2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 36, Number 6

[ Page 13411 ]

SATURDAY, JANUARY 17, 2009

The House met at 12:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. J. McIntyre: It is with great pleasure that I have the honour of introducing to the House today over 80 students with the provincial Francophone Youth Parliament who, I have to say, in fact hoped that they would be in these very chambers this weekend, but are now viewing us in action. We want to thank them for their cooperation.

[1205]

[French was spoken.]

Joining the group are David Ardagh, president of the B.C. Youth Council; Anike Charbonneau, executive director of the B.C. Youth Council; Yves Trudel, executive director of the B.C. Francophone Federation; Charles-Hugo Norman, coordinator of the Youth Parliament; and Tanya Target-Haj, Première ministre de Parlement Jeunesse Francophone. Please make them welcome. Merci.

A. Dix: [French was spoken.]

In my former life as executive director of Canadian Parents for French, I was very much involved in this extraordinary event, and I think it will be unlikely that the debates in the chamber this weekend will meet the standard that these extraordinary students set every year. However, we'll do our best. I want to join the minister in wishing everyone welcome to Victoria and good luck with all your work.

Statements

response to AVALANCHE
in east kootenays

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

I also wanted to thank formally here in the House the efforts of the volunteer search and rescue group out of Fernie for those few days. I also wanted to thank the RCMP, who did a fantastic job dealing with very difficult circumstances and also the Elk Valley community hospital in the IHA for all the work that they did. It was a really difficult time for that part of the province, and the two communities really pulled together, as did the rest of the province. I did also hear from members on both sides of the House, and I appreciate that.

On behalf of the families, I want to thank everyone for their support during a very difficult time.

Introductions by Members

D. Routley: I'd like to introduce my CA, Debra Toporowski, and her husband Gerry Toporowski, who have joined us here today.

Tributes

CHEmainus fire victims

D. Routley: I would also like to ask the House to remember the five people who died in a tragic house fire on the Chemainus First Nation a few days ago in Ladysmith. Unfortunately, these people died while trying to rescue other people from the home that was burning. It was a great tragedy. It brings our attention to housing conditions of first nations and fire protection and fire prevention services, but those matters can wait for another day. Today I'd ask the House to help me bring remembrance and condolences to the broad extended families and the whole community that's affected by this terrible tragedy.

Introductions by Members

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It is an important day. We are here to do important business, but I do want to ask the House to join with me to wish a very important person in my life a happy birthday. My wife Vicki — it is her birthday, and she's celebrating today.

I just want to wish you a very happy birthday, Vicki, and I look forward to seeing you soon.

Hon. M. de Jong: This weekend Victoria is playing host to hundreds of old-timer hockey teams. The Pacific Cup old-timer hockey tournament is taking place. One of those teams, the Abbotsford Barley Hoppers, was plying its trade this morning and had me sitting on the bench with them.

Their name, of course, reveals what their real talent is, but they are here, and they are celebrating yet another victory from their game this morning.

[1210]

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Vancouver Charter
Amendment Act, 2009

Hon. B. Lekstrom presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.
[ Page 13412 ]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I am pleased to present the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. On January 12 the city of Vancouver made an urgent request to the government of British Columbia to amend the Vancouver Charter, permitting city council to borrow money and undertake other financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project and ensure the best possible outcome for Vancouver taxpayers.

This bill is the provincial government's response to the urgent request by the city of Vancouver. It allows the city to borrow and lend the funds required to continue with the construction of the athletes village.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, before we go any further, I wonder if we might distribute the bill and recess for maybe ten minutes so members have an opportunity to look at what it is we're dealing with today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, this House stands recessed until 20 after 12.

The House recessed from 12:12 p.m. to 12:23 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise to request a ruling from the Chair pursuant to Standing Order 81 that Bill 47 be permitted to advance through all stages this day. The application of Standing Order 81 following introduction of a bill is not uncommon. It is, however, by convention to be used sparingly in this chamber.

As is frequently the case, Mr. Speaker, you and the House may seek guidance regarding the interpretation and application of our standing orders from Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. Standing Order 81 is considered at page 169 of the 3rd edition of that publication, where the author observes — and this is a quote: "There are numerous precedents in the United Kingdom House where bills after first reading have passed through all remaining stages in one day." The author makes further reference to Erskine May, the 21st edition, pages 530 and 531.

Here in British Columbia, given the specific wording of our Standing Order 81, it seems clear that a key component of the test that must be met is that the occasion or circumstances giving rise to the application must be urgent or extraordinary.

In addressing that test and the urgency of the situation, I wish to refer you and the House to two specific documents that I will table. The first is a letter dated January 13, 2009, from Gregor Robertson, mayor of the city of Vancouver, to the Premier of British Columbia and the Leader of the Opposition.

[1225]

I'll quote portions from that letter and then table the entire document. The mayor writes:

"I am writing to request your urgent support for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, which will enable us to protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial plan for completing the Olympic village project. The city's commitment to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC for the games has been placed at risk by the cessation of funding flowing from the loan made by Fortress, the lender on the project, to Millennium, the developer for the project."

He continues:

"There is an urgent need to restore the flow of funding to the developer and the project to allow completion in a way which is sustainable and which will mitigate the financial and reputational risks to Vancouver citizens and the city itself.

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

On page 2 of the letter:

"The amendment to the Vancouver Charter we are requesting reflects the unprecedented situation we are facing. Public disclosure through the media briefing on January 9, 2009, and at yesterday's council meeting was critical to allow our citizens to understand the seriousness of the issue and the urgency to act responsibly and quickly given the short time lines.

"All the evidence we have gathered to date supports our need to be able to find alternatives to the current loan arrangement in order to protect the taxpayers of Vancouver."

Finally, in the penultimate paragraph:

"Every day that passes increases our risk. In view of this and with great respect, we are asking that as soon as the necessary and appropriate legislation is drafted, all members of the Legislature undertake to pass it as quickly as possible upon introduction in the Legislature."

I do table that letter with the House.

The second document I wish to refer to is a letter dated January 15, 2009, from the Leader of the Opposition to Mayor Robertson, which was also kindly copied to the Premier. It is a shorter letter, and I'll read it in its entirety.

Dear Mayor Robertson:

Thank you for your letter of January 13 outlining the critical situation the new council faces in order to protect taxpayers' interests while meeting pre-existing obligations relating to completion of the Olympic village. I want to assure you that I, along with my caucus, fully understand the urgency of the situation, and we fully support the principles of openness and respect for the taxpayer that underlie the new council's approach to solving the financing problems.

In that light, we support an urgent recall of the Legislature to consider the city of Vancouver's request for a charter amendment. We agree that it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to delay consideration of legislation which may provide relief from financing deals that harm the public interest.

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

Sincerely….
[ Page 13413 ]

It's signed by the Leader of the Opposition. I table that document as well.

I'm obliged to the opposition leader for her letter and the candid and forthright manner in which she acknowledges, it seems to me, the urgency of the situation.

I suppose there are some who might suggest waiting next week, next month. To them, I would repeat Mayor Robertson's words: "Every day that passes increases our risk." The significant costs being borne by the civic ratepayers continue to accrue on a daily basis. We have begun to read how, left unresolved, the situation could have implications for the city's credit rating and ultimately the cost of borrowing.

Lest I forget, let us not overlook the thousand-plus workers involved in this project for whom failure to resolve this matter quickly could have catastrophic consequences.

[1230]

There's one last component to this that I wish to bring to your and the House's attention. This last aspect I'm going to submit to you is relevant as well to your consideration. I was also here 13 years ago when a previous government, with which some members of the House were well acquainted, brought a similar application on a rare weekend sitting.

I mention that because I also specifically remember the cautionary words of Speaker Emery Barnes, who on that day in April 1996 emphasized the need that the bill in question should deal with the specific situation giving rise to the urgency. I would submit to you that the bill before you does just that and also meets this test. It's short, but more importantly, its provisions deal exclusively with the specific development project.

This is not something the government was planning for or contemplating. For reasons set out in its letter of January 13 describing the situation that has arisen, the city of Vancouver requests a specific legislative amendment on an urgent basis.

If I have read the opposition leader's letter accurately and fairly, it seems to me that she agrees this is an urgent situation. Certainly, that is the view of the government. Immediately upon receiving the formal request from the city earlier this week, we began the work of drafting the bill before the House today. The government's sense of urgency is further reflected in the unusual step of asking this chamber, on very short notice, to assemble on this Saturday.

Not only do I believe that the current situation and the bill before the House meet the test and requirements of Standing Order 81. I would respectfully submit to you and the House that it was precisely in contemplation of this type of circumstance that Standing Order 81 was created, and it is therefore, in my view, appropriate to invoke its application today.

A. Dix: Wow. Merry Christmas. Happy new year, and happy new year to everyone, Mr. Speaker.

This is an important occasion, an important piece of legislation. We're here on a Saturday, of course, and the issues involved are significant not only for taxpayers in Vancouver but potentially for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Government House Leader makes reference to Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia. In particular, you'll find in the reference to Standing Order 81 a quote from Mr. Speaker Brand from the English Parliamentary Debates in 1880. He says: "It is occasionally the custom to pass bills through their different stages at one and the same sitting. That, of course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency and with the general assent of the House."

Now, on the issue of the general assent of the House, we have a different practice in British Columbia and clearly a different operation. Sometimes those things would happen by leave, presumably if there was assent of the House. As there clearly is not, and despite the reading of the letter of the Leader of the Opposition, the Government House Leader knows well that that's not our view with respect to this issue.

Those words….

Interjections.

A. Dix: Well, you know….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

A. Dix: I know that the House has only sat five days since May, but these are submissions that we're making to you, and the members of the government side may be out of practice.

This is unusual. That test of extreme urgency is reflected in the way that this has been used in practice in British Columbia — in other words, very rarely: in 2004, 2002. You'll recall, hon. Speaker, that was not a great moment for that Legislature — that the bills in question at that time received another reading in the Supreme Court of Canada. In 2000, 1996, 1986, 1984, 1968…. The Speaker is well aware and I'm sure has been considering these different examples.

But since the sole issues raised in support of this application are the letter from the mayor of Vancouver and the letter from the Leader of the Opposition, let us reflect on the government's approach, how they've acted and how that reflects specifically on the question of urgency.

You will recall, and this is our submission, that in January 2006, when VANOC sought $110 million in additional funding from the B.C. and federal governments, the B.C. and federal governments required due diligence reports prior to agreeing to the funding requests.

[1235]
[ Page 13414 ]

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

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

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

June 2007. A $190 million financial guarantee was approved to backstop Fortress's loan. The Premier and the government knew or ought to have known about that.

September 2007. The city approves a completion guarantee to Fortress for the full $750 million loan to Millennium.

May 2008. The city manager reports that Millennium is in anticipatory default. The government knew or ought to have known about that.

June 2008. The city manager reports that Millennium is in anticipatory default, and the city guaranteed a further $190 million Millennium loan.

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

In December 2008 we had a new council that was dealing with this mess. The mayor of Vancouver at the time spoke to the Premier — at least according to the quotes from the Premier, which we will provide to the Speaker and the Speaker's office — at that time about the possible need for legislation. This was the door by which Vancouver was going to exit from this fiasco.

Now, this week, Monday, the government received the request. They'd been warned, they knew this was coming, and Monday they received the request. At that time — and this should deal with all questions around the letter from the Leader of the Opposition — the Leader of the Opposition was clear on Monday and Tuesday that this should proceed appropriately in this Legislature. And it is our public role, especially in regards to a matter that had been kept from the public eye, to ensure that there was significant scrutiny of this matter.

On Monday the Premier received the request and, as I understand it, indicated that the government was likely to go forward with the request. That was Monday. That was five days ago. Wednesday the Premier said — and I want to quote him in support of our case in this matter: "We're right now drafting an amendment that we can bring into the Legislature. As soon as the amendment is appropriately drafted and passes muster with our Attorney General, it will be introduced in the Legislature before February 10."

In other words, the Premier said that there should be accountability. There should be oversight. And even if it takes an extra day or two days for the Attorney General to approve and even if that's another $87,000, the Premier said that oversight should take place. That oversight takes place, of course, as it ought to, in private. The lawyers of the Attorney General make that oversight in private. This is where the public oversight in British Columbia takes place: in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I would say that the government's actions on this issue have not reflected urgency up to now. The only time they want urgency — and this is relevant to the issue of urgency — is when it avoids significant debate in this Legislature.

Now, the question of urgency. As you know, most of those cases in the past where Standing Order 81 has been applied generally have related to labour relations issues in the broadest sense. One occasion is different than that, in 1986, and was actually rejected by the Speaker at the time. The urgency in many of those cases was people being able to get to services that they needed: children to classrooms, patients to hospitals, and so on. What is the urgency in this case?

[1240]

I understand and respect that everybody who wants legislative change — and that includes the mayor of Vancouver, who has been doing an excellent job on this issue on behalf of the taxpayers of Vancouver — wants legislative change right away. We know that.

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

The Government House Leader refers to $87,000 a day. It was $87,000 a day when the Premier talked to the mayor of Vancouver in December. It's been $87,000 a day for a long time, and action hasn't been taken. It was $87,000 a day on Monday.

Here's the important point. Whether we pass this today — or what we call today, because in these days we tend to delink the calendar Saturday from the House sitting Saturday…. If we pass this issue — whenever we pass it — if you were to say yes to the Government
[ Page 13415 ]
House Leader's request…. If we were to do that, then we would still be paying $87,000 on Sunday and $87,000 on Monday. That is the fact of the matter.

The city of Vancouver knows this legislation is before the House. Presumably, if the Government House Leader chooses to call us back tomorrow, he'll know it will have passed second reading.

There is not urgency as between Saturday and Monday, and no evidence has been brought before you, hon. Speaker, to suggest that there is. I understand that the proponents of the legislation, the mayor of Vancouver, would want it done as soon as possible. I understand that, but no evidence — none — has been brought before you.

Now, why is this requirement important? The requirement that a proposal of the government may not become law without being considered and debated at various stages on different days is an old tradition, but it's a good tradition.

There's a reason why we don't deal with this very often, don't avoid that very often. The reason is…. We often think of the standing orders and parliamentary rules as protecting the rights and obligations and responsibilities of members of the Legislature, but this one in particular also, and most importantly, protects the rights and responsibilities and the opportunities of the public and not of hon. members.

It's the public's right to read legislation before it is passed in this Legislature. It's the public's right that is being thrown into question because the government believes it's more convenient for them to go Saturday and pass it Saturday instead of Monday or Tuesday. It's the public's right to read and to hear what their government is proposing that those very provisions of Standing Order 81 are meant to protect.

They are meant to protect the public's right to scrutinize those laws that government wants to make and to assess what impacts they will have on themselves, on their families, on their communities, on the taxes that they pay. They are meant to protect the public's right to comment to us and to criticize and to propose alternatives to the measures that the government seeks to make the law of the province.

The standing orders require that virtually all laws be made deliberately and on separate days to protect the rights of the citizens — in particular, in this case, the rights of the taxpayers of Vancouver. Their right to scrutinize is what they want to overrule here — their right to scrutinize how this government has responded to a request from their newly elected city government for the powers to deal with a serious problem left behind by the outgoing council.

These responsibilities, these rights, are meant to protect the rights of all British Columbians who want to scrutinize this government's proposal to deal with a serious problem which, in my view — and they may not share this — they've been an important contributor to.

That's why we have to debate these issues. There are hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, not just $87,000 a day — hundreds of millions of dollars — and we have an obligation over the next few days to hear from the public, to debate these thoroughly — not to waive rules of the House designed to protect the public but to maintain and respect those rules. That is what, fundamentally, Speaker Barnes was saying in 1996. He was correct then, and he ruled against a government that was led by the NDP.

[1245]

That's what we are asking you to do today. The rules of the House…. To make Standing Order 81 simply a whim of the convenience of the Government House Leader — that it would be more convenient to pass it Saturday instead of Monday — would be to take away from Standing Order 81 its fundamental meaning. I ask, hon. Speaker, that you reject this request.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank both the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader. I will deliberate over this. Whenever we get a decision, we'll ring the bells, and we'll be back.

The House stands recessed.

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

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Standing Order 81
(Speaker's Ruling)

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the hon. Minister of Community Development has introduced Bill 47, intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. Following the introduction and the opportunity to peruse the contents of the bill, the Government House Leader requested that the bill be permitted to advance through two or more stages in one day due to its urgency.

I've had an opportunity to peruse the bill and note that as an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, it only applies to the municipality of Vancouver, and it is, in fact, limited to borrowing authorization with respect to one project — namely, the construction of the Olympic athletes village. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the bill is sufficiently limited in scope to qualify under Standing Order 81.

[1430]

Reference has been made by both House Leaders to the decision of Speaker Barnes on a similar application. On that occasion the reason that Speaker Barnes rejected the government's request to apply Standing Order 81 was that the legislation, which was before the House at that time, failed to isolate the crisis which had to be addressed and was of considerably broader application than the problem which the House was attempting to
[ Page 13416 ]
resolve. Not so with today's application, which in my respectful view has been carefully drawn to cover the specific problem which has arisen in Vancouver.

