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)

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 34, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Private Members' Statements

Fuelling our agricultural economy

B. Lekstrom

C. Evans

Dignity

D. Thorne

M. Polak

The possibilities are now endless

D. Hayer

C. Puchmayr

A healthy choice

J. Kwan

L. Mayencourt

Motions on Notice

Benefits of 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (Motion 63)

J. McIntyre

H. Bains

J. Yap

L. Krog

R. Cantelon

N. Macdonald

J. Nuraney

Speaker's Statement

Divisions during private members' time

[ Page 12863 ]

MONDAY, MAY 26, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. I. Chong: As a capital region area MLA, rarely do I

have an opportunity to introduce members of my family. Perhaps it's because I'm

fortunate enough to spend time with them, because I do live in Victoria, and

while the House is in session, I don't have to make a long trek away.

However, today is a special day for me because I do have some

immediate members of my family in the gallery. Visiting from Toronto is my

oldest brother, David Chong, who, along with his daughter, my niece Diana Chong,

has decided to spend a little time in Victoria and in so doing has decided to

watch some of the proceedings here in the chamber. My brother David has been

following my political career since I was first elected in 1996.

While I'm not scheduled to speak, I can't tell him that I will

have anything for him to report back to the other members of my family. But I

know, just the same, that he has an interest in politics, so I hope all members

will behave themselves as he watches the proceedings in the gallery. Will the

House please make my brother David and his daughter Diana very welcome.

[1005]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Thorpe: Private members' statements, hon. Speaker.

Private Members' Statements

FUELLING OUR AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY

B. Lekstrom: Well, good morning, and thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. It's my privilege today to rise in this House to speak about

something that I think is on the minds of not only British Columbians but

Canadians and, really, people around the world. That's the issue of world

hunger.

We hear a lot about what is taking place out there with the

production of biofuels now in our society. It wasn't but a year ago that if you

talked to somebody about biofuels, they were very excited and thought it was the

way of the future, something that we could look towards helping clean our

environment while at the same time diversifying our markets for our agriculture

sector.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Today I am still of that belief. This is not an issue or a

discussion of food or fuel. This is a discussion that I'm about to have that's

based on food and fuel from our agricultural sector. There are many ways to

develop biofuels. I'm going to speak on the agricultural side of things.

It's very interesting. As we've watched, over the last twelve

months particularly, the price of food increase, many people have expressed a

concern. I think, from my perspective…. I live in the Peace country. We produce,

I believe, about 97 percent of all the grains and oilseeds in British Columbia

due to where we're located — really, the beginning of the Prairies on the east

side of the Rockies. What we have is…. Finally, I believe that we're seeing some

recognition not only of our ag sector but of the importance of what our food

really means to this planet.

For as long as I've been alive, I can't remember a time when

people didn't take our food supply for granted. They actually believed that it

was there and that it would always be there and that it was their God-given

right to have somebody supply food on their table, and the farmer should do

that.

Well, I can tell you that the farmer is more than happy to do

that. They work the land, and they do it because it's a lifestyle that…. They

find there is nothing like it. There are not many farmers that you'll speak to

in your day-to-day life that say: "I've gone into it for the money." They

haven't. They've gone into it for the lifestyle, their love of the livestock and

their love of the land. They also recognize — and they have a social conscience

— that they aren't there to grow feedstock for biofuels while the world goes

hungry.

The reality is that world hunger has been around a lot longer than

the last twelve months. It seems to have brought itself forward, saying: "Biofuels

are creating world hunger; we're going into a real difficult time."

My view on that is that politics are the biggest issue we have

with world hunger. We have societies in this world and governments that struggle

to help provide for the people that they represent in whatever manner that they

see fit. The reality is, I believe, that there's more than enough food on this

planet to feed the people. We have that.

The issue we have is not whether it's going to biofuel or food

production. The issue is: how do we get it to the people most in need? We have

seen our population on this planet grow extensively in the last 20, 30 years —

significantly. We've also seen the production of food increase at the same time.

We do have some challenges. The political instability that comes with an

ever-increasing global demand for different products has created challenges.

I want to tell you that for me, biofuels are something that is a

positive not only for society. When we talk about it, whether it be biodiesel

from canola or ethanol from grain, those are diversified markets for our

agricultural sector, diversified markets that are welcomed in the ag industry.

We have watched…. I'll give you an example: during the BSE crisis.

I'm a little off-topic on the biofuels. As we've seen our cattle industry go

down in our great country, something that has been a backbone and a

[ Page 12864 ]

mainstay in many parts of this great country of ours, I think the people that

took the biggest hit were our ranchers. We've seen them struggle through, day to

day, to make their payments, to work with their communities and carry on. Many

didn't make it, but many did.

The reality is that when you went to buy a steak or buy that meat

in the meat market, you didn't pay a cheaper price. The people that took the hit

were our ranchers. Yet people expected to be able to go to the market and buy

whatever it would be — whether it would be flour, which we hear a lot about;

whether it would be rice; whether it would be feed for our ranching industry….

[1010]

What we have today is an opportunity, one that we can find balance

with. When you look at the acres seeded…. I want to just touch on some things.

We've seen the amount of acres seeded in our province — and I'll speak to that

now — go down.

Canola. In 1986, for example, we seeded roughly 104,000 acres.

Today in 2006 we're seeding about 58,000 acres. When it comes to wheat — 1986,

roughly 87,000 acres or 88,000 acres. It went up in 1991 and then back down.

Today we see 31½ thousand acres seeded in wheat. There's land out there to

cultivate. There's arable land that we aren't seeding because our farmers have

not been able to make a living.

So there's a balance. The grains and oilseed side can provide food

for the world, they can provide opportunities in our biofuel sector, and they

can do it in a way that brings them balance in a diversified market so that they

may make a living.

The reality. When canola is about $14, and I haven't looked in the

last week or so…. Making biodiesel out of canola is pretty difficult when the

world is prepared to pay $14 for canola. But when we pay that, and we can see

our ag sector finally see some light at the end of the tunnel….

I want to encourage people in this debate, when they talk about

food or fuel, to use the words "food and fuel," because I think we can do both.

I think it's possible to expand the amount that we seed in this world, whether

we're talking corn, grain for ethanol or canola for biodiesel. The opportunity

exists to actually see our agriculture sector flourish with the diversified

market, and for the first time in many, many years — probably the better part of

three decades — to see our ag industry put some money in their pockets.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that farmers don't save that money.

They reinvest it in their land, in their animals and in their fields. The costs

that they've seen have increased significantly over the last 30 years. The issue

of fuel costs is significant. Fertilizer, if people are aware…. It's a

by-product of our oil and gas industry. The costs are going up. The input costs

have risen so dramatically over the last 20 years, and our costs of what the

farmer actually receives haven't.

So I'm very optimistic that we have a great opportunity to see our

farmers have a chance to make a dollar. I'm proud to represent an area that is

very proud of its agricultural history, and I look forward to a new era where we

have both food and fuel opportunities for our agriculture sector.

C. Evans: In almost all of the hon. member's remarks, I

agree with him. I think it's a wonderful thing that the price of food is going

up. I was born right after World War II, in 1948, into what we called the "cheap

food policy." Every nation on the planet, ever since the French Revolution,

thought that if the price of food was high, the government was at risk. All we

ever thought about was: "Is the food on sale? Do I have a coupon? How far do I

have to drive to get the cheapest supply?"

The notion that the price of food is beginning to go up to

actually match what it's worth, what it took to produce it, is a wonderful

thing, and it has nothing to do with hunger. The debate about ethanol against

food is just about irrelevant to world hunger.

Personally, I think you can make fuel out of almost anything, and

I'm not going to waste much time…. I think it's pretty silly to make it out of

food when you can make it out of almost anything. But the notion that people are

making fuel, ethanol, out of corn or other products is not what's driving up the

price of grain.

There are changes all over the world, especially changes in the

diet and the income levels in India and China, that are driving up the price of

food. The notion that the price is rising to its cost of production is a good

thing.

We are debating whether to make corn into food or fuel because

it's simple for people to understand. It's kind of sexy, and it's interesting to

debate. In fact, the price of food has gone up around the world because of who

controls food.

The United Nations says that we're producing, every year, 18

percent more calories than the entire world — including all the poor people in

the world, the three-quarters of the people in the world who don't have enough —

needs to meet their daily diet. So how come people are poor? How come people are

starving all over the world, right in our country as well as elsewhere in the

world? It's because of who controls the food.

Even fruits and vegetables in British Columbia are distributed by

only four companies, and grains around the world…. Half a dozen companies

control the world's supply. We have depleted the world's reserves, and now four

corporations, maybe six, around the world are able to decide who eats, who

doesn't and for how much money.

[1015]

These are companies like Cargill and Monsanto, who are

multinational. They don't belong in any country, they're not loyal to any

people, and they don't answer to any government. They are transnational

corporations that control the price of food. It has nothing to do with the

debate about ethanol.

Here in British Columbia, for example, if you were growing apples

in the Okanagan — I'm just putting on my glasses to read the words exactly right

— you were receiving 17 cents a pound. But when the people sell it in the

grocery store right here in James Bay, you pay a dollar and a half. Who's in

between? Those people who are controlling the price of food around the world.

