of Vancouver, quite frankly, is accepting its financial responsibilities. The mayor has said very clearly that he is not looking to the province or the federal government for any kind of a bailout or any kind of financial assistance. What he's looking for is to give the city the power with which they can actually live up to its obligations and its responsibility and to do so in a way that minimizes or perhaps even avoids any detrimental financial impact on the taxpayers in the city of Vancouver.

When I hear members of the opposition talking about the taxpayers and the city of Vancouver being faced with costs in the hundreds of millions — or, somebody said, $875 million — that is absolutely an exaggeration, because what the objective of the city of Vancouver is, is to make sure that there is no financial cost to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver as a result of this project. It is by us passing this legislation today and giving the city the powers that they have requested that we are going to do our

part in assisting the city of Vancouver in minimizing those risks.

The other thing that the member for Surrey-Whalley talked about was the "guarantee" that the province has given for the costs of the Olympic Games. Again, I think the member has to be really careful to make sure that he is providing the proper

interpretation to that guarantee.

The province of British Columbia is not on the hook for any financial costs or deficits that might result from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. What the province of British Columbia has agreed to is to guarantee that the IOC would not have to take responsibility for any costs. But that doesn't mean that the province automatically picks up any of those costs. So it is very specific, the guarantee. It is very limited in its scope.

[1620]

Again, I think it's important that members of the opposition…. Certainly, I think that if any of them sat through the estimates debate that we had last year on the

[ Page 13431 ]

Olympics or if any of them should go back and re-read it…. I would actually recommend that the critic who was there for all of those estimates debates go back and read the exchanges that took place during the estimates debate, because it's clear from some of his remarks today that he either had forgotten the explanation to some of these aspects or perhaps wasn't listening at the time.

When you look at the costs with the Olympic village, for example, it is part of a construction cost. That's the $30 million that flowed from the federal government and the province — $30 million to VANOC, which in turn flowed to the city to provide for a portion of the cost of the Olympic village. That's the obligation that is there from VANOC.

Now, if we were not to pass this legislation, if we were not to give the city of Vancouver the tools it needs to deliver on the athletes village, then potentially and hypothetically, there may be obligations that VANOC would have to pick up. But the operating budget of the Olympics today, the operating budget of VANOC today, is on budget and is on target.

When the members scoff at the claim that the Olympics are on budget and not going into overruns, look at the operating budget. It's about $1.7 billion. Where does it come from? It comes from ticket sales, which have been hugely oversubscribed. It comes from the international broadcast revenues, which are in the bank, and they have those. And it comes from the national sponsorships that VANOC has lined up.

Even this last week there were lots of people trying to find vulnerabilities there. Last week we found that with the Nortel commitment, it's there, and it's there to support that operating budget. So things are very much on target, and the makings of a big success story.

What comes out of this at the end of the day is a huge economic opportunity for British Columbia, a huge net benefit for British Columbia, a huge success in the making — $4 billion worth of direct economic activity, directly as a result of the games. The economists are telling us that yes, 2009 is going to be a rough year, but they also tell us that British Columbia is going to lead all of Canada in economic recovery in 2010, and it's because of the fact that we are hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

We're going to see 250,000 visitors come to this province to witness the games. We're going to have 7,000 athletes, many of them who are going to be housed at this Olympic village, who are going to be coming to show their skills to the world. We're going to have 10,000 media, I think, who are going to be mesmerized by this Olympic village and the innovation that's built into it, as they will with all of the other venues and with the natural beauty that you will be able to see around British Columbia at that time.

We will have ten billion television viewers around the world who will watch these winter games unfold. What those viewers are going to see is a phenomenal Olympic village, a phenomenal testimony to the skills and talent and innovation of British Columbians and British Columbia construction workers. They're going to see one of the greenest projects, and it's going to become a model for other developments around the world.

They're going to see a province that is resilient. They're going to see a province that has come through the economic challenges of 2008-2009, a province that is ready to excel in economic recovery in the world, a province that is ready to lead Canada. It is because of the Olympic Games that we're going to be able to demonstrate to the world that this is a great place to visit and that it's a great place to live.

Many of those people will probably wish they could come to Vancouver and buy one of those units in the Olympic village so that they, too, can build their futures in this province and benefit from the phenomenal future that this province is going to see in the years to come.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I recognize you, I just want to mention once again the words of Mr. Speaker when he said: "Let's keep this debate on topic." We are debating the amendment to the Vancouver Charter.

Continue, Member. I recognize the member for Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: After following my colleague from the other side of the House, I can understand, Madam Speaker, why you might have been a little confused where we were at too.

[1625]

I am pleased to be up here today talking and debating Bill 47, which has been introduced here in the House.

To begin with, I would like to explain to my constituents back in Cariboo South why I cancelled meetings on Friday with them to discuss their business. Very briefly, there were issues dealing with some bankruptcies, and there were some issues dealing with some public safety. I'm sure that I will be able to explain to those individuals the need for me to be here.

This is also part of my responsibility — to be here to talk about Bill 47, to be discussing it. From the part of the province where I'm from, there isn't quite the same clarity that the Minister of Finance had on the Olympics and Bill 47 and how that is going to splash and carry on around with the rest of the province.

You see, part of the difficulty I have in explaining to people back in Cariboo South, to the Interior of the province, why I'm down here is that I had an idea, before I arrived, of what the request was from the city of Vancouver.

Very clearly, in the letter from the city of Vancouver they point out that they require "an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, which will enable us to protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial

[ Page 13432 ]

plan for completing the Olympic village project. The city's commitment to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC for the games has been placed at risk by the cessation of funding flowing from the loan made by Fortress…to Millennium."

They go on that the city of Vancouver is committed to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC by the November 29 deadline. Finally, they point out that the VANOC deadline is nine months away.

It shows, in part, where the city of Vancouver is coming from. They recognize their obligations to VANOC, VANOC being the body that is representing the province and that has a whole variety of responsibilities on behalf of the province. If they're not dealt with satisfactorily, then those responsibilities to VANOC come back here to the Legislature.

I knew what the response from this side of the House would be, and I will quote from the Leader of the Opposition, where she extends: "Thank you for your letter of January 13 outlining the critical situation the new council faces in order to protect taxpayers' interests while placing pre-existing obligations relating to completion of the Olympic village."

Now, it isn't until I arrive here and this afternoon get the government's response to this letter, which is Bill 47, all the rhetoric being set aside…. In Bill 47 it is clear — at least it's clear to me, because I've had some time to study it — that the government has taken the Olympic village and defined it. They don't even refer to it in the legislation. It is the Southeast False Creek development. That's a way of saying the Olympic village. That's very difficult, and I hope that I've been able to paraphrase what the government was trying to do with this particular section.

Likewise, when I go on and I read through the rest of it, if I understand Bill 47 correctly, they are saying that there will be one piece of property, defined here in this legislation, in all of British Columbia that will be allowed unlimited taxation with no defined set period of time in order to borrow money on. It's the only place in all of British Columbia where that will apply — without a referendum, with nothing. Now, I didn't get that information until today. That's wide open — that type of responsibility.

[1630]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In connection with Bill 47, the predecessor before me, the Minister of Finance, makes reference to dealing with local government: "Here we have a request from a sp