The second test which applies under Standing Order 81 is that the matter involves an urgent or extraordinary occasion. The House Leader tabled a copy of a letter from Mayor of Vancouver Gregor Robertson to the hon. Premier dated January 13, 2009. In that letter the mayor made it clear that the situation was unprecedented and that the legislation was urgently required.

The House Leader also tabled a copy of a letter of January 15, 2009, from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the mayor of Vancouver which reiterated the urgency of the situation and stated: "It is not in the interests of the taxpayer to delay consideration of legislation which may provide relief from financing deals that harm the public interest." It would appear to the Chair that the mayor of Vancouver, the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition are all of the view that the need for legislation is urgent.

I've carefully considered the submissions of the two House Leaders, and in my view, this occasion is clearly one of urgency and scope which qualifies under Standing Order 81. Standing Order 81, which provides an alternative process for considering legislation on an extraordinary occasion, should be used sparingly. This case is an example of an appropriate usage of the standing order. In making this ruling, I'm mindful of the guidelines outlined by previous Speakers' rulings, including those given in this House by Speaker Richmond on March 12, 2003, and April 28, 2004.

Respectfully submitted.

Second Reading of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

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

Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to move that the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, be read for the second time. We have come to the House today under exceptional and urgent circumstances in response to a request from the elected council of the city of Vancouver for amendments to the Vancouver Charter.

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

We have chosen to respond to that request with the legislation that is before the House today. I would like to provide the hon. members with a brief description of the events that have led to the introduction of this bill.

On January 5, 2009, the mayor of Vancouver approached the Premier to ask for an amendment to the Vancouver Charter to enable the city of Vancouver to address the financing issues of which we are all now aware. The Premier asked that as minister responsible for local government I consider the request and respond to the mayor on this matter.

In a January 7, 2009, letter, I responded in writing to the Vancouver mayor and council with a commitment that if the council passed a formal resolution requesting this amendment, the province would move quickly to conclude the necessary due diligence so that the provincial government could make an informed decision on the matter.

On January 12, 2009, the city of Vancouver responded with a resolution, carried unanimously by its council, requesting that we amend the Vancouver Charter, permitting city council to borrow money and undertake other financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project. The city also assembled the background information on the matter, which is publicly available on their website, and made a persuasive case that proceeding with this legislation on an urgent basis provided the city with the means to get the best possible deal for its taxpayers.

Since then, the provincial and city officials have worked together to finalize the required wording of the amendments to meet the urgent time lines of the city. Through this process, it has become clear that straightforward legislation allowing Vancouver to borrow and lend funds would give the city the tools it needs to manage this situation in the best interests of its taxpayers. It also became clear that in order for the city to effectively address this situation, the legislation would need to be put in place quickly.

[1435]

I want to be clear. The city did not ask for a bailout. It requested urgent adoption of the legislative tools contained in the amendments before you today so it could manage the situation to protect Vancouver taxpayers, and it asked for this legislation on an urgent basis. The city itself has underscored this urgency in its letter and in its public comments, noting that the current situation is costing taxpayers $87,000 each day.

Let's be clear. We are here today to debate legislation that will give the council additional financing tools it needs to meet its obligations. The decision on whether to borrow, how to borrow and if to borrow at all is solely and completely the decision of that duly elected council.

Council members are accountable directly to their
[ Page 13417 ]
electors on how they want to use these tools and how they intend to meet the obligations they have before them. Nothing in this legislation changes that accountability, an accountability that every council holds to its electors.

I should note that the legislation itself is specific to the Southeast False Creek development site. The bill specifically defines the development area to be the 17-acre site that is currently under development as the athletes village. The powers in the bill are limited to financing in relation to this development site.

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

The athletes village is just the beginning of that vision. It's a vision of providing homes for Vancouver residents — 1,100 units of housing that will house thousands of residents, including 250 units of affordable housing for members of the community who are most in need.

It is also a significant vision for Vancouver's economy, employing over 1,500 workers every single day with family-supporting jobs. Vancouver's commitment to this project means that every one of those workers and their families will have the security they need to make choices for the future. As members of this House, we have the opportunity to assist Vancouver in realizing the parts of this vision.

To conclude, we are putting this legislation forward in a response to an urgent request from the city of Vancouver. The legislation provides Vancouver with the tools it needs to see that (1) the Southeast False Creek project is completed in time for use as the athletes village at the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, (2) the project is financed in a way that provides the best possible deal for Vancouver taxpayers and (3) they keep the hundreds of workers currently employed on the site working to build a housing and sustainable community legacy for thousands of Vancouver residents.

I ask that all members lend their support to this piece of legislation.

C. James: I rise to speak on Bill 47. I also want to say that the NDP intends to support Bill 47. But unlike the government, we don't believe that that support comes at the cost of scrutiny. It's precisely that lack of scrutiny that's at the root of spiralling Olympic costs and plummeting confidence in the Liberal government's truthfulness about those costs. It is that lack of scrutiny that created the need for us to be here to debate Bill 47.

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

[1440]

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

British Columbians deserve better than they're getting from this government. British Columbians are tired of this B.C. government's arrogance and neglect. They're tired of a government that is profoundly out of touch with their needs. They're tired of a government that won't come clean on Olympic spending.

In just four months they're going to send this Premier and every member on that side of the Legislature a message that will be heard across this province: it's time for accountability. They're going to say loud and clear that this Premier and this government have to come clean with the taxpayers on the costs of the Olympic Games.

We're here to debate Bill 47, an amendment to the Vancouver Charter allowing the city to borrow an unlimited sum of money. Now, it's not a complicated amendment, but its implications for taxpayers and the Winter Games are profound. The reasons for Bill 47's introduction in this chamber today are deeply troubling, deeply concerning to every British Columbian, because those reasons involve a culture of government secrecy and arrogance — at the city, with the past government and right here in Victoria.

It's an approach that shuts citizens out and that treats taxpayers like they have an infinite amount of money to fuel Olympic cost overruns. Quite frankly, this Premier has forgotten that these are taxpayer dollars that we're talking about here, not his private fund for his pet projects in this province. It's an approach that has brought us to this chamber to help Vancouver taxpayers cope with a potential financial crisis.

Let me say first that I want to thank the new mayor of Vancouver and his council for demonstrating leadership and accountability on this issue. They've taken an important first step towards restoring public confidence. They're doing what they can to protect taxpayers from an extraordinarily bad deal.

That's one of the reasons we're here today dealing with Bill 47 — to help the city of Vancouver out of the financial mess that has been left to it. But with that comes responsibility to ask some tough questions of the Premier and of his government, because try as they might, this Premier can't escape responsibility for this fiasco.

In fact, there's little doubt that the provincial government must have known what was going on with the Olympic village. After all, it was the provincial government that set up a series of reporting arrangements to ensure they would know. I want to take a moment to
[ Page 13418 ]
review those arrangements and the history that brings Bill 47 here today.

In the middle of 2006 VANOC came to the provincial and federal governments asking for more money. Both governments commissioned due-diligence reports as one of those conditions of considering that request. The report and a subsequent one, which were prepared by Partnerships B.C., made a number of recommendations to increase the flow of information and knowledge between the city and VANOC and between their partners in the provincial and the federal governments.

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

VANOC's finance committee, according to its own public minutes, received reports regularly on both venues — the venue that we're here talking about today, the Olympic village venue that has brought this bill in front of us.

[1445]

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

So what happened at the city of Vancouver during this time period? In May and June of 2007 former city manager Judy Rogers reported to city council that the Millennium group, the developer of the village, was in anticipatory default. In other words, Millennium was running out of money.

Under its various signed agreements, the city had an obligation to share that information with VANOC. When there was a problem with the exact issue on Bill 47 that we're here debating today — there was an issue around the financing of the Olympic village — the city had an obligation to share their information with VANOC. VANOC, through its finance committee, in turn shared information with the Premier, with the province, with the Finance Minister.

Let there be no doubt: the Liberal government had to have known what was going on from the start. But as we all know now — and the reason we're here today debating this bill — they refused to share their knowledge with the people of British Columbia. As the spring of 2008 turned into the fall, the problems escalated. In April of '08 the city auditors reported publicly on the financial risk to the project and to the taxpayers.

As we all know, Millennium ran out of money. The financier, a New York hedge fund in deep financial trouble, escalated its demands. There followed a range of commitments by the city of Vancouver to underwrite both the developer and the financier in order to complete the development on time.

That's the sad history that brought us here today to deal with this bill. If one thing stands out, it's the fact that this government, in every step of the way, has refused to be open and transparent and accountable to the taxpayers of this province. Taxpayers were put on the hook without their knowledge for hundreds of millions of dollars in overruns and carrying charges.

The final bill still isn't known, and we're here today providing, in fact, the ultimate commitment — an open-ended waiver allowing the city of Vancouver to borrow as much as it needs to complete the village.

Now, I've heard the government say that this isn't a blank cheque, but the government is wrong. This bill has no dollar figure attached to it. Most importantly, this bill has no accountability built into it. Things can just continue on the way they've been. The public will know only what the government decides it wants it to know.

Well, that's not good enough. Passage of this bill cannot and should not end the debate about Olympic costs. From this individual experience related to Bill 47, we have to leave this chamber with a plan to ensure ongoing oversight and accountability for Olympic spending. Taxpayers expect no less from their legislators than accountability for their money.

[1450]

We're here debating a bill, Bill 47, that gives the city of Vancouver the power to borrow an unlimited sum. That puts a special onus on all of us in this House to ensure the taxpayers are protected. So today I again repeat my call for the government to appoint B.C.'s Auditor General as the auditor for the 2010 games now. I believe the Auditor should be charged with protecting the public interest and with ensuring highest standards of transparency and accountability for 2010 spending.

Mr. Speaker, had the government taken this step from the beginning, had they actually ensured independent oversight, we might not be here. The citizens of Vancouver would have known about this project and the risks long ago.

Had this government actually done what they should have done, which is ensured independent oversight, the public might have a little faith in the Olympic numbers. Had the government ensured taxpayers had someone looking out for them, British Columbians might have some confidence that the games won't leave them with a legacy of debt and unpaid bills. If the government had done what it should have done, we might not have needed Bill 47 in front of us today.
[ Page 13419 ]

Now, when we all welcome the world to B.C. next year, it's a moment that all British Columbians hope will be full of pride, a moment for the world to come together and to celebrate human achievement. But let's remember that successful Olympic Games are in tune with the times that they're staged in, and today in British Columbia and across the world, times are very uncertain. Next year, as we all know, the central credit union expects B.C. to lose 42,000 jobs — 42,000 jobs.

In British Columbia, families I talk to are worried about managing to pay their rent or their mortgage. They're worried about the declining value of their homes. They're worried about rising costs and stagnant wages, and some communities are just barely struggling to survive.

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

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

In coming into the Legislature to take a look at a piece of legislation, I had British Columbians in every corner of this province talking about their worries about a government introducing a piece of legislation that would put them on the hook for additional costs, that will put them on the hook for additional debt. Families in this province are tired of this Premier's pet projects. Families in this province want the games to be a legacy for sport, a legacy for people, a positive legacy for the economy, a legacy in which we can take great pride. But that legacy is threatened by spiralling cost overruns, threatened by this Premier's refusal to come forward and tell the truth about Olympic spending.

Every time the costs go up, every time we see the Premier and the Finance Minister continue to stand up and say that the total cost of the Olympics is $600 million, public confidence is further eroded. When I hear the members of government say over and over again that $175 million is enough for security…. People know in this province how laughable that is. When the Auditor General says that the B.C. Liberals aren't giving him the information he needs to investigate the real costs of the Olympics, the taxpayers that I talk to are asking: "What do the B.C. Liberals have to hide? What is this government trying to keep away from us? What are they trying to hide?"

[1455]

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Premier appeared on national television, and he told Canadians that it simply wasn't true that the Olympics were over budget. In fact, he spoke directly to the issue that we're here debating today in Bill 47. He said on national TV that the Olympic village itself wasn't over budget, and I'd like to quote the Premier. Here's what he said on CBC TV: "No. 1, there aren't cost overruns in the Olympic village. What there are, are some challenges in terms of one of the opportunities to finance it. There aren't cost overruns."

Well, that's what happens when you don't come clean. You can't keep your stories straight. That's exactly what happened yesterday, and later the Premier had to apologize. He said that what he meant to say was that the Olympic Games, in total, weren't over budget. Now, who can believe that? Tell that to the Auditor General, who said that the costs are now in the billions. Tell that to the taxpayers, who know that they're covering the $400 million in convention centre cost overruns. Tell that to the taxpayers in Vancouver who are going to pay in the end for the Olympic village with this piece of legislation passed.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious. We know the Premier has been twisting and turning on Olympic costs for months. He owes more than an apology to the taxpayers of this province. It is time for some straight talk, for the Premier to cut the nonsense and come clean with the real costs on the Olympics for the taxpayers of this province.

Earlier this week I was in Kamloops. Yesterday I spent time in Ladysmith and in Cowichan. In each of those opportunities I met with seniors and their families. I heard story after story about the lack of quality seniors care. I heard anger in those people's voices. I heard despair from families who have seen broken promise after broken promise from this government.

I heard people ask how the Premier can find additional dollars for cost overruns in the Olympics, the issue that we're talking about today, and yet can't find enough money to make sure that their relative gets good-quality care or their child gets a good-quality school in their neighbourhood. I'm sorry, but this Premier has his priorities wrong, and the public knows that in British Columbia.

That's what this debate on Bill 47 is about. It's about the true costs of the Olympic Games. It's about the Liberals finally coming clean with those costs. It's about helping the city of Vancouver cope with a financial mess that's been left to it by the Premier's friends at city hall. It's about protecting the taxpayers in Kamloops and in Cowichan and in Vancouver. It's important that we remember that, as we go through this debate. This isn't about the Premier's project; this is about liability to the taxpayers of British Columbia. It's also about learning the lessons to protect British Columbians from more surprises.

Now, we all know that the B.C. Liberals want to duck debate here in this chamber. That's very clear. But they
[ Page 13420 ]
can't cut and run from the voters. The day isn't far away where their record is going to be judged, and they're going to be held accountable. Olympic cost overruns are a concern for every British Columbian. They're a powerful symbol of this government's arrogance and neglect.

So I put this challenge to the Premier again. Let's not walk away from this debate on Bill 47. Let's not walk away from this House and pretend as though we fixed the problem, because we haven't. We haven't fixed this problem until the Premier acknowledges the truth, until he acknowledges the real cost of the Olympic Games, until the Premier comes clean and takes steps to protect the taxpayers. Until the Premier does that, his government has profoundly failed the people of B.C. and jeopardized the success of the Olympic Games.

[1500]

We will get into discussion on Bill 47. We'll have the opportunity to talk about the specifics as we move along in the debate, but let's not forget that the reason we are here today is because of a government that refuses to tell British Columbians the real cost of the Olympic Games and continues to try and hide those costs.

B. Ralston: It's my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 47, which I think could be fairly described, in short form, as an act to assist Olympic village refinancing.

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

So this is no ordinary project. This is the central venue for the Olympic Games. There is a hard deadline of nine months away, which requires that that deadline must be met — it's a matter of provincial pride and a matter of national pride; these are national games — and that this province be in a position to offer the warm embrace to the citizens of the world who come here to participate in the Olympic Games. It's crucial.

It's not just another real estate project that gets into trouble, where construction could halt, other arrangements could be worked out — maybe a write-down of the costs — and a number of deadlines be bumped through and maybe come onto the market in 2011 or 2012. Those alternatives aren't there.

The mayor properly speaks of the obligation that the city owes to VANOC. It's significant, in beginning to understand this legislation and the potential risk and liability to the province, to understand the series of interlocking agreements that not only the city, as an Olympic city, but the province has signed with VANOC.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

In pursuit of representing the financial interests of the citizens of the province, the Auditor General, who is an independent officer of the Legislature, not a politically appointed person, and who has a profound obligation and, indeed, some considerable powers to investigate and report to the Legislature on the financial obligations and risks to the citizens of British Columbia…. He and his predecessors have, of course, examined the Olympic project and those agreements — that series of interlocking agreements I spoke of just moments ago.

What the Auditor General said in his report in 2006…. I'm going to quote, just because I want to be accurate and I don't want there to be any suggestion of error on my part. I'm going to quote from page 3 of that report:

"There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opinion, responsibilities for games costs could be shifted to the province. The province has guaranteed to the IOC" — that's the international organizing committee — "that it will cover any financial shortfall of VANOC. This cost could arise if VANOC is not successful in meeting its revenue or expense targets or does not build in sufficient contingencies to cover items it cannot control, such as inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, the state of the economy, world threats or world events.

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

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

[1505]

The Auditor General goes on — and this is the point of disagreement between the province and remains a point of disagreement between the province, a significant one — to say:

"We acknowledge that legally, the guarantee is provided only to the IOC. In our opinion, however, the obligation of the province to ensure the financial success of the games has the potential to cause the guarantee to be subject to a much broader exposure. In the province's view, the guarantee to the IOC is not as broad as we interpret and should not be relied upon by parties other than the IOC. This report uses the broader interpretation of the guarantee, beyond the legal interpretation."