[ Page 12865 ]

We could — governments could, this Legislature could — intervene

and make it fair for farmers. We're getting Walla Walla, Washington, onions

right in our town for four cents a pound. Do you think they're growing them for

four cents a pound? No, they're dumping them here. We could intervene in order

to see to it that we have an onion industry, but we choose not to.

The question is not: do we have ethanol or not? The question is:

what does the public see when they see us decide to subsidize, to the tune of

ten million bucks in this year's budget, the production of ethanol and walk away

from farmers — be the lowest province in Canada? How come we, as a Legislature,

sit here and talk about the price of food and subsidize fuel — which is okay

with me — but then walk away from the people that are producing onions and

apples and wheat?

It is a good thing to end the cheap food policy and drive up the

price of food, but then we have to break the control of those six companies who

are deciding who will eat and who will starve. We in here have to decide to

support the people who grow the food rather than cooking it up and making it

into gasoline so some yuppie can drive their SUV in the city of Vancouver.

We, the hon. member on the other side and I, are on the same side.

The idea is that it is a darned good thing that people can now pay the price of

the land, pay off the banker, renew their equipment, fertilize the land and tell

their kids: "You can farm too."

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about

a culture that decides to subsidize energy and abandon farmers. I want to be

with the hon. member. I'd like to be with all those guys. All we have to do on

both sides of the House is agree to support farmers and not just the energy

sector.

B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston

for his response. Although we see many things the same, I think we differ a

little on this. As I said earlier, I think the opportunity is there for food and

fuel from the ag sector, not food or fuel. So I certainly don't have a problem,

whether it is the use of canola in the development of biodiesel, the use of

grains in ethanol, if that's at all possible. That's a debatable point right

now, on the economical side.

I think it's important that we recognize that we have the ability

to do both. We have the ability to feed the people of this world with our ag

sector, and we talk…. The member mentioned subsidies: "We're going to subsidize

the large people." Well, the $10 million he talks about is really about biofuel

production. It's the ability for…. I can tell you that we have a cooperative

group in the Peace country right now trying to develop a biodiesel facility. We

have a great number of canola producers that are looking very much forward to

this — another market for their product. So those are good things. This isn't a

subsidy. This is the ability to diversify our markets in the agricultural

sector. That I agree with 100 percent.

So our ability is there. I encourage people in British Columbia

and in our country, when we talk about the issue of food versus fuel, to make

sure that we have the factual information, make sure we don't go out and raise

some false, I guess, beliefs that we're all going to go hungry because we're

going to develop our food supply into fuel, and that will be it. We have the

ability to do both. Our farmers are at, I think, a turning point. The ability to

make a dollar hasn't been there for a long time.

There is a challenge, though. The challenge in the ag sector

itself is that as our grain prices goes up, so do feed prices for our ranching

sector, for our hog industry. We've heard about that. Those are the balances we

have to look towards.

In closing, I want to reiterate my full support for the biofuel

industry and the ag sector working together. I think we can do this together. I

think we can move to a brighter future, with a better environment for all of us.

The grains and oilseeds sector that I represent in my area is a vibrant one.

We've just had a good year — one that's relatively good compared to the last 30

years.

[1020]

I want to close with this: make sure that every British Columbian

and every Canadian does not take our agriculture industry for granted. Our food

supply is the single most important thing that we depend on in our day-to-day

lives. I've said many times that you can turn our lights off, you can turn our

furnaces off, but you cannot stop the food supply, or we'll cease to exist as

the human beings that we are.

Again, my support for the biofuel industry — and I want to thank

the member for Nelson-Creston for joining in on this — is one that we can work

together towards a brighter future. I want to close in saying to everybody: the

next time you're talking to one of your farmers in your area, thank them for the

work they do on all our behalf.

DIGNITY

D. Thorne: Today I rise to speak about dignity. For

parents, dignity often means being able to provide adequate food, clothing and

shelter for their children. This is what brings them self-respect, self-esteem

and pride — in other words, dignity. Unfortunately, in B.C. the number of

children living in poverty has increased, and consequently, the number of

parents who do not have dignity is also increasing. How can parents provide a

healthy environment here in British Columbia when over 100,000 workers earn the

minimum wage or less?

B.C.'s minimum wage was last increased six years ago to $8 an

hour, with a new $6 an hour starting wage added as well. Since 2001 every

Canadian province and all adjacent American states have increased their minimum

wages. Here in B.C. over two-thirds of minimum-wage workers over the age of 24

are women, and one in eight workers over the age of 24 earned less than $10 an

hour. In other words, women and children living in low-income families would

benefit most from an increase in the minimum wage.

Recent statistics point out that one in four B.C. children live in

poverty. B.C.'s rate of child poverty is still the highest in Canada and well

above the average of the rest of the country. Poor children are twice as likely

to be judged poor students by their teachers and twice as

[ Page 12866 ]

likely to drop out of school. They are also more likely to be hyperactive,

suffer from emotional disorders, exhibit disorderly conduct, get into trouble

with the law, be in the care of child welfare services, engage in riskier

behaviour and be unemployed as adults.

Many children coming to school each day now have little or no food

and are still expected to learn. According to Ruby Payne, a leading anti-poverty

author and activist, children living in poverty learn differently than other

children and are at a definite disadvantage in our educational system. We need

to advocate for strategies to eliminate poverty in order to provide

opportunities for all children. Many children have resilience to overcome the

obstacles they face and live happy and healthy lives. However, some children are

known to have generally poorer outcomes if they are economically disadvantaged.

Dr. Perry Kendall noted in his provincial health officer's annual

report 2005 that if we are to achieve a healthier society outcome overall, we

need to ensure that single-parent families and others living on low incomes have

access to safe and nutritious food. He said that B.C. still compares

unfavourably with the national average on low-income measures, impacting a

lower-income household's ability to purchase safe and nutritious food and

maintain a healthier lifestyle.

He concluded that "health cannot be separated from environmental

and societal influences surrounding the individual" and that "governments need

to strive to create environments that make healthy choice the easy choice,"

adding that it is "necessary to work towards creating a positive and healthy

societal, nutritional and physical environment where all people have access to

healthy and safe food."

Perry's report also noted that factors affecting the ability to

afford nutritious food in B.C. include higher costs of living for a basic market

basket of items — higher housing costs, inadequate social assistance, increased

levels of homelessness and, significantly, a minimum-wage level that can result

in even full-time workers in some British Columbia communities falling far below

the federal poverty line.

Regardless of the cause of poor outcomes for children, government

does have a special responsibility to do everything in its power to give parents

and children the environment in which families can be healthy physically,

mentally, emotionally and socially. Factors which have been determined to affect

physical health and well-being include early childhood care, education, social

inclusion, employment and job security, income equality, housing and food

security.

[1025]

Unfortunately, a growing number of B.C. children do not have this

food security. The rising number of young people turning to the food bank for

help is alarming. According to recent Statistics Canada numbers, Coquitlam, my

riding, is ranked seventh in the province with 23.1 percent of children in my

area living below what is called the low-income cutoff.

Joanne Granek, the executive director of SHARE Family Community

Services Society, the people who operate the Tri-Cities food bank, said that if

anything, the numbers have become worse in the past two years. "The rising cost

of living," she said, "is putting the financial squeeze on more and more

families, meaning their children often go without."

Parents are replacing single people in the lineup for bags of

donated food. Food bank officials also pointed out that the food bank is a

resource for people even when they land a job. Statistics show that 23 percent

of those who use the Tri-Cities food bank reported that they earn income from

paid employment. Wages are clearly not keeping pace with the cost of food and

shelter when people are working and they still have to go to the food bank.

An important step towards fixing this problem would be increasing

the minimum wage to at least $10 an hour, with regular increases tied to the

cost of living. According to SFU professor Marjorie Griffin Cohen, deliberate

government changes in labour policy since 2001 have contributed towards a

decline in actual wages, with a widening gap between the rich and poor.

So if government has contributed to this problem, it can take the

necessary steps to contribute to the solution and change the lives of countless

children and families in British Columbia for the better. Only then will a large

number of British Columbia parents be able to enjoy the dignity and self-esteem

that come from providing a healthy physical and social environment for their

children.

M. Polak: When it comes to discussions about how we assist

those who are in low-income situations, who are in lower than optimum employment

for their skill level — all of those kinds of issues where people struggle to

better themselves and struggle to better their families — that is indeed where

we come to outlining the significant difference in approach between our side of

the House and the opposition side of the House.

It comes down to this. People can make a choice in policy-making

as to whether or not they as government come in and manipulate circumstances in

order to artificially improve what is there, hopefully, for those who are

struggling along. Or one can, as government, see that the tools are there and

the opportunities are there for those people to make their own futures succeed —

to succeed in their own choices and be able to make those choices themselves

rather than government making them for them.

One of the most important things that our government did in taking

office, and one of the things I'm most proud of, is that we began to shift the

problem situation for these low-income people by eliminating their income tax.

Imagine, Madam Speaker, that you had low-income people who were still being

required to pay income tax. Now, thanks to what our government has done, we've

said: "No. Why on earth would we take money out of your pocket when we want you

to keep more of it, and we want you to do better and make good choices about

that?"

