Hansard — Monday, May 26, 2008 a.m.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		12863

Private Members' Statements		12863
	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		12872
	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		12879
	Divisions during private members' time

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.

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.

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

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. We have an English-as-a-second-language program for both children and adults.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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…

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.

J. McIntyre: It is my privilege and honour to rise and introduce this particular motion, No. 63, this morning.

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.

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

games are the best ever and that we have the best legacies ever, and they're solidly on track.

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.

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

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.

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

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.