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

Could the province stand by while the Olympic village, for one reason or another, didn't get completed? Of course not. Would the province stand by if any of these venues weren't completed on time? Of course not. Would the province stand by if the security arrangements weren't worked out between the city, the province
[ Page 13421 ]
and the federal government — the RCMP obligation, perhaps? Would the province stand by and simply let that happen? Of course not.

The obligation of the province goes beyond strict legal liability, sometimes called reputational liability. In other words, our reputation as a province and on behalf of our country globally, as Canada, is engaged in this process.

We all want it to be successful, and the province could not and would not stand by if there were to be a failure or a liability that narrowly and legally fell to the city alone. The Auditor General has quite properly pursued the government and asked repeatedly for broader accountability beyond the narrow accountability that the province has been willing to accept.

These are not, I would hasten to say, technical arguments. They may appear on the surface to be technical arguments, but when the provincial guarantee is engaged, that means, in more colloquial terms, that the province is backstopping financial problems. In the market conditions, the global economic conditions, that we now find ourselves in, the risk of the province's guarantee, the province being the backstop, is obviously greater.

While it may have been more academic a few years ago, it's certainly more of a reality now, and the problems with the Olympic village are just one good example of the kind of havoc that the change in market conditions can bring to these kinds of projects, particularly where they're up against a hard deadline. And that's why the mayor is talking, in the letter tabled by the Government House Leader, about the VANOC deadline.

In nine months the city has an obligation to deliver that Olympic village completed. They need to make sure that they do that, and the province's interest is engaged in making sure that that takes place. Ultimately, in the words of the Auditor General, there's a broader potential liability on behalf of the province.

But the response of the province, when confronted with that report of the Auditor General, has been to say: "No, we don't agree with that. We fall back on the narrow legal liability. We don't accept that. We don't see that as a responsibility. We're not responsible for those risks — reputational, financial, whatever. We don't accept that." In her response to the Auditor General in 2006 on behalf of the government, the Minister of Finance indeed says words to that effect at the back of the report.

[1510]

This is part of a pattern that the government, in its stance towards Olympic costs and Olympic liabilities…. There's a very clear pattern that has emerged and is only now, under pressure, beginning to crumble. That has been to draw a very narrow definition of Olympic costs and resist any even rational, reasonable suggestion that things such as the Olympic secretariat….

I see that my colleague the MLA for Surrey-Newton in estimates debate asked the Minister Responsible for the Olympics whether the Olympic secretariat was an Olympic cost. The minister said no. Imagine that. We were floored. We were astounded. The very agency set up to run the games was not to be included as an Olympic cost.

The minister has persisted in that narrow definition of Olympic cost and therefore avoided taking on the potential of broader financial liability and, indeed, broader liability — reputational risk — as well. That's a pattern that has been consistent.

In fact, in pursuit of just that understanding, the Auditor General has been, since 2006, at the very least — and there have been discussions before that…. As recently as a letter to the Speaker of the assembly here, which was conveyed to him in December of 2008 — there's no specific date on it — he says…. I'm going to quote from the Auditor General.

"The second piece of work relates to costs and risks to the province associated with the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games — the games. My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that has often been quoted. Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risk that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished."

So this piece of legislation merely illustrates one aspect of potential growing risk to the province. What the Auditor General goes on to say is to confirm the longstanding position of the government to minimize the cost to the taxpayers of the Olympic Games. He says: "I have but one recommendation — that government expand its definition of games-related costs to include all items that are reasonably attributable to hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with them."

Has that taken place? No, it hasn't. Indeed, there's been a litany, with regular and repeated statements by various ministers over the last at least four or five years, of purporting to claim, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, that the games will only cost $600 million.

I will quote from the minister responsible for the Olympic/Paralympic Games in 2005: "We are very confident — and VANOC is very confident — they're going to be able to deliver the games without additional revenues from the province beyond the $600 million we have created." That's October 4, 2005, in Hansard.

The same minister, in an interview with a national radio station: "The taxpayers who entrust us with the money at the provincial government level are on the hook for $600 million, and that is the direct cost of us staging the Olympic Games and living up to the obligations we made to the IOC. To this date there is nothing that indicates we will need anything over and above that $600 million." That was on September 13, 2006, in a CBC radio interview.

The same minister: "We have committed, on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, $600 million for the
[ Page 13422 ]
staging of the Olympic Games. I have every reason to expect the games will be delivered without any increased obligation to the taxpayers over and above that $600 million." That's from Hansard, May 9, 2006.

[1515]

The Premier, May 9, 2006: "Mr. Speaker, I don't know how you can say this more clearly so that members of the opposition understand this. Hosting the Olympic Games is $600 million. There is a $600 million budget."

The Minister of Economic Development, responsible for the Olympics, May 4, 2006: "The province is not on the hook for any increased costs…. It's because of the leadership of the Premier that we put in place a $600 million commitment for the province as their cost of staging the 2010 Olympic Games in this province…. We are quite confident that with the obligations that are coming forward, the province will live within its $600 million commitment."

Move on to 2007. The same minister responsible for the Olympics: "Within the $600 million envelope that we have to live up to our obligations for the staging of the games, we have half of the $175 million — the provincial share for security. We also, within that $600 million, have remaining about $76 million of contingency." That was in Hansard on February 14, 2007.

I will return to the issue of the growing potential risk to the province and the lack of realism in these numbers a little bit later in my comments, particularly when it concerns security costs. The Leader of the Opposition referred to the statement of the Premier just days ago, on January 15, to the national media about denying that there were any cost overruns or increased risk to the taxpayers of British Columbia for the cost of the Olympics.

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

Perhaps one of the most obvious and dramatic examples of the refusal of the government and the minister responsible and the Premier to come to terms with the reality of Olympic costs that are escalating — as in necessitating, in this case, this piece of legislation — is in this area. That's one example.

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

Sen. Colin Kenny, a Senator in the Canadian Senate, has pursued this issue with some diligence and has stated — I'm quoting from a news report July 8, 2006: "I compare it to Kananaskis G8, where we spent $140 million to isolate eight people in one resort, and that's not far off the mark for a whole Olympic Games. Salt Lake was $310 million, and we're talking about something still four years away."

He said in the same article: "It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the price tag for Vancouver more than doubled. The way one wants to err on issues like this is on the side of caution, and no one wants a problem to happen on their watch."

Matt Lehman, Salt Lake City's managing director of operations: "It becomes pretty clear as you look through these topics. I would seriously doubt that $175 million can do the job. I would suspect that something around $300 million to $500 million would be required."

[1520]

Rob Rothwell, the head of the counterterrorism unit at the Vancouver police department, back on June 6, 2006: "My expectation is that we will certainly require, as we move closer to 2010, additional funding resources in order to properly address the threat."

The Prime Minister of Canada: "There are yet-to-be-determined costs associated with security." He said that on January 17, 2008.

The Auditor General — the same Auditor General, not a politician — an independent officer of the Legislature charged with scrutinizing financial commitments and obligations of the province and risks to provincial taxpayers: "We recommend that the province update its medical estimates and also update the security costs as soon as the required information is available from the RCMP."

Deputy Speaker: Member, I am listening very carefully to your remarks, and I think that you are straying from the content of the bill. I wonder if you could direct your remarks at the content of the bill that's being discussed.

B. Ralston: I certainly will. I use this as an example. This bill is dealing with an aspect of Olympic costs. The mayor of Vancouver has referred to a hard deadline and commitments of the city to VANOC. The Auditor General has said that the province is responsible in a broad sense to backstop those, and these are other instances of the same problem.

As I understand it, Madam Speaker, debate at second reading is relatively broad, and I'm simply trying to focus and set that bill in context about potential risks and liabilities to the taxpayers of British Columbia, as well as to the taxpayers of Vancouver. I bear in mind your admonition, and I hope that I'm not straying too far. My intention is to illustrate that concern on behalf
[ Page 13423 ]
of the taxpayers of British Columbia and those people that I represent in Surrey-Whalley and speak on behalf of more broadly in the province.

Certainly, the Auditor General has asked and, when it comes to potential cost overruns and potential liability, has expressed extreme concern about security costs. It has become increasingly clear that the $175 million that's in the budget was not based on a real assessment of the likely cost. Indeed, the federal minister responsible has said as recently as a few days ago that they are hoping they can keep it below $1 billion. That's a long way from $175 million.

It's increasingly clear that the credibility of the Finance Minister and Minister Responsible for the Olympics is increasingly compromised when his statements continue to fly in the face of a growing reality that's emerged over a lengthy period of time that the $175 million is far from accurate. Indeed, the template that the Minister of Finance appears to be working from is a template that was set during the saga of costs for the convention centre.

The convention centre costs. As we will recall, somewhat like the Olympic village that is being discussed in this piece of legislation, due to market conditions — and in the Auditor General's report on the convention centre — and a number of factors that were examined in a separate report, the cost escalated. The risk to the provincial taxpayer directly escalated from an estimated cost of $495 million when we last spoke of this at Public Accounts just weeks ago to a cost closing in on $900 million.

[1525]

Every step of the way, somewhat like the question of security costs and somewhat like the denial of the broader legal obligation that the Auditor General spoke of, we saw ministers repeatedly, including the Premier, come out and offer repeated assurances that whatever the latest cost escalation was, was the final one.

The Premier, most notably in 2004, said that $565 million would be the final cost. He said: "Count on it. There are contingencies built into the project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. Kaputski. Done." That was in 2004. As we know now, the cost is closing in on $900 million.

So the concern that is raised by this piece of legislation is the increasing potential risk to the taxpayers' interests. The provincial guarantee more broadly conceived that, in the way in which the Auditor General has described in his report in 2006, the provincial interest will be engaged and that there will be a further obligation on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia that will have to be met in order that the games be successful.

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

The Premier appeared…. Perhaps it was a misstatement. One doesn't know, but he certainly apologized later on. As recently as a couple of days ago he claimed that the Olympic village itself, the very subject of this legislation, wasn't running over the estimated cost, and that's obviously not the case.

It's significant that this bill is before us. It gives us an opportunity and the public an opportunity to scrutinize the obligation and the failure of this government to be candid, to come clean about the real cost of the Olympics and the real risk to taxpayers. We will pursue this, doubtlessly, in other speeches, and we'll pursue this at committee stage. There are some questions about the nature of the obligation that taxpayers in Vancouver will be assuming and the broader risk that taxpayers in the province will be assuming.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

H. Bains: It is my pleasure to be here today and talk about this very, very important document before us — the amendment to the Vancouver Charter to give authority to Vancouver city council to borrow money to pay for the Olympic village. I think we will have that debate, and we will examine why we are in the financial mess that we are in here today.

Not only in Vancouver. We want to take a look…. Vancouver is certainly part of the overall Olympic cost and overall Olympic family. Why is Vancouver in this difficult situation or in this bind that they find themselves in? We need to examine the deal that the city of Vancouver signed as a host city. What are the provisions of that? What were some of the obligations of the city of Vancouver, of the province and of VANOC?

We must examine why we are in such a financial mess around the cost of the 2010 Olympics, which the Vancouver Olympic village is a part of. I think we can describe that in three words: lack of scrutiny. That's why we are here today. That's why the people of Vancouver and the taxpayers of Vancouver find themselves in…. It's not only in this particular venue that this lack of scrutiny applies. It is because this Premier and the minister created a culture of secrecy when it comes to the Olympic cost.

[1530]

First, when VANOC was established, it was established as an entity that is not subject to freedom of information so that no taxpayer will ever know what goes on behind those doors and how those decisions are made with their tax dollars.

VANOC used to send its minutes to the secretariat office, which were then available under FOI because the secretariat office is part of the Ministry of Economic Development. When these sneaky reporters or the opposition tried to grab their hands on those minutes,
[ Page 13424 ]
they said: "Uh-oh, we've got to stop that." So VANOC stopped sending those minutes to the secretariat office so that we cannot get those minutes.

We are here to talk about how this lack of scrutiny got us to this issue we are facing today, the issue of amending the Vancouver Charter.

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: Madam Chair, you mentioned to a previous speaker that he ought to address the issues in and around the bill we are debating today. It seems to me that you have been extraordinarily generous in terms of the latitude that has been permitted to this point.

I would suggest to the current speaker that Standing Order 40 and the relevancy that is demanded by Standing Order 40 is something that he should consider in his remarks. He is straying dramatically from the issue at hand in the bill we are debating.

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

Deputy Speaker: I thank both members for their remarks, and I do remind speakers that the debate is about Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

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

The minister responsible, in his submission of this bill, said clearly that this amendment would allow, through legislation, for the necessary — quote from the minister who put forward this package — "financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project."

That's exactly what my remarks were around. We find ourselves in a position where we have to amend the Vancouver Charter so that they can do what they are required to do under this legislation. We need to examine why we are in this position in the first place so that we don't repeat the same mistake over and over again and we don't make the same mistake in other venue arrangements that we have around the Olympic costs.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for reminding us, but that is exactly the scope of my comments, and that's where I want to be.

I think our taxpayers deserve to know what is going on around the Olympic costs, what is going on around the Vancouver athletes village. Why are we here sitting on Saturday, when the government will not be subject to question period? My constituents have given me dozens of questions around this issue, and they want me to ask — they want the opposition to ask — those questions, but they will not have that opportunity, because that's the way this whole House procedure is set up.

[1535]

We need to provide them with the information that they need and that they deserve, because they are paying the bill at the end of the day and you cannot deny them that right under the democratic system that we have. Despite the fact that the government members will try to stifle that debate, try to again deny them that right and that information right here in this House…. They have done that so successfully out there, hoping that no one will find out what the total cost of the Olympics is.

People are more intelligent than this government gives them credit for. The taxpayers know that the numbers this minister has given them time and time again…. They don't believe those numbers. They know that they are going to pay a lot more than what this minister is saying the cost of the Olympics is to them. This minister says the cost to the taxpayers is $600 million. The Premier just the other day said the cost is $600 million. By the way, part of that cost is to go to the Olympic village in Vancouver that we are talking about.

That's why we want to talk about whether that cost is $600 million or $6.7 billion, which the taxpayers think is the true cost. It is about time this minister and this Premier come clean with the taxpayers, especially at a time when they're worried about their jobs.

Ask the forestry workers in my constituency, on Vancouver Island, in the Interior. They are asking…. They are watching this debate, and they don't want us to give this government a blank cheque.

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance to Bill 47, please.

H. Bains: Of course, Madam Speaker.

I am talking about the Vancouver Olympic village, because people are worried about how much, at the end of the day, it's going to cost them. Is this another blank cheque, those forestry workers think, that we are writing for this minister today or to Vancouver city? They need those answers before we say yea or nay to this bill. They deserve and have the right to know and get those answers.

I want to talk about how much this total bill is going to be. I want to talk about the total bill for the Vancouver athletes village. If you look at the Auditor General's report in 2006, he pegged it at $190 million, because that's the information he received from the government.
[ Page 13425 ]
But today the city of Vancouver taxpayers are given a huge, big Olympic-sized surprise. The bill they are facing could be $875 million for that Olympic village. That's what they are worried about.

They need some assurances from this government. They need answers on what was going on behind those closed doors when those decisions were made. Why was it that the previous city council, who happened to be friends of this government, signed that deal behind closed doors? They need to know whether this is it or if this government is going to come from some other, different side and get its hand into their pocket for more money for something else.

You can't just isolate one Olympic venue from all of the other costs. This government tried, as I said, to create a culture of secrecy so that people will not know — or they hope that they will not know — what the true cost of the Olympics is going to be to them.

Here is another example. They were told $190 million for the Vancouver Olympic village, total cost, but now they're faced with a bill approaching $875 million. Someone said that that's like $1,400 per man, woman and child in Vancouver — unbelievable.

[1540]

These ministers and people on the government side think that we shouldn't talk about the Olympic cost. When people are worried about their pensions, are worried about their jobs, are worried whether they will be able to pay the next payment for their homes, this government continues to give them surprise after surprise when it comes to the Olympic cost.

I want to quote the Auditor General, who tried…. Three different Auditors General tried to warn this government about their obligations and a lack of scrutiny that this government is putting around the Olympic cost.

Instead of working with the Auditor General, who has no political axe to grind with anyone…. He is an independent watchdog on behalf of the taxpayers, monitoring taxpayers' dollars, where the taxpayer dollars are going, whether they're getting bang for their buck, whether the government is using those dollars in a prudent manner, whether they are wasting, whether they can do a better job with those dollars than they're doing.

Instead of working with that office, they've frustrated that office. They've frustrated that office to a point where in his last report, where the Auditor General was supposed to come up with a full report in the fall of 2008, he said in his letter posted on his website…. Basically, if you interpret it this way, he threw up his hands in the air, saying: "If the government isn't going to cooperate, I don't basically have time to fight with them."

I think that's how you interpret that letter. I'm not quoting that letter, but that's how I would interpret it — that the government is continually fighting with that office, continuing to disagree with them.