We could make a choice to provide more money through government

cheques, or we could say to them:

[ Page 12867 ]

"You know what? We're going to increase what you can have in a rental

assistance program. Instead of putting you in government-made housing and

government-run housing, you know what? We believe that even as a low-income

person, you have as much capacity to make choices about your life as the

wealthiest individual. You can choose where you want to live. We'll assist you

in doing that, rather than telling you that you have to go to this government

complex or that government home."

Are those choices to be made? Sure they are. I believe they're the

right ones. When we talk about the low-income statistics, one of things that's

fascinated me is that as I look at the kinds of actions we've taken as our

government, I see all sorts of things that should be improving what we see in

the statistics around poverty, around low-income earners. It has puzzled me.

[1030]

So I have decided to look into it a bit further, and here's what I

found. Invariably, the statistics that report on poverty levels…. When they talk

about income, they talk exactly about that — what comes into a person's bank

account or into their pocket from a cheque, be that a government cheque, be that

a working cheque.

Here's what they don't count. They don't count the money provided

in a rental assistance program. They don't count subsidies to child care. They

don't count anything that goes directly into a program to assist someone where

they can make the choice.

They don't count the extra money in a person's pocket when you

reduce a fee for something such as Pharmacare. We've reduced fees on Pharmacare

for thousands across British Columbia. They don't count what happens when you

eliminate MSP premiums for low-income earners. There are all sorts of things

that do not get factored in.

When you talk to people who are trying to get out of low-income

situations that limit them, it's those choices that become the most important.

Fundamentally, it says something about dignity. When government is the one who

says, "If you're poor, I'm going to use government money, and I'm going to make

choices for you to make your life better," it fundamentally says that as a

government we believe that if you're poor, you don't have a right to make

choices.

Our government has said: "As a low-income earner, as somebody

who's struggling, you have just as much right to determine your future and

determine what's going to happen with your money as anybody else." That's a

fundamental difference, and I'm proud to be on the side that says we are going

to give people a hand up instead of a handout.

Let's talk about the minimum wage for a moment, because the

minimum wage and raising it is not, as many people believe, a case where

government then gives out money and says: "Here. We're going to lift the wage."

It's talking about placing a requirement on small businesses to raise a wage to

a certain level that government arbitrarily decides.

Should there be minimum wages? Of course we have minimum wages.

Does there need to be a raise at a time when we're seeing income levels — in

terms of hourly rate in British Columbia — rise to median levels that we haven't

seen and when we've got unemployment that is the lowest it has ever been

recorded consistently in almost every region in the province? It makes no

economic sense, and it's not the kind of thing that is going to help people get

up off their feet and be able to make their own choices.

D. Thorne: Well, this is just another example of this

government blaming the victim. You know, one thing after another. "Give them

choice." What choice — to feed their children or pay their rent? To live under a

bridge?

I mean, talk about social housing. We have had virtually no

additions to social housing since this government came into power in 2001. This

is a province where one in four children lives below the poverty line. What kind

of choice does that give a parent who's making $8 an hour? Not having to pay

income tax? Well, excuse me, but I believe that the people who benefit from

income tax reductions are the higher-paid individuals like the people sitting in

this House, not the people who are earning $8 an hour.

What I just heard from the member opposite would be funny if it

weren't so sad. You know, this is unbelievable. We have elementary schools

becoming community dining rooms, serving breakfast and lunch programs with food

donated or coming from food banks. And we're talking about choice in this

Legislature? Funny, very funny — very, very sad.

This is not just in big cities but in small towns — Port Hardy,

where one youngster wished every day was a school day so she would never be

hungry, and Prince George, where kids eat at the soup kitchen.

In my constituency children 19 and younger made up 45 percent of

food bank users last year. That's nearly half of all food bank clients. That's

an 8 percent increase from the previous year, which certainly suggests child

poverty is on the rise in my community. According to local food bank operators,

23 percent of those who use the food bank reported they earned income from paid

employment, so we are not talking about social assistance. We are talking about

people who are working.

Wages are not keeping pace with food and shelter. Receiving a $30

bag of groceries twice a month makes the difference in whether somebody can

afford to take a bus once in a while instead of walking to get to work.

[1035]

We are failing our children by letting them go hungry. We're

failing our kids when day care workers admit that they're supplying the clothes

for their charges, which their parents cannot afford. We're failing our kids

when they are forced to live in overcrowded, unsafe housing or maybe have no

home at all.

That is what's happening in B.C. These kids don't see any golden

decade. They don't benefit from any five great goals. But soon we could be proud

that we have invested in our children and in our families, in a rich province

with children going to bed and fearing another day of hunger.

[ Page 12868 ]

To do this, we need to do many things. We need to change

government policies around housing. We have to stop failing parents, as we are

now by not providing to so many the dignity of earning an adequate living wage

to properly take care of their children. I believe that all most parents really

want is dignity.

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE NOW ENDLESS

D. Hayer: In Surrey the possibilities for our children and

our youth are endless. In Surrey children can attend preschool, go through

kindergarten, enter elementary school, complete high school and attend a

state-of-the-art trade school or go to university. This is all minutes from

their home. A child in Surrey can go from the first taste of school right

through to a PhD degree and can go from the beginning of learning to becoming a

professor right here in Surrey.

Today the possibilities are endless for the children in my riding

and for children in the city of Surrey. Seven years ago this was not possible.

Parents had to pay for cars. Parents had to pay for student residency or drive

endless miles to and from classes. Now we have not just one university in

Surrey; we have two. We have one of the most advanced technical trade training

centres in North America, if not in the world, right in the Cloverdale-Surrey

area.

We have one of the newest universities in the world, the Kwantlen

Polytechnic University designated just a few weeks ago. We have a major campus

of Simon Fraser University in Surrey opened only two years ago. The

possibilities are endless for children and youth in Surrey.

We have gone in the last seven years from being the city that had

to send its children to other communities for education to having the finest,

best education opportunities right here at home in Surrey. The trades and

technology centre in Cloverdale can and does provide some of the most advanced

skills training in the world. Students who attend there will not only be able to

find high-paying, career-oriented jobs in British Columbia upon graduation, but

they will be able to write their own ticket anywhere in the world if they want

to.

With Simon Fraser University's remarkable Surrey campus made

possible by a $70 million cash infusion from the Ministry of Advanced Education

and now Kwantlen Polytechnic University, the children you can see playing in the

parks today may be the professors who lead your children to a university degree

tomorrow.

I was so pleased to see our Premier last month create a new

university by changing Kwantlen University College to full university status. I

know from many meetings I have had with our community members, community

leaders, the students, staff, management, the chair of the Kwantlen University

College and its board of governors — and also from being a former member of the

board of governors at Kwantlen myself — that this change in status, this ability

to provide Surrey students with a university degree at Kwantlen right now at

their home, has been long waited for.

Our government has always considered Kwantlen an important

institution. In 2007-08 and 2008-09 provincial funding to Kwantlen has totalled

$128.9 million. Operating grants for 2007-08 were $62.2 million, rising to $63

million in 2008-09. Annual capital for those years totalled $3.7 million.

The annual funding provided to Kwantlen University College from

2001 to the end of 2007-08 was $372.3 million. By the end of 2008-09 Kwantlen

will have received $453.3 million — almost half a billion dollars. Our

government has increased Kwantlen's operating grant every year since 2001, but

under the NDP it had only received $47.5 million.

[1040]

We are funding 9,041 student spaces this year. Since 2001 our

government has invested more than $73 million in capital funding for Surrey's

Kwantlen, including $39.2 million for the Cloverdale trades and technology

centre and $25.6 million for upgrades and expansion of academic buildings in the

Surrey-Newton area.

Kwantlen University College also received new equipment and a

technology upgrade for its horticulture program at the Langley campus and for

plumbing programs at the Cloverdale campus, as part of Advanced Education's $8.7

million one-time capital funding for new trades training equipment.

On top of that, we have invested research money of $2.2 million

for the Institute for Sustainable Horticulture and $1.25 million for a Regional

Innovation Chair in Sustainable Horticulture. Additionally, last year Kwantlen

received aboriginal special projects funding of $100,000 for a university

preparation program and $24,000 for the SPARK educational enhancement program.

I would like to remind the opposition members that in Surrey since

2001, our government has invested more than $1 billion in the Simon Fraser

University campus in British Columbia. That figure is stunning. That makes it

quite clear that education at all levels is a priority with our government.

Those investments were part of a provincewide investment program in our future

since 2001. It includes universities and colleges across British Columbia. In

fact, even before last month's designation as a full university, Kwantlen has

been able to offer many, many bachelor degree programs.

But education in Surrey isn't just about the new Kwantlen

Polytechnic University. Since 2001 more than 27 school capital projects, worth

over $160 million, have been completed in the Surrey school district. This is in

addition to the province's $1.5 billion seismic upgrade program, which has

directed $15.7 million to the Surrey school district for seismic upgrades for

five schools since 2005.

Surrey is growing. Our school enrolment has increased by 10.3

percent since 2001, with 6,092 more full-time-equivalent students than 2001.

Next year the Surrey school district is expected to receive 44 percent more

dollars in operating grants than they received in 2000-2001 under the NDP

government. Per-student funding for Surrey has increased to approximately $1,750

higher than in 2000-2001 under the NDP.