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

We are today again talking about another Olympic cost escalation, another cost that the Vancouver taxpayers were told is only $190 million. Now the surprise is there that it could be $875 million.

Madam Speaker, it's not that the government didn't know about this agreement. It's not that this government didn't know what was going on in Vancouver. I will refer you to an agreement that was signed by Vancouver, as soon as I find it. This is the agreement that was signed between the Vancouver organizing committee for the 2010 Olympics and Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province of British Columbia.

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

Then there is a breakdown: $30 million for the athletes village, the very village that we're talking about today; $19 million for the Hastings Park skating and $9 million for the Hastings Park venue; $10 million for the Hillcrest venue; $2 million for the capital cost of designing, planning and developing of venues. That's the commitment of the province as far as the dollars were concerned.

But then there was some undertaking by the Vancouver organizing committee. It says that the VOCOG will ensure that the venues are completed in accordance with the venue development strategic plan. That's the responsibility that the Vancouver organizing committee took on behalf of the taxpayers of Vancouver.

[1545]

Then it goes on to page 5, 5.01(b). It says that the responsibility of the Vancouver organizing committee to: "permit the province at any time or times during normal business hours to copy or audit, or both, any or all of the books of account and records, including supporting documents, referred to in section 5.01(a)…." So they had a perfect opportunity and a right to go in there and audit and get that information from Vancouver. The
[ Page 13426 ]
Vancouver organizing committee has the obligation to provide that information.

Then it goes on. The obligation of the Vancouver organizing committee under 7.01(d) is to: "provide the province with a copy of the venue development strategic plan in draft, final and amended forms, as the province may request from time to time." They had a right and an opportunity all the time to get the information that they needed to have from Vancouver on what is going on with the Vancouver Olympic village.

They can't just stand here now. As we have heard in the last few weeks…. "Well, we are just the bystanders. It's not our problem," the Premier will say. "It's a Vancouver problem."

We are in the mess that we are today because of a lack of attention by this minister and a lack of attention by these Liberals. It goes on again. There is supposed to be so much scrutiny. There was so much work that the province could have done as far as due diligence is concerned on behalf of the taxpayers. But because they created a culture of secrecy, despite the fact that they had all the rights in these agreements, they chose not to act on those and kept people in the dark.

Here's another one. The report, 8.01. The Vancouver organizing committee "will prepare and deliver to the province such written reports, in form and content satisfactory and prepared by a person acceptable to the province, as the province may, from time to time, request in connection with this agreement."

What more do you need as far as the scrutiny and the right to scrutiny is concerned? But because they chose not to act, or they knew what was going on, they chose not to tell the taxpayers. In either case, that's a bad deal for the taxpayers — a bad deal — and this government failed in its duty to the taxpayers. It failed to protect the taxpayers.

It goes on. I mean, there are all kinds of responsibilities that the province took on behalf of the taxpayers, and they chose to neglect all of that. That is true to the form of this government — neglect, out of touch. Instead of accountability, they chose arrogance. Instead of transparency, they chose secrecy. That's their choice. They made that choice.

The Auditor General went on to warn them, you know, what goes on all over in the Olympic cost, especially what we are talking about, this amendment here today. All of those agreements and the clauses that I read to you, Madam Speaker, from that agreement pertain to this agreement that the province signed with the city of Vancouver.

Vancouver is now asking us to come here and amend the Vancouver Charter so that they can go out there and borrow money. The Auditor General, as my colleagues have earlier said, said on page 3: "There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opinion, responsibility for games costs could be shifted to the province. The province has guaranteed to the IOC that it will cover any financial shortfall of VANOC."

We all know that the minister has said from time to time that the province has signed that indemnification agreement with IOC on behalf of the city of Vancouver, VANOC and Whistler — that if there's any shortfall left by any of those three, the province is ultimately responsible.

What we are talking about here is Vancouver. We could be ultimately responsible for what's going on in Vancouver. You can't simply say: "Let's narrow down the debate. Let's keep everything under secrecy. Let's make sure the taxpayers don't find out what's going on."

[1550]

It's true to form. Ever since VANOC was established, ever since this government took this file, they created that culture of secrecy. That is the core of the problem we have here today: a lack of scrutiny, a culture of secrecy and trying to find ways to off-load the true cost of the Olympics — hide it from the taxpayers — onto the municipalities, onto the other government or taxpayer-supported entities — institutions such as UBC.

They set it up, like I said. Then they thought: "Maybe if we stick to the $600 million number, we will tell that we are such good money managers, that we delivered those games for $600 million and that everything is on budget."

The Premier said just the other day that the Olympic cost is on budget. Who believes that? No one believes that except that minister. No one believes him. The taxpayers in Surrey don't believe him. The taxpayers in Vancouver don't believe him. Even some of those members are laughing over there, and people are actually laughing at this government for not telling them the truth, for trying to tell them that the total cost is $600 million, when the Auditor General, like I said, who had no axe to grind with anyone, said it was close to $215 billion.

That was in 2006. Since that time he has come out with another report that said there's another $170 million this government doesn't admit. Then he went on to say — this is part of a letter he sent to the hon. Speaker: "Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished."

The Auditor General is wrong. Three of them are wrong. The CEO of Torino, who told this minister that the cost of security is going to be way higher, is wrong. The two high officials from Salt Lake City told this minister that the security costs are going to be much, much higher than $175 million. The minister said they are wrong. Even the president of the IOC in 2003 said that the $175 million is not sufficient. The minister said he's wrong.

Madam Speaker, you know who's wrong? It's that minister and these Liberals and this Premier. It's about
[ Page 13427 ]
time — especially in the time now when taxpayers are worried about their jobs, worried about their future — that this government comes clean with them and tells them what the true cost of the Olympics is.

They are excited about the games. There's no question about that. I am too. But this government is putting a damper on that trust and the confidence that they've given this government by continuing to hide, continuing to not tell the truth about the true cost of the Olympics. People are starting to say: "What did we do by saying yes to the games and giving our confidence to this government in their attempt to run the games?" "What a mistake that was," they are saying.

Any file you look at, whether it is through the municipalities…. There are extra costs off-loaded to them. Or if you go to B.C. Hydro, there's a hand for Olympic costs in people's pockets. Vancouver Olympic village, which we have before us — again: "We need more money." The city of Vancouver is saying: "Look, we can't build this village on time if this condition continues the way it is." So they need the help of this House.

They need the help of this House, but it's all because the culture of secrecy put in and designed by this Premier and this minister, and all of the ministers are supporters of that. I might say that they must go back to their constituencies…. I don't know how they face those constituents. You need to go and look them in the eye. "We're not telling the truth about the true cost of the Olympics." Can you do that? I don't know how you do that.

Whether it's the B.C. Lottery Corp., the Royal Canadian Mint, B.C. Hydro, ICBC, the B.C. Olympic secretariat, all of those costs are going to pay for the Olympics.

[1555]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We need to truly, on behalf of the taxpayers, provide as much scrutiny as we can when we talk about passing Bill 47. This Bill 47 is giving authority to Vancouver city council, on behalf of the city taxpayers, to borrow money so that they can get themselves out of this mess. At least on this side of the House we will make sure that that scrutiny is there. We will make sure the taxpayers in Vancouver get all of those answers that they deserve and have the right to, because they are paying the bill at the end of the day.

I think B.C. taxpayers are worried. Vancouver taxpayers are worried that this is a never-ending saga about Olympic costs. They want to make sure that the games are successful, but they're worried about the way this whole file on Olympic costs is being handled.

Whether it is, in Vancouver, the case of Vancouver Olympic athletes village or it is security or it is all of the other costs that are attached to the Olympics, we are becoming an international disgrace — that we cannot manage this file. This government has exemplified so clearly that they do not know what the total cost is, or if they know that, they don't want to tell the taxpayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

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

As stated earlier, the bill has been carefully drawn to cover the situation in Vancouver brought to the attention of this House by the mayor of Vancouver. As such, it is neither throne debate nor budget debate, permitting the widest possible range of discussion, but it is second reading debate related to a narrowly drawn bill presently before the House. I would ask all hon. members to bear this in mind when commenting on this legislation during second reading debate.
[ Page 13428 ]

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

We had assumed that this would be the same process with regard to the 2008 work that was done. I had an opportunity to read that report, and I quite frankly thought that it was a constructive piece of work. Once again, we still had some concerns with it, and so we wrote our response, which would be provided to the Office of the Auditor General in time for it to be printed and released as one package.
[ Page 13429 ]

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

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

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

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

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

[1610]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've made it quite clear right from the get-go that we accept that we have an obligation for $87.5 million on security costs. We have a security agreement, which is on the website — anybody that wants to read it can go and read it — in terms of the scope of our obligation. The scope of our obligation is that we pick up 50 percent of the security costs for the venues and the athletes, and they have to be incremental costs over and above base cost.
[ Page 13430 ]

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

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

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

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

[1615]

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

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

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

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

I think it's unfortunate when a member of this Legislature puts comments, like he did, in Hansard, because at some point in the future I would hope that those remarks would not be used to somehow undermine the interpretation that we have from the Attorney General's office in terms of the province's financial responsibilities.

It is very clear….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Excuse me, Minister.

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

Continue, Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

[1620]

Again, I think it's important that members of the opposition…. Certainly, I think that if any of them sat through the estimates debate that we had last year on the
[ Page 13431 ]
Olympics or if any of them should go back and re-read it…. I would actually recommend that the critic who was there for all of those estimates debates go back and read the exchanges that took place during the estimates debate, because it's clear from some of his remarks today that he either had forgotten the explanation to some of these aspects or perhaps wasn't listening at the time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1625]

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

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

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

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

Very clearly, in the letter from the city of Vancouver they point out that they require "an amendment to the Vancouver Charter, which will enable us to protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial
[ Page 13432 ]
plan for completing the Olympic village project. The city's commitment to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC for the games has been placed at risk by the cessation of funding flowing from the loan made by Fortress…to Millennium."

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

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

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

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

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

[1630]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

In connection with Bill 47, the predecessor before me, the Minister of Finance, makes reference to dealing with local government: "Here we have a request from a specific local government." Local government has been requesting this government to respect them, to deal with their independence. Local government has been responded to by a whole series of bills restricting their independence. We have Bill 47 in front of us because it happens to be a pet project of the government. The pet project of the government is challenged. Its security is there. That's why we're here. We're here to deal with that.

Other requests that have come forward by local governments have been set aside. They've been ignored. When we talk about relationships with local governments, the government also recently dealt with B.C. Assessment. The government was looking after their interests in their explanation of what they were doing.

In explaining to my constituents what I'm doing here talking about Bill 47…. It has this wide, wide range of contradictions contained in it. But there is one theme that does run through it. When the pet projects are the ones that are threatened and on the line, then we end up being here to deal with it.

There are two aspects, then, that I also wish to come at. There's financial responsibility for local government. Through the Auditor General, it shows that it is open. There are some concerns. There are questions yet to be defined for that. But what we do know is that local government's main source of revenue is its property tax. To have that source of revenue now opened up is there. It raises that question.

I would like to refer here to what the Auditor General has made reference to. The legitimate concerns have been around the costs of the Olympics being assigned, the true costs. All three Auditors General have claimed that the province has not included other Olympic costs to taxpayers in the $600 million figure, and they include municipal costs; medical costs; other capital costs such as the Sea to Sky Highway, the convention centre expansion, B.C. Place. And those lists go on.

The taxpayers of the province have a legitimate right to be concerned about where the funds will be found for dealing with the overall costs of the Olympics. Is this any indication of how the costs will be dealt with — cost overruns? We're not dealing with a situation in which we simply write blank cheques.

The city of Vancouver is living up to their part of the bargain. The question that's here in front of us is: is the government of B.C. living up to its side of the bargain in delivering the Olympics, in delivering those costs across the province of B.C.? The judge is still out on that part.

[1635]

Why have we ended up today dealing with this Bill 47? We've ended up, in my judgment, being here in part because of the lack of openness, the lack of accountability, the lack of ensuring that all the costs, all the items, and all the issues were being recognized and being dealt with.

Now, at times and particularly today, I think I'm quite representative of the average British Columbian in which there is confusion on what we're doing with the Olympic costs. Average British Columbians recognize that eventually they are going to be paying the bill. In
[ Page 13433 ]
fairness, I think they understand when there are quotes like this from the Premier.

The Premier on January 16 is quoted. "No. 1, there are not cost overruns on the Olympic village." While there are "some challenges in terms of one of the opportunities to finance it, there are not cost overruns. It's going to be a great, sustainable neighbourhood in the city of Vancouver." Assuredly, the Premier did call back in and clarify the statement that he made, but the Premier now is clarifying the statement that he made on the item for his pet project.

"Sorry" — that's what the Premier said. "What I was saying was there are no cost overruns for the Olympics. Sorry if that came out the wrong way. I apologize for that, but, you know, the Olympics are on budget, and I think they're doing a very good job. They've contributed, I think, almost $30 million to the Olympic village. I'm not fully cognizant of all the details of what's going on at the Olympic village, but there have been no cost overruns for the Olympics."

So I understand, if I get confused with statements like that that come from the Premier, why the average British Columbians likewise have some confusion when we narrow in on items and try and split hairs. There is no question, as the Minister of Finance has confirmed, what has been made over here on this side of the House — that the province has assured the International Olympic Committee that the province ultimately will pick up the outstanding bills.

Also, we know that there are some huge costs, such as with security, that the estimates now are between $400 million to a billion. We're discussing that and who is going to pay it — how much and where? So therefore, when we get back to dealing with unlimited time lines, unlimited amounts in Bill 47, is this also mirroring what is happening with the total Olympic package? There is a mirroring to it. Therefore, it is important that the linchpin for the Olympics — the Olympic village — is completed.

Unfortunately, we are here on a Saturday to try and ensure that that will take place. There was ample warning that would have allowed for a more reasoned reaction than an urgent meeting being called to deal with this item. But as a member of this Legislature, I accept my responsibility to go back to the people that I cancelled a meeting with on Friday because I have the responsibility to be here.

[1640]

I accept that responsibility to ensure that we have the linchpin, the Olympic village, put into place. At the same time, I have also the responsibility here in this House to raise the issue that if more frankness and openness had been forthcoming by the government over the last several months — never mind years — we would not necessarily have been in this place. Bill 47 may still have been required, but not being called back, with all the limitations that are put around the debate, given by this set of circumstances.

It would have provided the opportunity to have asked other questions: where the other known cost overruns are — B.C. Place, the convention centre, and the list goes on; where they would have been funded; who is funding them; and how they are going to be funded. Those opportunities would have provided themselves, but we're here to deal with this particular bill, Bill 47.

It raises another concern, in my judgment. It may not be just my judgment alone, but I will share with this House that it is my concern. That is whether Bill 47 represents how we get around these costs underneath that area called P3 while government still remains the underwriter of those costs, still remains the guarantor of those costs. The big saleable point about P3s was that the risk was assigned to someone else. Bill 47 may well be showing what the effect is where government retains the ultimate responsibility for the projects. Bill 47 has that contained in it.

We have an example of how a project in Vancouver was passed off to a private developer. The interest rate: 11 percent. Local government, through the MFA: much lower, maybe 4 percent. Huge differences. Bill 47, which I'm speaking to, requires the underwriting — unlimited, with no time — for completing a project. Those include the costs of borrowing money, and Bill 47 authorizes that. An unlimited amount and unsecured time on this piece of property, forever, is left there.

So there are issues contained within the legislation, which I have just been given today. Once more the government ignores the warning calls. Once more the government keeps things under wraps. It's not open. It's negligent on issues, possibly. It might be arrogant, but it's out of touch with what's going on. There's the difficulty. It's what we're dealing with.

[1645]

So Madam Speaker, local government — as usual and always — lives up to what it's dealing with, what it has promised. A new council stepped in, quickly looked at what the situation was, brought the information forward publicly, rapidly. We are here, and we're now dealing with that.

That's good. But in mentioning VANOC, what local government is aware of is that there are responsibilities yet that VANOC may assign to local government — RCMP costs; policing costs; direction to keep those costs as much as possible at the local level, an item of local government concern.

So there are reasons why a local government wishes to play ball with the hand that feeds them, because VANOC has a whole list of unfunded or "unknown how they're going to complete funding" items starting off with the policing — RCMP and local policing costs.

Look at TransLink. Unlimited knowledge of what the demands are going to be made upon TransLink, and
[ Page 13434 ]
we know how that has been restructured so that local government has limited input upon how that moves and how its costing is dealt with.

Two examples I share here with the House on why local government not only in Vancouver but in the whole GVRD area has to be concerned, why the entire province has to be concerned. Two items — policing costs as well as TransLink.

You can see why Vancouver in part wishes to live up to their side. It's why we have the response. It's why we are here today. It's why we're here dealing with Bill 47. Possibly it will be explained to us later on as we move through the debate on whether it was Vancouver that asked for it to be open-ended, with no amounts on it. When we get into committee stage, we may get an explanation to those items.