[ Page 12869 ]

We have literacy programs for children. We have a StrongStart

program for preschool to give them a head start on the path to higher education.

In other words, we have in place the funding program for

education. We have in place an education program for all ages but especially for

our children and youth so that they can take advantage of our powerful and

vibrant economy and so that their future looks bright. There are endless

possibilities for our youth and students and adults in the future. Now we'll

wait for the opposition to respond.

C. Puchmayr: I like that the titles of these debates lead

us in advance — the opportunities are now endless. The member speaks about….

Suddenly people in Surrey don't have to travel that 15 kilometres to SFU

anymore, and this is brilliant.

Of course, he comments on that because Kwantlen College, with the

stroke of a crayon by the Premier, has been changed to Kwantlen University —

right? With the stroke of a crayon. He hasn't built a new university. He's just

made it.

At the same time that this is happening, there are

across-the-board cuts to colleges giving courses to people with disabilities,

who are not able to access programs that are being cut by this government while

they create a university by the stroke of a crayon.

[1045]

Well, now that I have their attention, let's talk a little bit

about what's happened to education in British Columbia and the experiences that

I have from speaking to young people and speaking to my children. The difficulty

in getting education nowadays is incredible. The juggling of jobs that young

people have to do — especially working minimum-wage jobs, sometimes two and

three jobs — trying to get enough money to pay for tuition that has risen

dramatically under this government….

In one case, we have a government that's saying there's a skills

shortage, that we can't get skilled people, that we need to bring people in from

another country as temporary workers. Yet it is becoming more difficult today

for young people to get skills training in our colleges and universities because

of what this government has done to universities, because of what this

government has done to British Columbians, to our children in British Columbia.

You go around and make comments like: "It's so easily accessible

for people in Surrey now to get an education." It always was easily accessible.

It was easy, and some of the people in Surrey are still going to be going to

SFU. They're still going to be going to UBC. They still have those options.

They're still going to be able to become a doctor by going to a different

learning facility. That is still available today.

The possibilities were endless before. It's just that it's limited

as to who can afford the education nowadays, and the struggles that young people

are engaging in to try to get an affordable education in British Columbia….

There's a huge cost to our society in that. When you have young people working

part-time jobs, who are trying to get enough money for tuition, it is creating a

crisis in the industries that do not have the people to fill those jobs that are

needed today.

What we need to do is streamline the education system. We need to

make it more accessible to people. We need to make it affordable again, so that

people can get their skills training and their trades and so they can become

participants in this economy quicker.

Some people used to take full-time education courses. They would

enrol and would go to school full-time, maybe work one part-time job. Now

students are taking fewer courses because they have to stop for a while. They

have to earn more money, and then they have to go back into university or

college again. So what you're doing is delaying the ability of that young person

to fulfil their skills that are needed by this economy today. You're delaying

their ability to pursue those skills.

I would say to the Premier that with the stroke of the same

crayon, he could reduce tuition so that people could be able to afford to get

back into education, that our young people would become educated and that we

don't have to bring in foreign workers on a temporary basis when we have all the

talent in this province. We have all the talent in the young people.

Interjection.

C. Puchmayr: The member says: "Raise taxes." Well, I'll

tell you, those young people that are working will be paying taxes. When they're

getting their education in a shorter time frame, they will be paying more. They

will be paying more training, more taxes into the coffers of British Columbia.

You don't need to raise taxes, because these people are now skilled. They're

able to pursue their career and are actually participating in this economy.

They're participating on an equal basis, as we are.

I would like to see this government really make the possibilities

endless and allow direct access to education for all the people in British

Columbia. All the people in British Columbia deserve the right to education —

not only a selected, limited few.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much to the MLA for New

Westminster for responding to my statement. Thank you for telling that there are

so many jobs out there that we can't find enough people to fill those jobs.

Also, we know today that they are against Kwantlen University

changing their name. They should be telling all those students, all the faculty

and all the community members who wanted the change to the university. Thank you

for making it clear today.

Almost everything I talked about today has happened since 2001. I

also understand the NDP does not like that the economy is the best economy. We

have the lowest unemployment rate. I know they'd like to go back to the old days

when people had to go to Alberta, to Ontario or go to the United States to look

for jobs.

[ Page 12870 ]

When they had the highest tax rate, British Columbia, in Canada…. Those were

the days when businesses were leaving, when we could not find job opportunities

here.

[1050]

The funding was so underfunded here that the students could not

afford to finish their university degrees. They had to go back there and take

six or seven years instead of a three-year program. At least now, with the

highest funding we have put in education, students can finish their programs on

time with the highest jobs available right now — very high-paying jobs. They can

get jobs everywhere they want.

Right now, with our government's policies and with the help of

British Columbians and our businesses, we have the lowest unemployment rate in

B.C.'s history. We have the lowest income tax rates for anybody earning less

than $111,000. Also, it's the first time in British Columbia's history that if

you make less than $16,500, you pay no provincial income tax at all.

There are so many opportunities for our kids and our youth and for

all British Columbians, and they are finally saying thank you very much. They

are saying this government is finally on the right path.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all the British Columbians. I want

to thank all our youth and all our businesses and everybody who works so hard. I

want to say thank you very much to all the students and all the educational

institutions and our schools for working hard to make sure all British

Columbians have a great future. This is a future where the possibilities are

endless for all the youth and all our children.

We want to make sure they can go to university in Surrey, that

they don't have to travel and that they have a choice if they want to go to

Burnaby or Vancouver. They can stay there. As a matter of fact, we're twinning

the Port Mann Bridge. We are widening Highway 1. We are building the hospital in

Surrey. We're going to expand the emergency place in Surrey Memorial Hospital,

which the NDP never did.

They always complained about it. They destroyed our economy. They

made sure that we didn't have any money to improve our education, our health

care program or our transportation program.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I want to remind you this is a

private member's statement. For a moment I thought I'd walked into question

period.

A HEALTHY CHOICE

J. Kwan: A healthy choice — a choice that amounts to a

matter of life and death for some of the most marginalized people in my

community. In 1998, according to the B.C. Coroners Service annual report, 413

people died of drug overdoses. Medically speaking, every one of these deaths was

preventable. Humanistically, every one of these deaths was someone's son or

daughter. They didn't deserve to die just because they were addicted.

Yet from 1988 to 1998, 2,413 people died of heroin overdoses in

one single province of this vast country of ours. Research in the mid-1990s by

the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS indicated that an epidemic of HIV and

AIDS within the population of drug-addicted persons was imminent. During that

period the health authority declared that overdose deaths within the community

had reached epidemic proportions.

For so many years addiction has been seen as a cultural or moral

zone of friction, and addicts are to be blamed for their addiction and corrupt

lifestyles. In this model the individual locus of blame is accentuated. Some

people make bad choices while the rest of us make good choices. There is a

convenient world where some people are good and others are just bad.

Unfortunately, the inconvenient truth is that everyone is both good and bad.

Addicts don't deserve to die.

Services for addicts attract addicts and promote and spread

addictive behaviour. That's the mythical honey pot. If you provide addiction

services, people will be encouraged to be addicted. That is like saying if you

provide healthy heart programs, then people will want to have heart attacks. Or

if you provide homes for the poor, then people would want to be poor. Not true.

Addicts should be made more uncomfortable to prevent and not enable addiction.

That's the mythical solution to the addiction challenge.

[1055]

When an issue is socially altered to become a public problem, then

it becomes the responsibility of government to find a solution to the problem.

It becomes what the famous sociologist J.R. Gusfield has called a public

problem. Of course, not all problems are public problems that demand the public

dollars. Private disputes, like a divorce between two consenting adult people,

would not be deemed to be a public problem.

The real question for us on the issue of addiction is: is

addiction a health problem? Is it a health issue, or is it a criminal justice

issue? After many years of fighting the addiction problem through the criminal

justice system with little to show for it, in the year 2000 a new approach was

adopted. For the first time in the history of B.C., all three levels of

government acknowledged that drug addiction was a health issue and that clean

needles and safe injection facilities save lives.

Dead people do not detox. Addiction is a medical issue rather than

a criminal justice issue. The fact is that people did not begin as addicts. No

one supports addiction. No one in their right mind enables addiction — not

addicts, not professionals, not mothers or fathers who wished with all their

hearts for the best in life for their little treasures. But people need to be

alive to be on the threshold of a successful life.

IV drug use continues to be responsible for a massive wave of HIV

infections and for the AIDS pandemic. Harm reduction initiatives are the

foundation for reducing the spread of diseases. The cost of HIV and AIDS is

expensive. A French study shows that treatment costs range from $214,000 to

$439,000 per person. A Canadian study shows the average cost of $610 per

hospital stay for treatment of people with addiction.

Still another way to measure the cost is years of life lost due to

incarceration for non-violent offences. In the United States there are 500,000

people incarcerated for

[ Page 12871 ]

non-violent drug offences — equal to the years of life lost of over 15,000

deaths. Over the last three decades that's over 200,000 deaths — twice the

number of U.S. soldiers killed during the Vietnam and Korean wars combined.

What is a supervised injection facility? To quote the mother of a

son struggling with addictions: "My son is still lost to his addiction, still

homeless and hungry most of the time. I don't know if he'll ever be free of this

terrible affliction, but I do know that if he continues to have access to clean

equipment and non-judgmental medical care, he may live long enough to keep

trying."