But our response just starts today. We have just been given this item. This is what second reading is about. It is to show where concerns are connected around the bill. I hope I've been able to improve upon staying focused on Bill 47 as compared to my predecessor, my colleague from the other side, the Minister of Finance. He tended to want to talk about things like Olympic security costs and where they were being funded from…

An Hon. Member: Athlete transportation.

C. Wyse: …athlete transportation, B.C. Place — a whole variety of items. He listed so many of them that I can't remember them, Madam Speaker, and I apologize for that. But the Minister of Finance is quite accurate. The list of these unfunded liabilities that VANOC is looking for someone on behalf of the government to ensure that those costs are taken care of is found….

[1650]

When I reflect back, a former government initiated a bid for the Olympics, but a former government making a bid for the Olympics, I am sure, had no idea that we would end up in a Bill 47, that we would end up in this set of circumstances. We've ended up here in this set of circumstances because for going on to eight years now, we have been refused that whole access, that openness that should be around how the funds are spent.

We did see the relationship of what happened with Vancouver, where the new government came in, and they moved expeditiously in very difficult sets of circumstances to move and live up to their obligations. They made decisions over there in Vancouver that possibly should be mirrored here. There were senior appointees with the responsibility to ensure that the Premier and the cabinet were kept informed of what was happening. Either that didn't happen…. But it should have happened.

That reflects upon the balance of why Bill 47 may have been set for today — so that the debate and discussion get narrowed down. The ability to be here and to discuss things with a full range of all of the tools that are available to government gets narrowed.

I respect the decision that was made by our Speaker. He spent time reasoning and moving on it.

The government has got a very, very long way to go to explain to me yet why Bill 47 in the form that it's in, without some amendments, should be accepted. So that's important. It really is truly important, because this will be the first time that local government has asked over here in Victoria for some type of a response on an item considered important to them that the government has moved on it.

I'll set aside the fact that it's connected with the Premier's project. I will make no reference to the fact that they also wanted the Election Act changed, and that came forward unanimously from the council of Vancouver, but that was ignored, and they had that for long periods of time. The list goes on and on and on.

Madam Speaker, it is with that that I wish to thank you for the opportunity. I wish to acknowledge the latitude that you gave me to explain to my constituents back up in rural B.C. that are concerned about the items such as forestry job layoffs, agriculture-related issues, transportation — a whole variety of different items. They were hoping to have that opportunity to speak with me, but Bill 47 and my other duties required me to be down here in order to do other parts of responsibility.

I appreciate the opportunity that you've provided for me to explain to people back in rural British Columbia that may have even more difficulty in connecting to the discussion that is happening here.

With that, Madam Speaker, I take my seat and thank you.

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, for your information, I am the designated speaker on this bill. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss a number of areas in Bill 47 and to talk through those areas.

[1655]

Also, I very much appreciated the comments of the Minister of Finance, the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. Since we are in debate, I know and I appreciate the latitude that the Chair provided the minister as he dealt with a wide array of issues related to the Olympics. Clearly, the minister has quite a sensitivity about the fact that he and half a dozen people over on his side believe that $600 million is the provincial commitment, while the rest of British Columbia knows it's significantly greater.

I look forward to being afforded, as this is a debate, the same latitude to respond to a number of the comments that the minister made while he was in fact talking about these things, and of course, I'll take that opportunity. But the most important part of this will be to talk about Bill 47 and to talk about this bill as an
[ Page 13435 ]
important piece of legislation — important for the city of Vancouver, certainly.

Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, is a piece of legislation that was required for us to be here on a Saturday because of what the government has said and the request from the city of Vancouver and the mayor of Vancouver around an urgency.

Clearly, what we do know from what we've heard from the city of Vancouver, from the city manager, a very accomplished civil servant who I believe used to work here but went on to find a better job where she'd feel more respected, I'm sure…. She provided a good briefing for us, generally — us being the people of Vancouver — when she spoke to council last week talking about the implications of the deal related to the Millennium project, related to the Olympic village and why we're in a desperate situation there, or the city of Vancouver is in a serious situation.

Hon. Speaker, as you would know, the city of Vancouver now, because of a completion agreement that was signed by the previous council in camera, by the NPA council of the day, more commonly known around the city of Vancouver as the B.C. Liberal farm team, an agreement that was signed and voted on, and I would note voted on and supported by the NPA members, which essentially put the people of Vancouver on the hook for the $875 million…. That's what that did.

So what we have here is a situation….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: The braying and the caterwauling from the other side have started early. We have a long way to go for two hours. What I would note is: who voted for the motion? I think it was: who voted for the motion?

I do believe, and I certainly haven't heard anything from NPA members to counter this…. What I heard is that the NPA members, the Liberal farm team, voted for a terrible deal, demonstrating their inept management skills, as the other members are inept on the other side. They demonstrated those management skills, whereas it was the COPE and Vision people who voted against that agreement to protect the interests of the people of Vancouver.

What we have here is an agreement that was supported there that put Vancouver on the hook for a significant debt. The completion agreement essentially says Vancouver is on the hook for $875 million. Now, it won't be afforded to cost all that. There clearly are pieces of that that will come back, and hopefully, Vancouver will get out without too big a debt.

Now, that's $875 million. Maybe somebody should have told the Premier this before he went on Newsworld, but it used to be 750. It's now 875. Almost a 20 percent overrun — almost — but the Premier seemed to have missed that before he went on television and demonstrated for everybody across the country on Newsworld that he has no grasp of this file and doesn't understand the costing and funding of the Olympics. That's the one thing the Premier demonstrated for Canadians. He couldn't see fit to simply do it in British Columbia, where only British Columbians would know that. He had to do it for the whole country.

[1700]

So what does this do? We have a situation here where the Olympic village…. The Olympic village clearly is a major, major residential development being developed by the Millennium group, funded by Fortress, which is a New York hedge fund, initially a New York Wall Street hedge fund. This is a project that was to put 850 market units on the table, and 730 of those would largely be what could be considered luxury condos. Those condos are selling.

I would note that the first couple 250 of those, at least where there have been presales…. We have no assurance that those presales will hold up, but the presales have been upwards of as much as, I think, $3.5 million for some of those units. Then there are 120 market rental properties that are also there and 250 units of social housing.

So what we have is a situation where this project, almost going to a billion dollars, almost sort of bordering right there, and who knows where it will be by the end of the day…. I would note that this is a very expensive project. It's interesting to note, and I know the Minister of Finance talked about what a wonderful neighbourhood this would be. It's going to be a good neighbourhood, I'm sure.

I know that prior to coming to this place, I sat on and chaired the Vancouver City Planning Commission for a number of years for the city, and we looked at those lands considerably and looked at ways to develop those lands. I'm sure that this project will be a beautiful development.

But it's interesting, when we talk about that development, that even very recently in the commentary around this…. An NPA candidate in this most recent municipal election, and a very well-respected developer in Vancouver who developed UniverCity, a Michael Geller — very smart guy, very well respected — has looked at city development for a long time. He made the comment that the $800 a square foot — that's the average there on that development —was, he thought, exorbitant and raised serious questions about that, how that all occurred and how we got into that situation.

But, you know, we have here…. Maybe it's kind of like a situation not dissimilar to the convention centre, of course, where it wasn't going to be a dime over $560 million or whatever it was, and we're now pushing a whole lot closer to $900 million. But that's okay. That's okay.

What we know is that we have a situation here where this development is in the situation it is, and the city is in the situation it is, because of the role that this village
[ Page 13436 ]
plays in the Olympic Games. If it wasn't for that aspect, we wouldn't be sitting here today. We wouldn't be here today doing this if that wasn't the case.

Because of that, we really do need to look at the lessons we learn from this. We need to put some scrutiny to this piece of legislation, and we need to put some scrutiny to the issue of how we proceed over the next period of time heading to 2010 and to the Olympics. I do look forward to talking a little bit about how that scrutiny works. We clearly have an example of how it hasn't worked very well in the Olympic village, leading us to Bill 47.

What we know is that the city is now in a situation where the new city council has been put in a place where, now that they've been able to look at the books, where they've been able to get KPMG to look at the books for them, they've found themselves in a place where a previous council committed them to a project where they're paying Fortress 11 percent on their money. And 11 percent is a huge interest rate for a government to be paying.

As my colleague the critic for community development and municipal affairs mentioned earlier, that money probably could have been borrowed much more cheaply through the MFA or through other sources.

[1705]

What this piece of legislation will do, and this is a good thing, is allow the city to look at how it goes out, how it is able to probably pay a significant penalty but be able to get out of this agreement, hopefully, with Fortress and put itself in a place where it can complete this project and, hopefully — and I think we all hope — be able at some point, depending on how the markets play out, to dispose of those units in a way that allows the city to at least recoup most of the money. We'll just have to see how the market plays over the next couple of years to see whether that can, in fact, be done.

But at this point, they're at a place where they need to get out of this deal. This is an interesting deal, and we'll talk more about this in a little while. It's an interesting deal because it does raise questions about how the accountability is structured around these Olympic initiatives and the Olympic venues and such.

It raises those questions because what we know around this is that the province, as the Minister Responsible for the Olympics said, in fact, at least with the IOC, has made guarantees and has indemnified Vancouver and Whistler to ensure that the IOC won't face additional costs and, quite frankly, whatever the legalities, to ensure that these projects get delivered.

As we all know, while you may make the case one way or the other about this particular village and this residential development, the bottom line is that the provincial government has to deliver an athletes village one way or the other. If they don't deliver the athletes village here, they would have to deliver it somewhere else.

So it's a pretty safe bet that when all of the rhetoric is aside, the provincial government, in fact, is on the hook for this, and I'm sure they're very hopeful. I'm sure the provincial government's very hopeful that Mayor Robertson and his council and his new city manager will be able to negotiate an agreement and a deal that allows the city, as they've said they will, to accept responsibility.

But we know that at the end of the day, the province will be on the hook for this, and that's the way it is.

Hon. K. Falcon: Nonsense. Nonsense.

S. Simpson: I hear the Minister of Transportation over there calling: "Nonsense. Nonsense." I would think that the Minister of Transportation would be out, busy beating the phones trying to find somebody else to build his bridge since he's quickly losing his bank. He'd have other things to do and try to find a funder.

I do seem to remember that this is the minister who said it will be started before the election. Well, you better get your shovel and your boots on, Minister, because you've got a long way to go.

Hon. K. Falcon: Do you support it?

S. Simpson: The minister over there is asking if I support it, and I would be happy to discuss that, but that would be wavering away from Bill 47, and I certainly wouldn't want to do that.

So what is the relationship that we're looking at? I'll just reference this a little bit. We know…. This is what raises significant questions for those of us on this side of the House. It's what raises significant questions for British Columbians who are asking about this situation in Vancouver, asking about the implications of that for a number of Olympic initiatives and venues and being very concerned about the cost. Part of the reason that they're concerned about the cost is because the Premier and the minister responsible have been unable to get over the fairy tale of $600 million and tell British Columbians what the Olympics will really cost.

I suspect that if they had chosen to do that — if they actually came out and talked about the real costs for British Columbians, for taxpayers, of putting this event on — people would feel much better about it. People would have more confidence in it, and the discussion, hopefully…. The discussion might be today about the excitement of putting the Olympics on rather than the anxiety of paying for something when they don't know what the cost is.

Either it's being all settled in a cabinet room behind closed doors, or God forbid, the Premier and the minister actually have no clue and are operating this the way they operated the convention centre, and we're going to spiral right out of control.
[ Page 13437 ]

How does this happen? What we know is that the structures that we see in terms of connections of government and connections to this village…. What we know is that the VANOC board…. B.C. has three representatives on the board, including Ken Dobell who, until recently, had been a key adviser of the Premier, along with a couple of other officials. We also know that Mr. Dobell chaired the finance committee of the board and that the previous city of Vancouver manager, Judy Rogers, also sat on that finance committee.

[1710]

So we would expect that somewhere here there might have been some discussion at some point about the challenges that were going on for the city of Vancouver that led them in 2007 to be signing a completion agreement because Fortress was saying: "The project is in overruns. We're going to stop the cheques, and we don't want to pay for this any more."

Hon. Speaker, you would have thought that maybe, just maybe, the key adviser to the Premier and the city manager, who are sitting on the finance committee together for VANOC, might have had a discussion about that. They might have had a discussion, and maybe the principal adviser to one of the key advisers to the Premier might have come back and said something to people in the Premier's office. Maybe he would have said something to Jessica McDonald. Maybe he would have said something to the Premier directly in '07. Maybe he would have done that.

He either didn't do that — and we'll get to this in committee stage — or else the question is about: what did this government know, and when did they know it? This becomes a very big issue because this government and this Premier have claimed to have known nothing about this until the news broke this fall. That's the claim. They know nothing about it until the news broke this fall. Well, that's as unbelievable a statement as the $600 million bill for the Olympics. It's as unbelievable a statement.

We also know here that the finance committee that I was speaking about earlier also has, and I would expect the minister might know…. What we know is that the president and CEO of the Olympic secretariat, Ms. Antoniak, sat on the finance committee. In fact, I believe she co-chairs the VANOC finance committee with Mr. Dobell.

Presumably, as the president and CEO of the secretariat, she might periodically have a conversation with the minister responsible, and she might have mentioned to him that there were challenges related to the Olympic village, related to the athletes village. She might have mentioned to that to him. We would expect her to do that.

I know Ms. Antoniak. She's very conscientious, and I wouldn't believe for a minute that she wouldn't understand her responsibility and tell the minister about this. But it appears, if we're to believe what the Premier has been saying, that the minister and the Premier were oblivious to all this until Global TV told them about it.

It's hard to believe those connections weren't made. What that raises are questions about how the city and the province decided to deal with these things.

We know that as early as April of 2007 Partnerships B.C. in their report cited the athletes village as one of five venues that posed a challenge for VANOC out of the 15 venues that they reviewed. The report pointed out that the village was behind schedule and that there were questions about whether it would be ready for the games. It was considered to be tight. It also noted: "The scheduled delays do not currently impact reaching completion in time for the 2010 games." But it clearly was a degree of risk. This was Partnerships B.C., in fact, that wrote that in a report when they did an assessment of the facilities.

So we know that the situation was such that any reasonable person — I stress the point "reasonable" because I understand that the government side doesn't buy this, but I stress the point "reasonable" — would believe that Mr. Dobell or Ms. Antoniak would have been aware of this situation.

They would have been aware of the circumstances prior to this completion agreement being signed by the city of Vancouver. They would have been aware that there were challenges. There would have been some degree of discussion with the city because we know the city had responsibilities related to this and they have obligations, obligations that they will hopefully be able to fulfil.

[1715]

But the question becomes: when they chose to sign a completion agreement that essentially took full responsibility for the financial end of the completion, did they have a discussion with the minister or with a deputy or with other officials of the government? Was there some discussion there as to who would ultimately take responsibility for this? Was there an okay that, yes, we're going to sign on for what could, in the most extreme of situations, be almost a $900 million commitment for the city?

Did they have somebody in the provincial government at the minister level or at the senior official level telling them: "That's okay. You can sign that completion agreement. Everything should be fine, and if it's not fine, then we will look at what we do to help sort this out for you"?

We don't know that. That comes back to what has been a large part of this discussion today. That comes back to the issue of transparency. It comes back to the issue of fair scrutiny. It comes back to the issue of openness. It comes back to the issue of the government deciding to tell British Columbians what's going on with their Olympics and their money.

At some point the Premier has to understand that these Olympics don't belong to him. They don't belong to the B.C. Liberal Party. They belong to all British
[ Page 13438 ]
Columbians; they belong to all Canadians. It's British Columbians and Canadians who will pay for them. It's British Columbians and Canadians whose reputation is on the line for these Olympics, and they have a right to know what it costs. They have a right to know what's going on, and they have a right to expect competence out of this Premier and this minister, and today they're not getting it on this file.

We have a situation…. And this is the remarkable thing about this bill. The bill is the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, and it's a very short bill. For people who are at home, it's a little less than a page and a half — actually just about a page or so. This is all about the Olympics. This piece of legislation is all about the Olympics, but the interesting thing about it is that the Olympics aren't mentioned in here at all. There is no mention of the Olympics in this bill at all.

We all know it's about the Olympics. British Columbians all know it's about the Olympics. Maybe an appropriate amendment down the road might be to put the Olympics in the bill. You never know. We might have to talk about that when the time comes. But what we do know is that, like many other projects, this is all about the Olympics.

So that raises the question about what lessons we've learned. It raises the question about what scrutiny we have seen. It raises the question about how this fits into that larger Olympic scenario, because this is an integrated issue. There is no question about that. There is no question about that at all.

What we know is that there is a whole array of facilities related to the Olympics. I believe that Partnerships B.C. has 15 venues that they identified as being part of this. So we do know that there are significant venues, and we know there are significant costs related to those venues. There's no doubt about that either.

We also know that a number of these are venues and facilities that the government desperately wants British Columbians to believe aren't part of the Olympics. In the same way, I'm sure that they would tell us that the Olympics are a very small piece of the Olympic village — that the athletes village is a very small piece of that, so maybe that shouldn't be included either. Who knows?

But what we do know is there is somewhere, when we look at costs here…. And this relates back to comments that were made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister Responsible for Olympics. He raised a number of issues, and he challenged the member for Surrey-Whalley about a number of his comments. I'll be happy to refer back to those in due course because I'm sure that the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for the Olympics would not want to leave British Columbians with any misunderstanding about what the member for Surrey-Whalley did or didn't say.

But what we know at this point is that we have this series of venues in that, and what we know also about this at this point is that there is a significant debate in this province about where the responsibility for those lies. We've heard a lot about the Auditor General today, and we'll hear a little bit more.

[1720]

But at this point, the Premier has said that the government's costs…. He would probably argue they are $600 million and maybe $400 million, whatever the number is — $400 million, $500 million of costs for security that have yet to be resolved.... That number is somewhere in there. What we know….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: I'm responding. The Minister of Community Development wants to know what's relevant. Well, what's relevant here are significant issues that British Columbians have questions about that this government refuses to deal with and refuses to answer. They refuse to deal with, they refuse to answer. They hide behind the rules. That's what they do, because they're not a particularly competent government, and they're a government that hides. They can run and they can hide till May 12, but the running and hiding will end on May 12.

I look forward….

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Believe me, I have…. A much greater percentage of my comments will relate to what the minister would say has relevance than we heard from the keynote speaker, apparently, on that side — the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for the Olympics — who may have passed by Bill 47 somewhere in his comments.

But I appreciate that this is an important debate, and I support the comments…. I support the right of the Minister of Finance and Minister for the Olympics making those comments, because that's the debate that British Columbians want in this House. They want the government to stand up and defend its position, and we will stand up and tell British Columbians why it's wrong.

So let me get back to my comments here. What we have is…. We have about a billion dollars, maybe a little less, that the government has committed and said: "Yes, that's ours." But what we know is that there's close to $4 billion of other costs and potential costs that the Auditor General, among others, has said legitimately belong in the Olympic debate — between them and Partnerships B.C. So the problem with this….

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise to raise the issue of relevancy to this. I fail to see…. The member has just quoted and is speaking about $4 billion. Bill 47 is one page, and I'm quite confident he's possibly read it by now, but the
[ Page 13439 ]
relevancy to Bill 47 on what he's speaking about is not there. I encourage him to get back to the fact.

S. Simpson: I would point out to the minister that this is the Legislative chamber. This is called a legislative debate. The Minister of Finance stood up, has made assertions…. The embarrassing part is the government over there that won't tell the truth. That's what's embarrassing.

Point of Order

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I rise to request the member withdraw his last comments — unequivocally.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you will withdraw.

S. Simpson: I withdraw, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Unequivocally.

S. Simpson: Unequivocally.

Debate Continued

S. Simpson: So what we have is…. We have a situation where the government has basically said that they have somewhere in the range of about a billion dollars in commitments, and there's about $4 billion in other areas where they're not claiming commitment. So the question here is: how do we get at those numbers?

It relates to the situation we have in Bill 47, because in Bill 47…. What we've done in Bill 47, basically, though the minister wouldn't want to say it, is…. We have said it's a blank cheque to the city of Vancouver. I'm very confident that the city of Vancouver will act responsibly and do their best to deal with the financial situation that they've found themselves in, in relation to the development. But it's a situation, at least there….

[1725]

The big difference here — between this situation with Bill 47 and the situation that we have as it relates to the $4 billion of Olympic-related costs that the government won't take responsibility for — is that at least the city of Vancouver and the mayor have come out. They've put those numbers on the table. They've told people what the numbers are. They've told people how they'll deal with them. They've let people know what the situation is, which is totally the opposite to what this government is doing in trying to hide the $4 billion of responsibility for Olympic costs that we see here.

So hon. Speaker, we have a situation where we need to figure out how to deal with these things. As the Minister of Finance — and I would note, again, that we had a situation…. The Minister of Finance made a number of claims, and I would note…. I'm beside myself to know why the Minister of Community Development didn't leap to his feet to call relevance on the Minister of Finance, but I guess that he wasn't paying that much attention. Maybe that's why.

What we have here is a situation where we have a number of venues that the government won't take responsibility for. We have a number of facilities that the government will not take responsibility for. Much as, at least, the city of Vancouver seems to be prepared to take responsibility for this facility, for the village, as they should, we do know that we have facilities that the Auditor General…. The Auditor General has told us that ultimately the government may well be responsible for what happens in the city.

But we know, of course, that the Auditor General also referenced the secretariat, cultural legacies, the Callaghan Valley roads, the B.C.-Canada house in Torino, the B.C.-Canada pavilion in Beijing, the Squamish Lil'wat cultural centre, the Paralympic centre in Kimberley, the Own the Podium 2010 contributions, the social legacies in Vancouver, the Canada line stops at athletes village, the Vancouver Convention Centre. And Partnerships B.C. identified the Canada line and the Sea to Sky Highway upgrade as well.

So they identified those. That adds up to just about…. You add in the renovations — not the new roof but the renovations to B.C. Place — and you're at about $3.97 billion. Then you throw in what the Crowns are going to pay, and you get to about $4 billion even. So what you have here…. You have here a situation where the government is not addressing these issues.

They're not addressing these issues, and instead, they're trying to offload responsibility. And of course, the city, because the city has accepted responsibility for the athletes village, and that's their job, they're prepared to have us go through this because obviously they're not having to accept responsibility here.

How credible is this? How credible is this situation that we have? Well, what we know is that we have the Auditor General, who has made a number of comments…. I would note and I just would reference this comment because I do believe that the Minister of Finance in his comments referred to the member for Surrey-Whalley and suggested the member for Surrey-Whalley was making comments that weren't accurate.

What the member for Surrey-Whalley…. I just want to correct this for the record. The member for Surrey-Whalley wasn't referencing his own comments. He was referencing the comments of the Auditor General in a September 2006 report on the games. Just so that the record is clear, what the Auditor General said was:

"We acknowledge that, legally, the guarantee is provided only to the IOC. In our opinion, however, the obligation of the province to ensure the financial success of the games has the potential to cause the guarantee to be subject to a much broader exposure. In the province's view, the guarantee to the IOC is not as broad as we interpret" — being the Auditor General — "and should not
[ Page 13440 ]
be relied upon by parties other than the IOC. This report uses the broader interpretation of the guarantee, beyond the legal interpretation."

Because the Auditor General…. And as somebody referenced or commented earlier, who do we trust here? Well, we trust the Auditor General. The Auditor General said we need to go with the broader interpretation.

[1730]

Now, when we talk about this, though, and we talk about Auditors General and what they do or don't say, the interesting thing is that it's not like we're dealing with a single Auditor General here. We have had three Auditors General through this process. We've had three of them who have dealt with this issue in some fashion.

What we know is that in 2003 the Auditor General at the time, Mr. Strelioff, suggested that maybe it was about a $3 billion venture. But the more important thing he suggested at that time is…. He said: why not provide the resources and the responsibility to his office to be able to be the Auditor General for the Olympics, to provide the oversight?

If that had happened, if he had had that responsibility, which the committee decided to turn down when he made that request, maybe we would be in a different situation on Bill 47 today. Maybe we would be in a different place in relation to this, in relation to the athletes village, in relation to the situation that we're in.

But the government chose not to do that. The government chose not to have independent oversight on the Olympics. It's unfortunate, but that was the decision.

Now, the other thing, of course, is that that was not the only Auditor General to take us to this place. In September of 2006 the then acting Auditor General, Mr. van Iersel, released a review of estimates related to the province's commitments. He put the costs at around $2½ billion at that time — the provincial cost. He listed a whole array of items that should be included that, in fact, the government has chosen not to include, as it claims $600 million and nothing more.

We now have, in December '08, the current Auditor General, Mr. Doyle. What Mr. Doyle has said in a letter to the Speaker…. I'd just like to quote the Auditor General because Auditors General are always good people to quote:

"My office's two previous reports issued in 2003 and 2006 conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that has often been quoted. Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished.

"My original intention was to provide an update on the recommendations contained in my office's previous reports. However, fundamental differences of opinion between government and my office remain unresolved. While the details of specific issues may have shifted to some extent since the office's last report — cost estimates remain, to a great extent, a moving target — the underlying fundamental differences of opinion between government and my office have not.

"Specifically, I share my predecessors' view that the full cost of staging the games should include a number of items that are not included in the official budget. In addition, I share my predecessors' concern that the risks associated with some costs and revenues have not been adequately disclosed. Should these risks come to pass, the cost of staging the games could escalate considerably."

Deputy Speaker: Member, you must relate your comments to the bill.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to do that. These comments by the Auditor General relate very much to Bill 47, because what we've seen in Bill 47 are the costs increasing from $750 million to $875 million — almost a 20 percent increase in the costs that we're facing around the Olympic village.

The situation here is exactly the same. It's exactly the same. We've seen this. This is not an isolated incident with Bill 47. It's not an isolated incident with the Olympic village. We have seen the pattern. Take a look at the convention centre — over $400 million cost overrun. That's what we're seeing. These are on facilities.

Much like the situation with the convention centre and the village, they have a lot in common. What's in common is that we have the need for the athletes village for the Olympics, so the pressure is on to get it built. The due diligence, the scrutiny, is not necessarily done. Costs start to go out of control.

[1735]

We have a situation now much like what happened there, when the pressure is on to build the convention centre for the Olympics. The pressure is on. The cost pressures continue. There's no design. There's a board that lacks expertise. Then all of a sudden we have a situation where those costs have spiralled right out of control. It raises issues.

This Bill 47 deals with the matter around the athletes village and around the Olympic village, the one that probably is the first one where we've seen a situation where it's really created a crisis — a crisis to the extent that if we're to listen to the House Leader on the government side and this bill and the ruling of the Chair, which is a fine ruling, then this is an urgent matter.

It's about urgency, and it's about urgency because of the circumstances and the situation — that the lack of due diligence and scrutiny by the government, the lack of putting in place the kinds of structures and the kinds of accountability that would deal with those matters, created a situation where we have the Vancouver Convention Centre spiralling out of control and we have the requirements for things like Bill 47.

What we have is a situation where we have to look at: how did those things happen? So let's look at some of those linkages, at what happened in the case of the athletes village.

What we know, as I had said before, is that we have a situation where the government had a number of people
[ Page 13441 ]
in place. Those people were in place, and should have been in a position to be able to, in fact, provide some oversight in relation to the athletes village.

They should have been in a place where they were able to talk, to raise the flags much earlier on some of these issues. They should have been in a place where there could have been some discussion about these requirements for a completion guarantee and what the implications of that were.

To the best of our knowledge, that discussion never occurred. There may have been structures in place, but for whatever reason…. And this side of the House has to believe that Mr. Dobell and Ms. Antoniak apprised their political bosses, the Premier and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics that there was trouble — that there was trouble with this facility, that there was trouble with the athletes village.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: I'm talking about Bill 47 there, Minister. This is what we have. We have a situation where this has spiralled out of control in the athletes village and the Olympic village, where we've created this situation. But what we know is that the government…. The structures related to VANOC, the structures related to the Olympics, tell us that in fact there should have been a level of oversight here.

That oversight should have come through reporting back to the VANOC board, where both representatives…. Senior officials for the government sit on that board, and senior officials for the city are sitting on that board. Why wasn't there a discussion there? Why weren't there flags raised ahead of time? Why wasn't there some dealing with this matter?

We have this government over here that tells us earlier today that it's $87,000 a day of interest. That's what the city is paying because of this 11 percent interest rate — $87,000 a day.

The question that I have is: how come people in that government, the members of that government, their officials…? How come they weren't talking about the $87,000 a day in 2007? How come they weren't talking about how to deal with these matters much prior to this?

The ultimate responsibility — and we know this, and we've heard it continually…. While the government, I know, likes to abandon responsibility as quickly as it can, the reality is that the ultimate responsibility for making the Olympics successful will rest with the provincial government. The provincial government has that responsibility.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: I know that the Minister of Transportation may not want to take that responsibility, but the government has that responsibility.

The other thing we know about this is that we know that in April 2007…. When it talks about reporting mechanisms here…. Partnerships B.C., when they reported on the capital planning and budget for 2010 Olympic venues, made a reference to the village advisory committee. That's a committee that was set up in 2006 with VANOC and the city of Vancouver, and it was stipulated in the bid agreement that it be there.

[1740]

According to the report that Partnerships B.C. wrote, the committee met monthly to make recommendations and decisions on project representatives. The city project manager provided written reports to the committee each month, and VANOC's project manager meets with the city's project manager weekly. So clearly, VANOC is there. Clearly, the city of Vancouver…. This is the village advisory committee, the committee that's supposed to deal with this village. They're meeting on a weekly basis.

Are we to believe that nowhere in here a discussion comes back that the province, who ultimately has responsibility for the Olympics, ultimately has responsibility for dealing with this matter, that nobody here heard it, nobody here got involved in those discussions?

That's why, hon. Speaker, when we get to committee stage on this there are going to be a number of questions that need to be answered, and those are going to be questions around what discussions did in fact occur.

What discussions did occur between provincial representatives and city officials and VANOC about what was happening with the village, what was happening with Millennium and their capacity to deal with this, what was happening with Fortress, the New York hedge fund that was underwriting this and providing the funding for this? What was the response of the government, or did the government...? Were they oblivious to the fact that Fortress in 2007 pulled back and said, "We're not going to write the cheques anymore," and all of a sudden the city has to start writing cheques?

We all know that during the municipal election there was all of the discussion around the $100 million that was voted for in secret, and that's fine. Those things happen. But what we now know and what we find out after the fact, of course, is that $100 million goes back to the city having to send chits off to Millennium to pay the bills in regular payments so that in fact the project can continue to be built. That's what we know was really happening.

Now, it's unbelievable that the provincial government, who ultimately has responsibility for the Olympics, who ultimately should be accountable to the taxpayers of British Columbia for the expenditures that are made on the Olympics, shouldn't have at some point had something to say about this. If they did have something to say about it, then it would be good to know what that was.

It would be good to know exactly what advice, if any, was given by provincial officials to the city of Vancouver,
[ Page 13442 ]
to then Mayor Sullivan, to the then NPA council, that they felt confident enough to sign a completion agreement at 11 percent interest rates and to move ahead. They did this over what appears — and more information, I'm sure, will come out on this — to have been a situation where the chief financial officer for the city of Vancouver, Ms. Lo, raised serious concerns about this to the point where she essentially was dismissed because she disagreed with the city manager. She raised red flags on this — said the deal was a suspect deal, said there should be real question about going ahead.

Well, at the point when the chief financial officer of the city of Vancouver is raising these issues about whether this deal should go ahead, about whether a completion agreement should be signed, about whether these payments should be made, to the point where there's such a conflict that she ends up getting fired, essentially — forced out — the question then becomes: doesn't the provincial government have some concern that this is going on? Doesn't the provincial government at some point…?

Isn't there anybody on that side or any of the people who work for them who at some point didn't say: "Wait a minute. This thing's heading sideways in Vancouver, and let's figure out what's going on. Let's get a handle on this and make whatever corrections, provide assistance, provide support, provide advice to the city of Vancouver and make the corrections that need to be made to protect the interests of Vancouver taxpayers"?

But that doesn't happen. The province is silent, or the province advises the city: "Go ahead and do what you're doing. Sign this agreement. Commit yourself to all this." If that occurred, well, who knows what else the province said that they would do for the city if they got into a bind?

[1745]

But, you know, it's kind of a little bit like…. My guess on this is it may be that in 2007 when this was an issue, as we were heading up to these meetings where the decisions on the completion agreement were had, that it's much like the economy of the province. I suspect that the Premier and the Finance Minister responsible for the Olympics had been blind.

They said, "Commodity prices are high. We're spending like drunken sailors, but it's okay. Everything's good to go," never thinking that some degree of responsibility and due diligence would be a good thing to have. They chose not to do that, as they haven't necessarily done on the economy. We'll see as that debate unfolds.

But getting back to the issue of the bill and of this particular situation, we had these meetings going on. Because what we know is that then — and I understand he has now resigned — Mr. Andrews, who was the project manager for the city on this particular project, was meeting with Mr. Cutler, who was the project manager for VANOC, on a weekly basis since 2006. They met regarding the status of the village. So if they were doing that…. What the government is telling us is that nobody at VANOC actually talks to the province of British Columbia about these issues, that nobody talks to them about what's going on.

In addition to this committee…. This wasn't the only place. There was this villages committee, but in addition to this special committee that had been put in place, VANOC also had an accommodations and villages group, and that was responsible for oversight of the Vancouver village and the Whistler village. One of the recommendations of this report for the Vancouver village was for the city of Vancouver to provide VANOC with a project execution plan that included implementation deals by the summer of 2007, which was around the time that the completion guarantee was made by Vancouver to the Millennium developers.

Around the time that they signed that completion agreement, they were also then under requirements from VANOC to put in the project execution plan, and that plan was to lay this out as to how this was all going to work. Now, part of the reality, of course, is that up to this time no plan has been completed for either the Vancouver or Whistler villages, nor did Partnerships B.C. have any detailed budget information. They had none.