The primary goals: reach the target population, prevent overdose

deaths and prevent the spread of diseases. Secondary goals: reduce skin

infections, referral to detox and treatment. The real costs for addictions are

lived. What is the actual cost of a human life, a son or a daughter, lost to

preventable drug overdose or infectious diseases like HIV and AIDS from an

unclean needle?

In 1998 activists in our community planted a thousand crosses in

the local park in the Downtown Eastside symbolizing those lives lost to

preventable drug overdoses. On that day, our park was known as the Killing

Fields. Two years later 2,000 crosses were planted, once again drawing attention

to the dire need for a supervised injection facility in our community.

After a decade of advocacy, we saw the birth of North America's

first legally sanctioned supervised injection facility. It officially opened in

September 2003.

Madam Speaker, I'll have more to say about that when I hear from

the member from the other side in response.

[1100]

L. Mayencourt: I thank the member for Vancouver–Mount

Pleasant for bringing this to the floor of the chamber. I find it a little

ironic that six years into having a supervised injection site, this is actually

the first time there's been a debate, a conversation, about whether this is good

or this is bad. So I really am quite grateful to the member for doing that.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I think that the member raises some very interesting points. She

raises the issue of harm reduction, and that is something that I fully support.

Harm reduction is really about having individuals access public services that

might help their lives get better. It is about needle exchanges, and it is about

a variety of other things. But harm reduction has taken some really strange

twists in British Columbia over the last number of years and has not really been

giving us the kinds of results that we need.

As the member well knows and even spoke of in her comments, the

idea behind the supervised injection site was to really deal with certain

issues. The first was to deal with the issue of overdoses. There are people that

overdose in British Columbia as a result of their drug use, and there has been a

slight reduction in the number of overdoses in British Columbia over the past

several years.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

But is that a trend that is started by and can be fully attributed

to Insite? I think not. The reason I say that is that the spread of overdoses

that happened in the '90s, that happened in these last six years, actually took

place in other parts of our province. They weren't all done on the corner of

Main and Hastings. That's not the only place where people were dying. So the

first thing is that I'm not convinced that Insite has truly done anything about

overdose deaths as a result of being open.

There is a clear distinction that needs to be made in this House.

An overdose is not what we were trying to stop. It was the death from the

overdose. According to Neil Boyd, a criminologist from SFU who supports Insite….

He says that perhaps Insite has saved one person's life over the past four

years. That's in his report.

The other piece of this was public order, and there can be no

doubt in the hearts and minds of people of Vancouver that we want to increase

our public order. But I can tell you, as someone who walks through the Downtown

Eastside on a regular basis, someone who spends a lot of time in that

neighbourhood and knows a lot of folks that are addicted and folks that are

trying to get clean and sober and all that sort of stuff, that public order is

not improved by Insite.

In fact, it is a bit of a war zone in the Downtown Eastside.

Something that we need to reflect on is the lack of civil order in there. Is it

is being contributed to not particularly by Insite but perhaps by the drug

scene? So I think it's time for us to have an actual debate about whether we

want to pursue this avenue.

The other piece that she mentions is the spread of disease. Now, I

worked for many, many years in the HIV/AIDS world, and I can tell you right now

that there is not a higher incidence of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the world,

perhaps except for, you know, in Africa, that comes to the same sort of level as

in the neighbourhood around Insite.

So the other piece of this is that when someone goes into Insite

and gets a clean needle and injects and then sits down and waits a little while

— all that sort of stuff — that's great. But the spread of infection will only

be mitigated if that is exclusively what they do. That, unfortunately, is not

what happens. People will use Insite for a while, and then they'll use some

puddle water and shoot up in the back lane or what have you. So unless you're

doing it exclusively at Insite, you are still contributing to the spread of this

disease.

It also talks about the greater access to detox and treatment. I

think there are some wonderful things that we can do with detox and with

treatment, and I salute the folks at Portland Hotel for having the wisdom to put

a detox centre and treatment centre above Insite. But we need to also understand

that we need to put money into treatment around the province.

Can we leave all of those treatment dollars in the Downtown

Eastside? I say not. I think we have to look at treatment around this province.

We have to understand that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands,

[ Page 12872 ]

of British Columbians that need access to that. It is important for us to

offer those individuals hope.

I think it's very important that the other message that comes from

Insite is often that you will always be addicted. I think that it is time that

individuals in that community stand up and understand that there is indeed hope

for individuals to recover. I support that wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker: Just a reminder to members: when the time is

up, the time is up.

[1105]

J. Kwan: I find it astounding…. In fact, the member from

Burrard's position is different from that of the Minister of Health and the

Premier, both of whom have been on the public record to support Insite. I find

it astounding that the information that the member just put forward on record

contains, in fact, a lot of misinformation.

The very fact that he says that this is the first time ever that

Insite and the issue around supervised injection facilities has been brought up

for debate in this House in six years is dead wrong. I don't know where he's

been for the last six years, because surely to God, I've brought this issue up

in this House.

In estimates debate as recently as Monday my good colleague from

Kensington raised the issue in a two-minute statement. Just last week I raised a

bill related to this matter. Where was the member? I noted, during that time

that the entire chamber…. When I introduced over 100 people from the Downtown

Eastside community who were here in this chamber about this issue, almost all

the members in this House rose to give them a standing ovation, with the

exception of three members, which included the member from Burrard.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

J. Kwan: Let me just set the facts on the record. The

results of Insite are as follows: an estimated 240 overdose events per year

occurred at Insite, and that's 1.33 overdose events per 1,000 injections.

Findings of over 30 studies show that the supervised injection facility reduced

public injection, that the goal of reaching the most high-risk drug user

population was achieved, that lives were saved by preventing overdoses, that it

resulted in reduced sharing of needles and that it increased addicts seeking

treatment and detox. At the same time, there was no increase in crime, no

increase in public disorder, no increase in drug dealing in the facility and no

increase in syringe littering — lessons learned.

Perhaps the member from Burrard can learn this: that everyone with

addictions is someone's son or daughter, and no one deserves to die.

Solutions can be found if we set our ideology and political

affiliation to work towards a common goal. I know that the member from Burrard

is a Conservative supporter, and Stephen Harper is against Insite. Perhaps,

maybe, that's what's clouding his judgment.

In September 2003 the Vancouver supervised injection facility

known as Insite was given its exemption until September 2006. Then on September

1, 2006, the federal government issued a press release with a temporary

extension. We still wait for that extension to continue, so I hope members…

Mr. Speaker: Member, thank you. Your time is up.

J. Kwan: …of this House will find that ideology should not

trump science.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Before we continue, I want to remind the last two members that

when the time is up, the time is up.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I call private member's Motion 63, standing

in the name of the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, unanimous consent of the House

is required to proceed with Motion 63 without disturbing the priorities and

motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

BENEFITS OF 2010 OLYMPIC

AND PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES

J. McIntyre: It is my privilege and honour to rise and

introduce this particular motion, No. 63, this morning.

[Be it resolved that this House recognizes the tremendous

lasting economic, sport, cultural and social legacies that will benefit

communities across the Province of British Columbia and all of Canada from

hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games.]

It's very special to me, as I have a lengthy history of support

for 2010, personally. I was a volunteer on an advisory committee for the bid

corporation. I was in Prague, I think I've reported before, for the now famous

Jacques Rogge announcement that we were awarded the 2010 games, on that very

historic day on July 2, 2003.

[1110]

Now I'm the MLA that represents the Sea to Sky corridor and the

three snow venues — that is, Cypress in West Vancouver, Callaghan Valley and

Whistler. As an aside, I must say I'm extremely proud that the venues have been

finished in all of those three regions of the province two years in advance of

hosting the games.

In the five intervening years since we started to work in earnest

on all the efforts required to stage the Olympic and Paralympic Games, I've been

so impressed by the organizations that have been so successful in ensuring that

all of B.C. and the country are included in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Organizations like VANOC, the 2010 secretariat in our Ministry of Economic

Development, Legacies Now and B.C. Tourism have all spent years now ensuring

that these winter

[ Page 12873 ]

games are the best ever and that we have the best legacies ever, and they're

solidly on track.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Practically every day now we read in the paper about some great

event or a program on an international scale or right down to the local level

that's connected to our hosting of these games.

For a couple of examples, in The Vancouver Sun on May 23

there was an

article entitled, "A Meeting Place for People to Discover B.C.,"

which discusses the recent opening of the B.C.-Canada Pavilion in Beijing. There

are 1,500 Chinese companies that are expected to use that to meet with their

Canadian counterparts — 1,500 businesses — along with an anticipated 400,000

visitors, similar to the kind of success we had in Torino in showcasing our

province and our country to the world.

Then go all the way down to an

article that appeared in

yesterday's North Shore News entitled "Opening Young Eyes to the

Paralympics," which detailed North Vancouver's Fromme Elementary School students

participation in a Vancouver 2010 Paralympic school day. This school and other

schools all around the province are engaging in this special day with staff and

students to raise awareness of the games and the para-athletes themselves.

These are just two very, very recent examples in the last day or

two of the many benefits that will accrue to us.

Let me name some of the specific benefits. Let's start with the

social benefits. The obvious one, of course, is our goal of inclusion and B.C.'s

desire to highlight the Paralympics component and not have them be as an add-on.

The Whistler community is knocking themselves out to make this a reality.

They're taking this very seriously. We also have opportunities like the Economic

Development Ministry's live sites program.

All around British Columbia there has been $20 million distributed

in grants of up to $330,000 for communities to build and refurbish a central

place where they can watch and enjoy and celebrate the games. There are

volunteer programs like Legacies Now VolWeb and VANOC's recent launch seeking

thousands of volunteers to work on our test events and be trained for 2010 and

events beyond.

I saw this in action myself at the Haywood cross-country nationals

in Callaghan Valley. They engaged almost 200 people in the Squamish region, who

were trained and who enjoyed hosting that event. They will be there. It boosts

community spirit, and you can see all of this happening right now before our

eyes.

We have the Spirit of 2010 hockey tournaments. Every year now, for

the last several years and going forward, we've engaged young kids and families

in healthy sport all around the province in these Spirit of 2010 hockey

tournaments. We have a Legacies Now Altitude Youth program engaging young

leaders, our leaders of tomorrow.

We have the athletes village in Whistler turning into affordable

housing after 2010. It's been a catalyst for this government's investment in

social housing in the Downtown Eastside, where the purchase of these SRO hotels

in the Downtown Eastside has the city of Vancouver and others heaping praise on

this government for their work.

We have the Spirit Squares program — grants, again, for

communities all around the province to develop central meeting places. All of

those are huge social benefits to this province and beyond.

Benefits on the cultural front. We have Canada's Cultural Olympiad

programs. They've started two full years in advance of 2010. It's a powerful

national forum to illustrate our creative excellence, to celebrate our

linguistic duality and our aboriginal heritage. The same thing applies right

down to the local level, where 2010 has been the catalyst for the

Squamish-Lillooet cultural centre, which is opening this year in Whistler in

advance of 2010.

[1115]

And a lot of this is related to the fact that we have honoured and

engaged the four First Nation hosts — the Squamish, Lillooet, Tsleil-Waututh and

Musqueam bands in this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase our country's

heritage and welcome the world to their shared territories.

We have unprecedented opportunities that hosting the games has

brought us as a province and as a country.

We also now have an aboriginal tourism blueprint to grow

aboriginal tourism. It's been the fastest-growing component in the world. We now

have in this province 200 businesses contributing approximately $35 million to

our provincial economy, predicted to go to $50 million. This blueprint has been

a model. There are other provinces all around the country that are looking at

this blueprint as a model.

We have a program called arts partners in creative development.

It's an investment partnership to assist B.C. arts and cultural organizations to

create new works or to develop existing works to exhibit at the highest standard

— $6.5 million being contributed to the arts, over and above what we do as a

province.

Sporting benefits. I mean, there are obvious sporting benefits

from hosting the games. The most obvious, of course, is the infrastructure

development, the training centres, the facilities that will be world-class

facilities that will be used now and for years to come.

We have a legacy fund of $110 million that will take care of some

of the infrastructure. We've got communities like Richmond and Vancouver that

have invested their own municipal dollars in adding on to that infrastructure —

for instance, the oval, the skating centre in Richmond; and the curling centre

in Vancouver.

We have opportunities, again, right in my own constituency in

Squamish, West Vancouver and Whistler, where they're already hosting

international events, World Cup events — Whistler had its first World Cup event

in ten years — and it's all related to 2010. We also have years of other hosting

opportunities running up to 2010. We did the world juniors. We've done the

wrestling, and this summer's Indigenous Games. It goes on and on.

The economic opportunities. Of course, we had the 2010 Commerce

Centre, which I hope everyone in this

[ Page 12874 ]

House and the viewers at home are aware of. We've had 200 business workshops,

5,600 attendees, 60 communities. We're reaching out everywhere to help

businesses match up, to be able to take

part in the economic benefits.

We have international efforts, of course, as I mentioned — the

B.C.-Canada Place in Beijing, Torino. This year the Sea to Sky corridor will

actually be present. A young leadership group will be there in Beijing

showcasing our region. We have Robson Square. We have a tourism action plan and

all the tourism efforts that are going to help us with our aggressive goal of

doubling tourism by 2015, and we have the aboriginal tourism efforts that I've

mentioned.

All told, three billion viewers, direct economic activity of $4

billion, 244,000 person-years of employment, $2.5 billion in incremental revenue

to the government. We have $140 billion of investment on the books in this

province, and less than $2 billion is related to 2010, to actually hosting the

games. So that's what I call an incredible example of economic leverage and

spinoff benefits.

As I wind down here, I had a very shocking display from the NDP

opposition as I sat in this House. One afternoon, as the Premier was talking

about the benefits of 2010 and hosting the games, I saw this opposition boo the

fact that we were hosting the games. I was shocked. I will carry that memory for

the rest of my life as a black mark. I just hope that the NDP wakes up, comes to

their senses and supports this motion for one of the most wonderful events that

could ever befall us and our children.

So thanks to our Premier and our government for the foresight and

the competence to make us proud on the world stage.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to respond to this motion. When

the member was talking about all of the good things that the government is

doing, or perception of all those good things that the government is doing, I

wish that she had talked about some of the realities around the Olympics and

around what the government isn't doing.

The member talked about how this opposition somehow was opposed to

the Olympics. Well, I have news for that member. It was the NDP who initiated

the 2010 Olympics back in the 1990s — the good old 1990s, I might say.

[1120]

Let me talk about the Olympics and the benefits, as the member had

talked about. You know, anywhere the Olympics go, the citizens of that country

or that region do get excited about the Olympics. It gives them national pride.

It gives them the opportunity to see the world at its best in sports, and it

also gives them the real potential for good economic, social and cultural

benefits for that region.

There's a real potential here as well, if we manage it right. But

if we mismanage it, we could end up like Montreal, where it took us 30 years to

pay for the debt that was created in 1976, or like Athens, where it went over $2

billion over budget, and the citizens of that country, their children and their

children will continue to pay for generations to come. I think that's where the

responsibility comes in for the management of the Olympics.

Let's take a look at what benefits these Olympics in 2010 will

bring us. The only way you can measure benefits in real terms, the net benefits,

is if you really are open and honest with the cost of those Olympics, and then

you measure those with the benefits of those Olympics. In order to do that, you

have to be open, honest and accountable with the citizens of your country. We

haven't seen that. We haven't seen that from this government or from VANOC so

far.

Let's do some reality checks here. This government will continue

to tell you that the cost to the B.C. taxpayers is $600 million to host these

games. But this opposition put together some numbers, real numbers that were

later verified by the Auditor General, who happens to be the independent

watchdog of the expenditures of this government. He verified every cent that we

said should be considered as Olympic costs.

Yes, he left out a couple of areas, like the Olympic secretariat,

which is running at about $50 million as their budget. The Olympic secretariat

was put together for only one reason. That was to oversee the expenditures and

the money flowing from the government coffers over to the folks who are spending

that money. This government continues to tell the taxpayers that that is not

Olympic-related money.

The road that was built from the Sea to Sky to Callaghan Valley is

$20 million that, they say, shouldn't be considered as an Olympic cost. Legacies

Now is about $140 million, for the benefit of the member — $140 million that had

nothing to do with the Olympics or the benefits coming from the Olympics. It's

the B.C. taxpayers' money spread around in different communities.

If they are good benefits, if they are good projects, then they

should be open with the taxpayers: "These are your dollars that we're

moving from one region to another region." But they haven't done that either.

You know why? Because they like to keep everything secret. Everything's a

secret.

Now, let me talk about the reality check again. There's $600

million that this government will tell you is the cost of the Olympics, and the

Auditor General put together a total cost of $2.5 billion — $1.9 billion

directly from these B.C. taxpayers and $600 million coming from the federal

coffers. At the end of the day, they are all coming from the same taxpayers.

It's $2.5 billion versus the $600 million that this government leads you to

believe, and that is if we stay within budget for the security cost of $175

million. All the experts and even the integrated security people are telling

this government and the world that the cost of security could be three to four

times higher.

In order to somehow manipulate those numbers, guess what they're

doing. They are narrowing down the coverage area to in and around the Olympic

venues and the athletes village. Even within that, this agreement, which is the

memorandum of agreement between the

[ Page 12875 ]

two governments, says: "'Games security coverage area means, for the purpose

of this agreement, the policing and security coverage area identified by VANOC

or the RCMP and approved by the RCMP and the security committee acting

reasonably within the context of this agreement."

[1125]

Again, if they don't agree that certain areas shouldn't be covered

by the $175 million, then someone else is going to be responsible for that

security. Do you know who that someone else is? Taxpayers, B.C. taxpayers.

In addition to that, border security, the terrorist threat,

airport security — all of that — are the responsibility of someone else outside

of the $175 million. That someone else, again, is the taxpayer.

So be honest and open with the public. Be honest and open with the

taxpayers who are paying your wages, who are paying for these games as well.

Then we can really calculate what the real benefits to the B.C. taxpayers are.

That's not happening.