The city, who had two representatives on the VANOC board, was under requirements to put this plan in place, to explain what they were doing, to lay it out for VANOC, presumably to lay it out for the province, who ultimately has responsibility for the Olympics, but it's clear that that work wasn't done.

So at some point here, did it ever occur to anybody on the government side, to anybody in the Premier's office, to anybody in the minister's office that they might want to look into this? Or maybe, just maybe, what it demonstrates more than anything else is that level of arrogance that we see coming out of this government, the level of arrogance and the neglect. This is an issue of neglect.

Not only is the government arrogant in thinking it will all be fine and it will all take care of itself — the same as the Premier said for the convention centre. It will all take care of itself. You know, there is a pattern here. There is a pattern, and what we saw here is a pattern. There's a neglect, and it's disregard and neglect, and if disregard and neglect isn't arrogance, then I don't know what is.

As we know, the government has a history of doing this. This is not new. This is not a situation that should come as a surprise to anybody. It's certainly not a situation that comes as a surprise to anybody on this side of the House, because, as you'll note, the government who said, "Everything's fine," the government who is now saying, "This isn't our responsibility. We didn't have to do anything about this. This is all the city's responsibility," clearly ignored any of the signs that they were getting.
[ Page 13443 ]

They must have ignored those signs, and it ends up with us being back here on a Saturday trying to deal with this mess that was created by the B.C. Liberals, trying to deal with this mess that they allowed to occur under their watch. But, you know, it's not new. It's not new.

[1750]

As we know — and I would just refer to this because I wouldn't want the members on the opposite side to forget that this isn't unique — we'll all remember the convention centre. It was the Premier who, in 2004, said, when he talked about the $565 million as the final cost: "Count on it. There are contingencies built into the project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. Kaputski. Done" — $565 million.

Not quite. Not quite. We're still hundreds and hundreds of millions over that. Why are we hundreds and hundreds of millions over that? Well, this is the problem we have with Bill 47. Bill 47 starts to tell us about the government in the city of Vancouver and the province, because the province has responsibility — though they're not prepared to accept it, clearly — to have provided a degree of oversight for the taxpayers of British Columbia, whether those taxpayers live in Vancouver or live elsewhere.

The reality is this. If for some reason the city of Vancouver can't get this deal done, if for some reason the city of Vancouver did have to step back from this, we all know that ultimately it would be every taxpayer in this province who would have to pick the bill up. It wouldn't just be Vancouver, because we know the government couldn't let this facility die. They couldn't let this village go down, and that would be everybody's responsibility.

We can only hope that because the city of Vancouver has put proper leadership in place now, that at least there's proper leadership at one level of government in this province, and that they may be able to extract themselves from the mess that this bunch across the way helped to create.

What we know, and I would refer back…. Again, as I said, there's a pattern here. When we look at the convention centre, which is one of the most glaring examples…. How does that relate to 47, and how does that relate to this facility? Well, there were delays in setting the project up. The original budget was not based on details. We now know there are execution plans, project execution plans, called for in here. There are project execution plans called for that were never done.

Clearly, the plans were never done for the village. What we know is that that follows a pattern, because we also know that there was a failure to get a fixed price contract for the convention centre. There was a lack of communication and a lack of expertise on the board, and there was a Premier who jammed this agreement through before a design was ever done.

And what happens there…. That's where this is very similar to what happened at the village, because when we look back at the linkages, we see a government that has done a poor, poor job at oversight, an incredibly poor job. We see a government that's done a poor job.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: You know, the Minister of Community Development talks about trusting local governments. Well, that's a good one, and I would remind the minister…. I'll take that comment. Maybe the minister would like to tell us how trustworthy he was of local government when they introduced Bill 30 and stripped the powers of local governments. Maybe the minister would like to tell us about how they introduced Bill 75 and stripped the powers of local governments. Maybe the minister would like to tell us about all of the resolutions that passed at the UBCM, that passed there and are ignored by this government. The list is long. Maybe….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Minister. Minister.

S. Simpson: He'll get a chance to close in debate. Or maybe the minister should talk to his friend the Minister of Transportation about all that confidence in local governments, when he gutted local control of TransLink and handed it over to his friends.

That's what you call Liberal respect for local governments. That's the Liberal example of respect for local government. As we know, the record is long and the record is sad, but the record is there, and the record is any time a local government has disagreed with the B.C. Liberals and with this Premier, there was no negotiation; there was no meaningful discussion. They just slapped them down and changed the rules, and that's how they do business.

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance.

[1755]

S. Simpson: What is this issue here with completing this project? Well, there are a number of questions that need answers. There are a number of questions that need answers from this government, and hopefully we're going to get these answers.

Maybe — though I kind of doubt it — there might even be somebody else on that side who is willing to stand up and defend the government's record. As we'll note, debate to date…. So far, we obviously heard from the Minister of Community Development when he introduced the bill, and that was good. We heard from the Minister Responsible for the Olympics and the Minister of Finance when he got a little testy about being exposed for his bad math over what is and isn't a legitimate Olympic expense.
[ Page 13444 ]

Maybe somebody else on that side will choose to get up at some point and talk about this bill. But I don't know — maybe not. Maybe a little later on — who knows? But I'm looking forward to it. I'm sure there's no shortage of members over there chomping at the bit to get up and talk about this.

Here are some of the questions, when we get to committee stage, that we're going to want to know answers to. Realistically, what's the government's estimate — based on markets, based on what will happen around the market in Vancouver, based on what's reasonable for sale of those condos…? At the end of the day what will the taxpayers be on the hook for in the Olympic village? What will they be on the hook for?

I would like to think…. The minister over there says to ask the mayor of Vancouver, and we'll ask the mayor. I would like to think, though, that maybe the government, in preparing this, might have wanted to ask the mayor what he thought the costs would be. Maybe they might have wanted to know that before they wrote the blank cheque in this piece of legislation. They might have wanted to know what the implication for taxpayers was. Oh, I forgot. Taxpayers are not that big a deal.

We also want to know — and we'll have this discussion, and this is certainly relevant on this side — how come we keep talking about $600 million. And where are those other moneys coming from, and how are they being booked? We probably want to ask the Premier, and we may have to ask the Minister of Community Development, but I'm sure he can get somebody from the Premier's office to come in and sit with him and help him answer these questions in committee stage.

We might want to ask when the Premier first learned that the financing of the village was in jeopardy. When did the Premier, when did the minister…? I think this actually happened before the minister got his current job, to tell you the truth, so he may not have known that early, but the Premier certainly would have known. When did the Premier know? When did his office know that there was concern around the funding of the Olympic village? When did he know that there was jeopardy there? What discussions did he have?

We might want to know whether Mr. Dobell, who is the provincial appointee to the VANOC board, who was the co-chair of the finance committee of VANOC…. When did Mr. Dobell, or did Mr. Dobell, have this conversation with the Premier or with Ms. McDonald in the Premier's office about the concerns? Or did Mr. Dobell have no concerns about what was going on in Vancouver? That would be good to know.

Generally — and this is a slightly broader question, but it's a critical question — what has been the process of progress reports on venue construction across the Olympics, of which the Olympic village is a key venue?

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We now know, or it certainly appears…. If there was no communication there about the status of that facility, if the government wasn't aware or concerned about that facility prior to the situation that we now find ourselves in, it does raise the question of what is the process for the Premier's office to, in fact, get reports on progress on venues, including the athletes village, because it might raise a flag. Clearly, the progress reports on the convention centre haven't been very helpful. But maybe there is a process there, and we need to see what it is.

[1800]

The work of the village advisory committee, which I spoke about earlier…. Again, was there anybody in the Premier's office or the Minister Responsible for the Olympics — or the Minister of Community Development, for that matter — who was getting advice on what that committee was doing, was being told that there were concerns? Or were there no reports coming from that committee about the status of the village and about the kinds of issues that have been going on in that village for quite a period of time now?

It's a concern that's been going on for quite a period of time, considering that Fortress pulled the pin, essentially, on their commitments earlier in 2007 and created a situation where the city had to step in and put the completion agreement in place so that, in fact, they could get back to the table.

At some point there, were there reports coming through that advisory committee, and were those reports in any way coming back to the government? Was the Premier or, for that matter, the Minister of Community Development or the Minister Responsible for the Olympics…? How did they respond to the work of Partnerships B.C.? Partnerships B.C. reported on the village. They raised concern that the village was one of five venues that they saw as being problematic. They raised the issue that there were concerns and that those concerns clearly should have been addressed.

So the question is: did the Minister of Community Development or the Minister of Finance, responsible for the Olympics — or the Premier, for that matter…? Did they get any of those reports? Did they choose to ignore them, or did they not get them, or were they just oblivious to them?

Those are questions that need to be answered, and those will be questions for committee stage. We'll talk through those matters in committee stage.

I'm trying to give the Minster of Community Development a hand here. I'd like to let him know what some of these questions are, because it would be good if his staff could actually prepare answers that were thorough.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Absolutely.

Well, we're giving you the advantage of a little bit of foreshadowing of what some of the questions will be.
[ Page 13445 ]
I'm sure that at that point the minister can have his staff prepare proper answers, and it will be a unique situation getting proper answers in committee stage.

I'm confident. This is a new minister, and this may be the only shot that he gets at introducing a bill in the Legislature as a minister, so we should give him the chance to do that.

We'll be asking questions generally around how due-diligence reports are prepared for the Olympics but very specifically, also, as it relates to this facility and Bill 47.

I would hope that in the kind of work done around this venue — the Olympic village, the athletes village, a critical piece, one of the cornerstone pieces for the Olympics, the reason that we're here on a Saturday; it isn't the luxury condos that we're here to save; we're here to save the athletes village — there's some process of due diligence done there, there's some process in place to ensure that the government is ahead of the game on this.

But it doesn't appear to be the case, because here we are, after the fact. It took — and this is the remarkable thing — an election in Vancouver, where the B.C. Liberal farm team was tossed out of office and a new government was put in place, which immediately looked at this situation, brought KPMG in to give them an independent assessment of the situation with the village and then took action. It's a government that acted responsibly, unlike our friends across the way.

What we need to do is now ask the questions in committee stage as it relates to this. I would hope it will give us some indication of what this government's doing in other areas — as to how, in fact, that due diligence has occurred as it relates to the athletes village and how that occurs.

[1805]

We'll be asking — and I'll be looking forward to the minister's answer on this: what advice, if any, did the province or any provincial officials give to then Mayor Sullivan around the situation with Millennium? When Millennium was in trouble — they didn't have any more money; they were running cost overruns on the Olympic village — and when Fortress was backing away from funding, what advice, if any, did the Premier or his office or others in the B.C. Liberal government give to the city around that — as to how to deal with Millennium? What suggestions, if any, did the province give to the city about how to deal with this question of risk?

The risk is very real. We know that. We see the reports that came out. What did Standard and Poor's say? Standard and Poor's say that because of this situation that the city got itself into — without support, apparently, from the province or expertise from the province — it potentially compromises the city's credit rating. And we all know that it's not a good thing, if you're a government, to have your credit rating compromised. How did that occur?

We can hope that the city will be able to manage its way through this and not have a significant impact on the credit rating, but at this point Standard and Poor's is saying that that may not be the case. They have a watching brief on now with the city of Vancouver over the question of their credit rating. That will stay an unresolved question, presumably, until this piece of legislation passes and until the city can take its ability to borrow without referendum and negotiate some kind of agreement for the completion of this project.

Then, presumably, Standard and Poor's and others will look at what that expense is, will look at what the cost is to the city and to their balance sheet, and then will make some determination about whether in fact it does affect the credit rating of the city. We all know, of course, that nobody wants that to happen.

The other question this raises — and this is a broader question, but it certainly is a relevant question as it relates to how the government deals with this — is the question of whether there are other facilities that relate to the Olympics that are in a similar situation in the city of Vancouver or in Richmond or elsewhere. We'll need to see that. We'll need to look at those matters.

We'll be asking — and this relates back to when we try to get information out of the provincial government, out of the B.C. Liberal government — what advice they provided here. We'll very much want to know very specifically what advice they provided around what is essentially a loan guarantee — the completion guarantee.

What advice did they provide to the city about whether that was a good idea or not? Did the province offer to look at the deal and to provide any assistance in trying to make the deal as good as they could? It's a big question. Being as they've signed a deal at 11 percent interest rates, it's pretty hard to assume that anybody went and did a very good deal at 11 percent interest rates. Probably in 2007, when that was done, I imagine the interest rate was running at about half of that. But it was a decision.

The other question…. This is a significant question. This is an issue that I would think the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for the Olympics would have been particularly cognizant of. At the point when the city's chief financial officer left under what appears to have been a significant disagreement with the then city manager over whether this was a good deal, did that raise any flags for the Premier or for the Minister of Finance about this issue? Did it raise any flags at all? It doesn't appear to have done that. Those are just some of the questions that we're going to need to talk about.

[1810]

Generally, we know that the Olympics is going to be a pretty important event. It's a pretty fundamental…. We hope it will be remembered as one of the great events to happen in British Columbia — the Olympics. We know that we all — I would hope on both sides of this House,
[ Page 13446 ]
as most British Columbians — want the Olympics to be as successful as they can be. We all know that we want the Olympics to be an event that everybody's proud of. We want the Olympics to be an event that all British Columbians, or the vast majority of British Columbians, can get behind enthusiastically. We may yet see that.

But what we're seeing at this point is something different. We are seeing a case where there is growing anxiety. We are seeing a case where there's concern about lack of information, lack of transparency, and we're seeing a concern with what the real costs of this will be.

Bill 47 and the circumstances that created the need for Bill 47 have taken the issue of anxiety that people might have had about what is going on or what isn't going on and moved that to a different place. It moved from being, "Gee, I wonder whether things are okay?" to a place where now people know things aren't okay.

They aren't okay. Nobody can deny that. Clearly, if things were okay related to the Olympics, we wouldn't be sitting here on Saturday debating what is an urgent bill that we're required to debate all evening and probably through the night — because of the urgency of the bill, because of the situation the city has been put in, because of what I would argue is the lack of oversight on the part of the provincial government to have seen the flags come up much earlier on this concern and to have intervened and to have dealt with this.

I'll tell you, I've had the opportunity in the last little while to be in some different places around the province, and in terms of people and how they're feeling about this and wanting to build the Olympic pride…. You should know this. Hon. Speaker, you may well, and I'm sure the Minister of Community Development knows this, because I suspect that he might hear a little of this in his community periodically.

When you talk to people outside about loan guarantees on $875 million debts for Olympic villages and $350 million for a new roof for B.C. Place and a $400 million overrun on the convention centre and then you talk to people about what's happening in their communities, some of them aren't very excited about the Olympics. Some of them don't feel like they're getting their share.

The problem with this piece is that it just adds to that situation. It adds to the cynicism that we see from many people around the Olympics. We have a responsibility here. We have a responsibility to try and diminish that cynicism, to try to build the spirit, to make people feel better about these Olympics, to make them feel better about this overall situation as we head into 2010.

Part of the challenge here — and this is part of the concern with this bill, and it's part of the concern with what appears to be the government's preoccupation with not wanting to discuss these issues — is that people of British Columbia want this discussion of issues to occur. They want to know. They want to know what the real costs are. They want to know what the taxpayer responsibilities are — whether it's the athletes village, whether it's convention centres, whether it's B.C. Place or whether it's any of the other venues. They want to know what those costs are.

We're here debating Bill 47. Bill 47 will provide some small insight into the situation as it relates to the athletes village. Hopefully, we can drag out of the government some information, shine some light on this. I'm not totally confident of that, but we'll try.

You know, there are 14 other venues. There is a secretariat. There are a number of other facilities and initiatives that relate to the Olympics that are not going to be covered by the debate that we have on Bill 47, that are not going to be covered by the discussion at committee stage on Bill 47. All of those are issues that need to be addressed.

[1815]

The government is here to deal with this one issue, but they've missed this opportunity to finally shine a light on the reality of the Olympics for taxpayers of British Columbia — to say, "Let's have that more open discussion," to have engaged in that discussion here. People across the province would have felt much better about that situation.

We'll get to that discussion at some point. Maybe after February 10 we'll get to it, and we'll certainly get to it in April and May. But we're not there right now.

The question, again, coming back to Bill 47 and this piece of legislation…. We need to know — and the government can explain — why they didn't put any caps or numbers in here. It may make perfect sense for there not to be a cap, but what does the government expect the spending to be on this?

The people of Vancouver, who are responsible for this, who are going to be on the hook for what happens with Bill 47 if the city is able to successfully negotiate an agreement…. It is my constituents and the constituents of other members in Vancouver who will pay that cost. Will the government tell us: have they estimated what it should cost taxpayers in Vancouver for the city to extract itself from this?

It will be interesting to know whether they've given any thought to this at all. Or have they just enabled this and, through this legislation, said: "We're going to enable it, and then we're going to run away fast"? But the people of Vancouver will want to know what the cost implications are. What are the property tax cost implications? What can they reasonably expect to pay for this?

There are others in other places around the province with other facilities related to the Olympics who I'm sure are looking at their facilities and saying: "Hey, what's the status of my facility?" and "Am I going to be in a Vancouver situation that I don't know about yet, and what's the cost going to be to me?"