So let me go on to talk about some of the other areas. They talk

about how widespread the benefits are going to be. People with disabilities are

waiting and waiting and waiting to see if they will get any benefit out of these

games. So far, how many people got hired? Not very many. They are disappointed.

I'm going to announce here today — because my time is coming up —

and declare that there will be three guaranteed gold medals in these Olympics

for British Columbia, three guaranteed gold medals to this government. One, the

best in keeping secrets of any government that is involved in Olympics — the

best, the Olympic gold medal. The second one will be for the most arrogant, for

who doesn't agree that the real costs are the real costs. Most arrogant — they

will be given a gold medal in that. The third gold medal will be for the best in

creative bookkeeping about Olympic costs — gold medal again. Three gold medals

guaranteed in the 2010 Olympics to this government.

J. Yap: I appreciate this opportunity to rise and speak on

Motion 63, which my colleague the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi has

brought forward today. A very fitting motion for us to debate on this day.

Listening to the speaker from the opposition, the member for

Surrey-Newton, I feel that I have to address a couple of points that he raised.

The first one is that I'm a little confused because it sounded like he was a bit

conflicted, that he was wanting to be supportive of the fact that, you know, the

Olympics and Paralympics would bring pride to the province. Yet I see that in

February of 2007 this same member was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as

saying: "People feel good about the Olympics. It's hard to want to criticize

that." It sounded, what we just heard, very critical.

There was also the Leader of the Opposition, quoted in a speech in

February of 2005. Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said: "The global

marketing opportunity is historic — an opportunity that has potential to benefit

every corner of this province." So that sounds very positive — that there is a

lot of support, even on the opposition side of this House, for the fact that

these Olympics and Paralympic Games will be a terrific opportunity for British

Columbians, for Canadians to showcase and to leave a great legacy for ourselves,

our children and our grandchildren.

I have to address one more thing that the member opposite brought

up, and that is the accounting that the members of the opposition like to focus

on, the fact that the Auditor General rendered an opinion on the fact that

certain costs should be included in Olympic costs.

Well, the figure that was mentioned by the member for

Surrey-Newton is grossly inflated, because the Sea to Sky Highway, a project

which the province was going to do anyway, is included. The Auditor General

chose to include it as an Olympic cost when this wonderful highway will be there

for the citizens of British Columbia for years to come and would have been built

whether we gained the Olympics and Paralympics or not.

[1130]

That is the reality: we have an Olympic infrastructure program

that is basically on time and on budget, and we'll have facilities built that

will be built well in advance. VANOC has impressed the Olympic committee with

the fact that we're on

schedule and that we will have facilities ready for our

athletes — for Canadian athletes, British Columbian athletes — to practice, to

showcase their talents and to prepare for the 2010 Olympics well in advance.

But I'd like to talk about, if I could, what we're here to talk

about — the legacy that will be left from this wonderful opportunity, the 2010

Winter Olympics and Paralympics. There are a number of components to the legacy,

and my colleague from West Vancouver–Garibaldi has brought out a number of

these: the economic legacies, the cultural legacies, the social legacies and,

obviously, the sports legacies that will come with 2010.

I'm especially proud to speak on this motion because my community,

Richmond, will have the Richmond oval as one of its legacies. We are a venue

city. Richmond will be a venue city, and this project, the Olympic oval, is a

marvellous addition to the infrastructure to our community in Richmond.

If I could talk a little bit about the legacy for Richmond and

British Columbia. The oval will be a wonderful addition to Richmond. The

precinct itself will develop and provide new focus, with a residential community

on the land surrounding the oval, commercial development and new public

amenities that will benefit all British Columbians, especially people who will

move to this part of B.C., Richmond.

The oval is going to be a tremendous success. It is a tremendous

success. Contrary to the naysayers, the oval is presently proceeding on time and

on budget and will be completed by late 2008. Financially, the Richmond oval is

going to leave a great legacy.

As I mentioned, about 32 acres make up the oval lands. Of these,

19 acres were in addition to what was needed to build this magnificent

structure, the Richmond oval. The city of Richmond entered into an agreement to

sell and lease the surplus land, creating a surplus

[ Page 12876 ]

that will go into a legacy fund that will benefit the citizens of Richmond

and B.C. for years to come.

One of the sports legacies is the fact that as we head towards

2010, we have the opportunity to bring a focus not just at the high-performance

level but also at the community level. Along with other colleagues, I have the

opportunity to participate in Legacies 2010 sporting activities that bring

communities together and bring athletes together.

I especially want to mention the opportunity I had to be present

at the first-ever bonspiel involving wheelchair athletes. This happened in

Richmond, the first time ever that we had an international bonspiel for

wheelchair athletes, and a number of past Paralympians came to participate in

the bonspiel. It was great to see the enthusiasm and the opportunity for

wheelchair athletes to take

part in this event, which in part was brought about

because of the excitement that is building up as we head towards 2010 and the

opportunities for sporting groups to participate and to be involved in this

great opportunity for sports.

[1135]

The Olympics, clearly, will not be just a two-week event. That's

not the reason why we are involved in hosting the Olympics and Paralympics.

Obviously, this is going to be an opportunity for us, as we build up towards and

beyond 2010, to really showcase what we have achieved here in British Columbia,

here in Canada.

Many of us will remember the great event in the 1980s called Expo

86. Most people feel — there are a few naysayers — that that had an indelible

impact on the development of British Columbia, in that the world discovered B.C.

and discovered our part of Canada.

I believe that the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics will

provide that opportunity as well. We've heard the figures. During the two weeks

of the Olympics, there will be a worldwide audience of about three billion

people. We've heard about the direct and indirect economic benefits and all of

the other legacies that we've mentioned. This opportunity is once in a lifetime

for us here in B.C. — to host the winter Olympics and Paralympics. This will be

a marvellous opportunity for us to showcase and to leave a great legacy for our

children and our grandchildren for years to come.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I fully support this motion, Motion

63. Clearly, the majority of British Columbians, who are getting more and more

excited as we head towards 2010, believe that the 2010 winter Olympics and

Paralympic Games will leave a lasting legacy for all British Columbians for

years to come.

L. Krog: Sometimes as I listened to the debate this

morning, I was beginning to wonder, actually, what the motion was all about. The

motion itself — and I just want to reread it for the benefit of members — is:

"Be it resolved that this House recognizes the tremendous lasting economic,

sport, cultural and social legacies that will benefit communities across the

Province of British Columbia and all of Canada from hosting the 2010 Olympic and

Paralympic Winter Games."

There is no question that hosting an event of this stature brings

economic opportunity and opens up the province of British Columbia to be viewed

by the entire world. Of course, I want to remind all the members opposite that

it was in fact the NDP government that initiated the process that led us to the

hosting of the Winter Olympics. I'm delighted to hear the members opposite

acknowledge that.

But one of the legacies that hasn't been talked about this morning

is the opportunity for British Columbians to look at themselves. As the world

comes to see us, it is an opportunity for us to look at ourselves and ask: what

kind of society have we created that is, in fact, going to host the winter

Olympics?

It isn't just the people with money, who'll be able to go up and

watch the Games,

who are hosting this. It's the people who live in the Downtown Eastside who

are hosting it as well. All British Columbians are hosting the Winter Olympics.

All British Columbians are contributing to the Winter Olympics and the

Paralympic Games.

I think the importance of the Paralympic Winter Games can't be

emphasized enough when we consider how much things have changed in our attitudes

towards those with disabilities in our society — physical, mental or otherwise.

We have come a long ways, and that needs to be celebrated as we host the

Olympics.

We need to ask ourselves: how are we treating all of British

Columbia's citizens? How are we treating all of the hosts? Are we treating them

fairly? Are we housing them? Are we feeding them or providing the kind of

medical care and social services that they require? Will we, in fact, when

everyone comes here to see us, be a beacon unto the world that we should be?

Here in one of the wealthiest parts of the entire world, here in a stable

democracy, how will the world view us? Will they go down to the Downtown

Eastside and see how some of our fellow citizens live? I hope so.

[1140]

I hope that it will be an opportunity for the government to

consider its role in hosting the Olympics. I hope it will be an opportunity for

all of us to reflect on the values of international competition and to reflect

on the value of world cooperation as we face tremendous challenges, particularly

on the environmental front.

Let us use this opportunity, if you will, of the Olympic Games.

Let us celebrate the legacy of it. But one of those legacies must surely be all

of us looking at each other, a bit of self-examination. And not just

self-congratulation. Let us use it as an opportunity for that kind of

self-examination, because a life that you don't consider and examine, a life

that you don't criticize, whether it be in your own life or the life of your

country or your province or your community, isn't a life worth living, I would

suggest.

As we go through the rah-rah here this morning about the value of

the Olympics and its legacy, let us take that opportunity. Let us ask ourselves:

when people come here, are they, in fact, going to see the best that can

possibly be, given all the resources and opportunities we have? That's the

central question for me this morning.

[ Page 12877 ]

R. Cantelon: We all know that the Olympic Games are going

to be a wonderful event, a very exciting event. We look forward to the hockey

games and the curling and other sports that Canada excels at in winter sports.

After all, for too much of the year we are a winter country. This will be a time

in the middle of winter, right across Canada, to celebrate those events and what

we're good at.

The motion today talks about legacies. I think there are three

types of legacy. The first one that I'd talk about is the physical legacy — the

facilities that are being left for generations to enjoy. In that, I would point

out that it's a wonderful accomplishment. The member for Richmond-Steveston

pointed out the successful completion of their facility, which provided an

economic bonus, a cash bonus, beyond the expectation of just being on time and

on budget — which they were, of course.

The members opposite also referred to the Auditor General's

report. I attended and listened to his comments. It was commented on in his

report that, indeed, the facilities were being built on time and on budget,

notwithstanding that it would require, as has been verified and put in place,

continued surveillance of good business practices. I'm happy to say that those

good business practices, as the member opposite mentioned, properly managed….

They were, indeed, properly managed to a successful completion, on time, on

budget, ahead of time.

In my community…. The member opposite, as well, has just spoken.

We looked at the Olympics as a great opportunity. I'm proud to say that the city

of Nanaimo was the first to create a spirit committee to take full advantage in

terms of legacies and opportunities in the Olympic Games.

One of the facilities that we put up was a live site right at the

back of the Port Theatre in a downtown square that, more and more…. In fact,

it's being renovated, with another grant, to become a gathering place for the

community. The community events will be shown on the back of the screen. It will

be a venue for people to gather and watch the highlights of the Olympic Games.

More importantly, it's going to be an ongoing venue for people to celebrate

things that are going on in the community.

One of those events coming up very shortly will be the U-17 hockey

tournament. I have to say, in talking to the organizers of this tournament —

which I would acknowledge came from Port Alberni — that something different

happened that's part of the Olympic spirit. It's about communities working

together in ways they've never worked together before. This will be an ongoing

legacy — the ability for communities to put aside their parochial and competing

interests to say: "We can be something bigger than ourselves as individual

communities."

They embraced this and obtained the U-17 hockey tournament. Of

course, it will be a very exciting tournament, shown on the big screen at the

live site in the plaza, and all these young players will be participants in

future Olympics. So that's one.

There's the great benefit of the tourism at the time. Nanaimo and

other communities like that around the province recognize that this is a time to

put their community on the stage, on the live site going on right now in

Beijing, where they can anticipate that people will come not just for the two

weeks but for an extended stay and beyond that. What people normally do when

they come is see what they want to see in a brief two-week period, but then they

say, and I'm sure they'll say this about British Columbia: "We've got to go

back."

There's going to be an ongoing legacy of tourism, an ongoing

opportunity for tourism for British Columbia, certainly one that most of the

communities are well positioned to take up.

[1145]

At the live site that's up in Beijing now, many communities,

including my own, have taken the opportunity to do a video showing the expansive

opportunities for tourism throughout the island. It's going to be a

well-coordinated Island bid, if you want, in terms of putting forth what those

opportunities are.

I think the economic opportunities will last many, many years in

the future, similar to those that we saw from Expo 86. Granted, this is a

smaller period, but it's a very intense period. The benefits will very much be

long-lasting.

The third opportunity and, I think, one of the most important

opportunities is the hope and expectation we raise in all our young athletes and

young children to be better than they are, to be the best that they can be in

their given sport. It translates not just to the sport but to everything they do

in their lives. Here we are going to be upholding our athletes on a world stage,

competing to be the best in the world.

Again, I want to comment that the 2010 spirit committee in

Parksville is a very, very active committee. When I dropped the puck and saw

those young players go at it with their Spirit of 2010 shirts on, I could see

that they were, in their minds, Olympic athletes already. I'm sure that others

will be inspired to the Olympic ideals.

It will be ongoing in terms of facilities which have been built,

in terms of ongoing economic opportunity but, most importantly, in raising the

hopes and expectations of all our young people for many, many generations to

come.

Noting the hour, I would move adjournment of debate.

Interjections.

R. Cantelon: That's fine. I defer to the member opposite

who, I'm sure, wishes to expound on the opportunity. I would hardly wish to

crimp his style or opportunity.

N. Macdonald: With the Olympics there are opportunities,

and there are challenges. The statement itself is fairly typical of what comes

out of the Premier's office — this sort of mindless boosterism. But beneath the

statement, I think we have to look at the Olympics and look at the fact that

there are opportunities. It's clear that we are going to be hosting an event

that will be viewed by billions of people. We as British Columbians all need

that event to go well.

[ Page 12878 ]

We should not be blinded to the realities of the challenge and the

realities of the fact that to pull this off, it needs to be done properly. There

are three areas that I think that the government has done a very poor job with

that need to be highlighted.

The first of those is with the openness, the secrecy, the

mismanagement of some key parts of the Olympic file. The first one would be with

the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project. There was a decision by the

Premier to make that Convention Centre expansion project the site of the media

centre. In doing that, they set an artificial boundary.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It's something that the Auditor General points to. It cost the

people of British Columbia $500 million rather than the $15 million that should

have gone to a media site in Richmond. With very little thought, the Premier,

blinded by the Olympics, made a decision that has cost British Columbians

heavily. So that is strike one: a project brutally mismanaged.

Second, you have B.C. Place and the roof of B.C. Place. B.C. Place

is going to be the host of the opening and closing ceremonies. It will be the

site, the venue, for the opening and closing ceremonies. It will be the most

viewed site, and yet we cannot even be sure of how solid or how dependable that

roof is.

In 2006 the government was asked by the NDP whether the roof was

going to be dependable. We were assured by the government that it would be.

Subsequent to that, it collapsed. You would think at that time that the

government would turn its mind to the qualities of that roof. They chose not to.

Now we are in a situation where we have the main venue with a roof that we

cannot be sure of. So that's strike two.

[1150]

The third part of this is the statement that it would involve

British Columbians across the province and across the country, communities

across the country. The fact is that this government has been so consistently

focused on issues in the rich part of Vancouver that they have ignored important

issues across the rest of the province.

If you look at the areas that many rural British Columbians

represent, we will see a collapse in forestry; we will see no housing policy in

place; we will see hospitals have been closed; paramedic stations — an

unacceptable standard; we will see seniors' care left and ignored; we will see

emergency services gone; we will see a lack of beds; we will see courthouses

closed, government offices closed and hospitals closed. All of these, as there

is a blinding focus on the Olympics.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Members, let's listen to the statement.

Continue, Member.

N. Macdonald: If there is going to be a focus on the

Olympics, and if this motion that is put forward is to be in any way true, then

it needs to include all communities. Rural areas cannot be ignored in this blind

focus on one particular issue. The Olympics have to be done properly, and they

have to be done in a way that does not leave rural British Columbians thinking

that their interests have been ignored.

J. Nuraney: I rise to speak to Motion 63. But before I

start my comments, I must admit that it saddens me to hear the members of the

opposition in complete criticism of this project, of this event that is going to

take place, which is not only the pride of British Columbia but the pride of

Canada.

There is no question that the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter

Games will have tremendous lasting economic, sport, cultural and social legacies

that will benefit all communities across the province. The other members of this

House have eloquently talked about the benefits that will accrue from this event

to all sectors of our economy.

I would like to touch upon some of the strategic outlook about

this event. Our government, and in particular our Premier, saw the inherent

advantages that this opportunity will offer and saw it not only as a great world

event but as a marketing ploy to put our province on the world map as the best

place on earth.

Since winning the bid, the government has proceeded with a

comprehensive plan to provide tools to the business, tourism and entrepreneurial

sectors and also helped them prepare to take advantage of this imminent

opportunity. Commerce Centre workshops were set up, and thousands attended to

understand how they could become a partner in an effort to take advantage of the

opening opportunities. The procurement workshops will also be set up to conduct

and help businesses understand how to procure contracts and services that will

be needed for this event.

Apart from that, we have invested millions of dollars in providing

the tourism facilities and tourism opportunities, giving them the tools to build

capacity to accommodate the thousands who will come to visit this very beautiful

province.

We have also invested in what I call our hidden treasure, which is

the culture and the traditions of the aboriginal people that will be showcased

during this event. It is expected that the revenues for tourism emanating from

this alone would enhance by 70 percent.

Our arts and culture communities were also invited to take part,

to improve their skills and to indulge in their creativity to produce what they

can for this event. We've also developed the Olympic live sites so that every

person in British Columbia can take advantage and look at the games as they

progress. The Spirit Squares that are created among various communities will be

the lasting legacies for all communities to enjoy even after the events are all

completed.

[1155]

The Olympics will bring forth and create a spirit of excitement

that has not been seen in this province for a long time. It is going to nurture

our pride and motivate us to excel. These are qualities over which one cannot

put a dollar figure. I am a strong believer that the 2010

[ Page 12879 ]

Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will have a lasting effect not only on

our economy but on the spirit and the soul of our province.

J. Nuraney moved adjournment of debate.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the motion is adjournment of

debate.

An Hon. Member: Division.

[1200]

Speaker's Statement

DIVISIONS DURING

PRIVATE MEMBERS' TIME

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, according to Standing Orders :

"No division, on Orders of the Day, will be taken in the House or in Committee

of the Whole during Private Members' Time, but where a division is requested, it

will be deferred until thirty minutes prior to the ordinary time fixed for

adjournment of the House on the Monday, unless otherwise ordered."

Hon. Members, in essence, the adjournment of debate motion stands.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.

Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast

schedule

Copyright © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN: 1499-2175