He doesn't have to do it here, necessarily. I know he doesn't like to have those conversations here all the time,
[ Page 13447 ]
but maybe the Premier would like to provide some assurances to the people of British Columbia that, in fact, he's on top of this file, that he's able to deal with this matter and that he's able to provide some assurances. Now, that is a problem, because I guess I had referenced earlier the assurances that we've received around the convention centre and other things. So we will take those assurances with a grain of salt, for sure.

This is still early in the debate. We still have many people, I'm sure, who want to talk about this. I'm sure that there must be members on the other side who would like to engage in this debate. I would love to hear from some of the members who come from outside the Lower Mainland who can tell us what their constituents think about the money being spent in Vancouver on the Olympics. I look forward to hearing that. The Minister of Community Development might tell us that in his closing comments tomorrow or whenever he gets a chance to make those.

They'll be wanting to know about all of those hundreds of millions of dollars spent in Vancouver. They'll be wanting to know about that.

Interjection.

S. Simpson: Uh-huh.

Let me go back and just recap a little bit. We're here on a Saturday to deal with a piece of legislation over a financial crisis in Vancouver that was created because of a deal that was cut by the then city council — by the NPA council, the B.C. Liberal farm team council — in 2007. It's a deal where they signed a completion guarantee on a facility — almost a billion-dollar commitment, $875 million, that they are exposed for.

They make that commitment there. We have a structure here that suggests that there should have been at least two or three or four different avenues for the province to have become aware of this agreement very early on, when the concerns started to be raised, when Millennium ran out of money, when Fortress said: "We're not paying any more." There were a number of places, of avenues, where the government should have seen those flags and should have intervened.

[1820]

At this point there's no indication that the government…. They either ignored them…. They chose not to pay any attention to them. They were negligent about it. All of those are possibilities.

The one thing we know for sure is that they did nothing. Unless what they did was quietly told the then mayor of Vancouver to sign the completion agreement, that it was okay to expose the taxpayers of Vancouver to this huge potential debt, that it was going to be okay because the economy was great, commodity prices were great and B.C. was the finest place in the world to live, and don't worry about this.

Instead of doing due diligence, they chose not to do that, and they might have done that. We know that this is one of a number of facilities that have been in a suspect situation. We're going to have to see how those play out, whether it's massive overruns on convention centres or multi-million-dollar investments in roofs and upgrades at B.C. Place, where I think it's 60 times more than what the original estimates were to do the improvements. It's now 60 times the amount that we've now budgeted for.

Whether that's the case, we know that there's going to be…. Maybe the government will tell us something about this, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe the government will tell us about how they've rethought the way they're dealing with due diligence in facilities to make sure that in fact we are in the best place we can be on this.

We know at this point that there are a number of reports out there from the Auditor General dealing with an array of these issues and cost exposures, including when you look at the interlocking…. When the Auditors General talks about the interlocking agreements, they would tell you what is legal — what the legal responsibilities are and what the real responsibilities are — and that ultimately, the province is going to be on the hook for most of this and provincial taxpayers will be on the hook for most of this. They can only hope the city of Vancouver deals with this particular issue, but there are many more venues to deal with.

We know that there are cost projections that the province has put forward in relation to a whole array of the costs for the Olympics that seem to be nowhere near the real costs — what the Auditors General, among others, are saying are the real costs. We know that's a problem we need to get to. We know that the linkages here are going to be challenging in terms of what the real costs are for taxpayers in Vancouver. I will assure you that I know, as a member from Vancouver — in the conversations that I've had about this, in the correspondence that I've got in my office, from the people who have talked to me — that as Vancouver taxpayers, they're concerned.

They're concerned about what this means in terms of their property tax bills. They're concerned about what the impact on them is going to be, and at this point there's no evidence that, in developing Bill 47, the government asked those questions about what the city projects the cost implications of Bill 47 to be when the city negotiates.

I'd accept a range. I'd be happy if the minister can stand up and say: "We expect the cost to the average taxpayer or the charge on the mill rate, if it's applied to property taxes, to be somewhere between this figure and that figure, and here's what that cost will be."

We have no reason to believe that work has been done to this point, but maybe the minister will tell us he does know that and he does have that information. Maybe when we get to committee stage, he'll be able to provide that information. Who knows?
[ Page 13448 ]

We also know there are critical linkages here that we want to have information about. Again, we'll be asking who knew what, when they knew it and what the implications of that are.

In my last couple of comments here I guess what I want to say is that Bill 47 is an unfortunate piece of legislation, but it's a piece of legislation that, under the circumstances, is necessary.

[1825]

It's a piece of legislation that…. The people of Vancouver are on the hook for an awful lot of money at an interest rate that's unacceptable, and while this will still cost them a potful of money in Vancouver…. It'll cost taxpayers a potful of money at the outset. Hopefully, that interest rate can be brought down through some different negotiations, and hopefully, the economy will turn enough in the next couple of years that they'll be able to dispose of these assets in a way that will recoup the rest of the money.

We'll see that, and we'll see that over time, post-2010 — as to whether in fact that occurs or not. In the interim what we know about Bill 47 is that Bill 47 should be instructive to all of us. The requirement for Bill 47 should be instructive to everybody who's involved in this Olympic process in terms of having even greater due diligence, looking much harder at the facilities that are there, looking much harder at the costs and the projected revenue streams and being much more frank and much more open with all British Columbians about what the true costs of the Olympics are, about what the reasonable expectations about revenues are, about what at the end of the day the debt will be or not from the Olympics for British Columbians post the 2010 event.

British Columbians. As I've said before, the Olympics belong to British Columbians. They don't belong to this Legislature. They certainly don't belong to the B.C. Liberal government or the Premier. They belong to the people of British Columbia and the people of Canada. They're paying for them. They're their games. Let's make sure that they understand what they're in for and that we can make the games as good an event as possible but that at the end of the day we don't create an undue burden on the people of Vancouver or the people of British Columbia.

That will only happen if we have much greater transparency, much greater accountability from the government, much greater openness and better due diligence and management generally over what is the Olympic file.

L. Krog: One always has to ask the question: how do you win the lottery of legislation? How do you get your voice, your concern, your needs met in the Legislature of British Columbia? For the last several years, during this government's tenure, the forest industry, the most basic industry in the province of British Columbia, has been in crisis. In my constituency three more mills are shut down. Workers, 700 of them, are laid off indefinitely. Yet we're here today in a special….

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. I'm going to read a note from the Speaker that he read earlier:

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

Please continue, Member.

L. Krog: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and I very much appreciate your comments and the intent of them as well.

My point is this. We're here at a special session of the Legislature to deal with a bill that is a page and a tiny bit more long, not even two full pages, because the city of Vancouver has asked for it. Yet that's my point. How does one get into this Legislature? How is one's voice heard? There are many communities in this province in dire circumstances — an industry in this province that's in dire circumstance — and yet we're here dealing with one specific bill on a very specific and very narrow topic, dealing with 17 acres of downtown real estate in the city of Vancouver.

You know, I acknowledge that this is important. I'm the first to acknowledge it. Our leader has acknowledged the importance of this legislation. The city of Vancouver has made a special request to the government of British Columbia, both to the Premier and to the Leader of the Opposition, asking that we "protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial plan for completing the Olympic village project."

[1830]

This is about the Olympics. This is about ensuring, when the athletes come to Vancouver, that they'll actually have a place to stay. We won't be looking at some monolith that's completely unoccupied.

But as one of my friends has just muttered in the background, I guess the homeless in Vancouver might have a question about the quality of the accommodation for the athletes. What we're really debating here is a testament to this government and this Premier's incompetence.

It is clear, given the close relationship between VANOC and this government, the city of Vancouver and its former NPA government, its mayor and its councillors, that this is not some problem that arose out of thin air. This wasn't suddenly discovered last week. It didn't fall off the back of the truck like some ripe turnip. These issues have been confronting the city of Vancouver. They're documented. They're in a report.

I won't quote which particular columnist in The Vancouver Sun today points it out so ably. The fact is
[ Page 13449 ]
that this was known. We are here dealing only with this, instead of the other serious problems confronting the province of British Columbia. This Legislature has sat only five short days since it finished the spring session in a time when the world is plunging into economic crisis.

We have crises of all kinds confronting people, ordinary citizens of British Columbia who face the loss of their homes and have lost their jobs. Municipal governments are facing serious tax crunches because of the collapse in the forest industry. Major pulp mills, major companies, are threatening to not pay their city taxes. We're not discussing that. We have one item on the agenda.

In the time that I've been able to sit here listening to the interesting debate, I took a flip through the private members' bills that haven't been debated. I looked through the three major bills that are still before this House: the amendments to the Insurance Act, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act — important pieces of legislation.

What we are dealing with here today with this bill is essentially a form of damage control, and it's a pretty big damage. It's a pretty big number we're talking about. This bill doesn't even mention the number. Lord forbid that we'd actually talk about what the real number is. I haven't heard the Minister of Finance in his rather tepid defence of this legislation, nor the Minister of Community Development who introduced it…. I haven't heard in their tepid defence of this legislation what we're really, really talking about.

In other words, those members who represent the constituencies within the boundaries of the city of Vancouver are not going to be able to go back whenever this bill passes this House and say to their constituents: "Well, we've just gone over to Victoria on your behalf, and we've rescued you, but we can't tell you what the price of the rescue is."

One would have thought that this legislation might have specified what we're talking about, but you know, that's consistent with the blank cheque that we're being asked to deliver here, consistent with what we've had to consider when it came to the Olympics generally.

We're going to give the city of Vancouver significant powers, new powers to do things that it doesn't have already. Now, I think the citizens of Vancouver who are ultimately going to be the presumed beneficiaries of this legislation would want to know what their MLAs and all the MLAs in this Legislature are being asked to support.

It's not a long bill. I've read it several times. I don't see the number in here. What I do see is the authority, if you will, despite any other act, that the city, meaning the city of Vancouver, may "…for purposes of financing of, or financing arising in relation to, the development project, on terms and conditions the Council considers necessary or advisable, do any or all of the following…."

Hon. Speaker, section (a) simply says:

"(a) incur liabilities, including by contracting debts by borrowing or otherwise under section 236 (1)….

(b) provide financial assistance, including by lending money;

(c) grant security by way of a mortgage or other charge on, or security interest in, property that is within the development area or that is identified by resolution of the Council as property associated with the development project;

(d) take security by way of mortgage or other charge on, or security interest in, any property;

(e) take assignment of a loan as lender, or assignment of another right or interest in relation to a liability, including any related security;

(f) assign or otherwise dispose of a right or interest, or security, taken under paragraph (d) or (e)."

[1835]

What this bill is essentially doing is giving powers to the city of Vancouver to not only engage in significant development but to go out and borrow whatever it decides it wants to do. Now, constitutionally, everyone understands the municipal governments only exist because there's an enabling act passed by this Legislature. I mean, that's why we're here. We have to amend the Vancouver Charter in order for Vancouver to have the authority and power to do this.

It seems to me that the precedent being set here by this bill is just a little bit concerning. Does this mean that every municipality is going to have equal right to send a letter to the Premier, ask for a special session of the Legislature and ask for unlimited borrowing powers — the unlimited ability to mortgage land and property belonging to the city or take assignments of security?

It's like we're debating a federal bank act here today. We are being asked in every way, and in the full, simple meaning of the common phrase, to give the city of Vancouver a blank cheque. We're doing this because of the mess that the city of Vancouver has put itself in through, I respectfully suggest, poor management and dreadful leadership.

We're being asked to save the city of Vancouver's taxpayers from unnecessary pain. The mayor's letter is fairly clear. He talks about protective advances to the contractors working on the site. These protective advances also include interest which is being paid to the lender on the $317 million which Fortress has already advanced to the project. It talks about interest clicking away at $87,000 a day.

How did this happen, and why are we here? How is it that an organization as important, with as much ability to call on a staff, as the city of Vancouver, put itself in a position where it is now having to beg this Legislature to pass in an emergency session a bill that enables it to, in theory, borrow any amount it wants, which will be a potential burden on the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver for generations — for generations?

There's no number, as I point out, in this bill. Nowhere do we talk about it. One would have thought that a pru-
[ Page 13450 ]
dent government might have wanted to put a limit on this — perhaps, say, a billion or maybe $1.2 billion or maybe $1.5 billion. But this government didn't have the courage to pick a number. This government didn't have the courage to pick a number because they don't want to talk about what the real number is, because after all, this is part of what may, unfortunately for the people of British Columbia, turn out to be one of the greatest financial fiascos in the history of the province. That's the way the Olympics have been managed.

The government still continues to subscribe to the outworn creed, the outworn belief that we're only going to spend $600,000 on this — pardon me, $600 million. I mean, $600,000, according to what we're debating today, would only be like seven days' interest on the money Vancouver's in hock for right now.

The Minister of Finance speaks so glowingly of the games still, notwithstanding that everyone in British Columbia now senses with some great trepidation what this is going to cost. He spoke glowingly earlier today to say: "What we have with the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games is the makings of a tremendous success story for British Columbia" — now, I notice he said the makings of a tremendous success story — "one that is actually going to shape the future of this province, and one that is going to provide huge economic stimulus to the province of British Columbia."

[1840]

He does go on to acknowledge in his further remarks that, in fact, virtually all of the sports venues are already finished. So if the economic boom that we're supposed to get from these games actually occurs, then basically it's already happened. Yet all the statistics that I'm reading indicate that the province of British Columbia is, in fact, slipping into a recession.

I just have some difficulty appreciating the remarks of the Minister of Finance when he talks about this shaping the future of this province. Those well may be words that will come back to haunt the Minister of Finance when he talks about shaping the future of this province.

D. Jarvis: The sky is falling.

L. Krog: The member from North Vancouver talks about the sky falling. Let's hope the sky isn't falling. Let's hope it isn't falling, because this government, which has enjoyed record resource prices for several years and significant surpluses on the backs of the taxpayers and the people of British Columbia, now, as we face difficult times, has nothing in reserve for it.

They have spent it away like drunken sailors, and there's nothing to house the homeless, and there's nothing to support public health care and education. That's the trouble. They didn't listen to their mothers and fathers who actually saw difficult times in this province.

C. Evans: Maybe the Liberal sky really is falling.

L. Krog: One of my friends suggests maybe the Liberal sky is falling. Maybe that's what the member from North Vancouver is talking about. Maybe the Liberal sky is falling. If it's not falling, it's certainly looking a little less blue than it did a few months ago.

We're here to save interest. We're here to save interest, because this government, of all governments in the history of the province of British Columbia — unlike the Social Credit, unlike the New Democratic governments that governed this province — insisted on ensuring that we get ourselves in thrall to foreign bankers. That's what this deal is all about. This is about borrowing big money from Wall Street.

Big money from Wall Street, and where are we today? We're now having to have a special session of the Legislature, because you know what? Vancouver can't afford to pay the interest at 11 percent anymore.

Now, I've got to tell you that in the old days in this province that governments actually — and the provincial government in particular — were able to borrow at fairly cheap rates. It was a good risk. So I have to ask: what happened in the last seven and a half years under this government that the city of Vancouver is now put in a position where we have to debate this on a Saturday to save them interest because they got into a bad deal?

Why is it? I'll tell you why. Because it's been this government's ideological bent to look after big lenders instead of little borrowers. Because it's been this government's ideological bent that has ensured that we build our ferries overseas instead of in British Columbia, that we transfer our work and our money abroad, and that we end up having to have special sessions of the Legislature to debate a bill to save interest so that American banks stop ripping us off. That's what we're here for.

But what's even more despicable about this whole process is that if we actually had open, transparent and accountable government in the province of British Columbia and that was the hallmark of how we did things, we wouldn't be in this mess. The city of Vancouver wouldn't be in this mess.

If that view, that public debate and public scrutiny was somehow an impediment to getting on with the job…. If that view didn't prevail, Vancouver wouldn't be here begging for money today. This government wouldn't be in the situation it is today. But that's because this government, notwithstanding what it says about openness and transparency and accountability, doesn't practice what it preaches.

[1845]

What we have here is the city of Vancouver getting its voters, its citizens, its taxpayers into a dreadful mess with a real estate project that is starting to look more like a disaster instead of a housing project. If it had been done not in secret, then the citizens of Vancouver
[ Page 13451 ]
might be in a position to actually have re-elected Mayor Sullivan and the NPA-dominated council.

But you know, that didn't happen in the last election, because I think the people of Vancouver actually smelled that something was maybe wrong at city hall, that maybe cities shouldn't be getting involved in these kinds of arrangements and that maybe, if they're going to do it, they should do it in an open and transparent way so that legislatures don't have to be called back to correct their little messes. This little mess, in the best-case scenario, is going to cost and has already cost tens of millions of dollars to the citizens of Vancouver.

We have a new city council that wants to deal with the pressing issues of the city of Vancouver, that wants to deal with housing and homelessness issues, that needs to attack crime, that needs to protect citizens in their homes and on the streets, that needs to ensure that its public facilities are world-class as we begin the homestretch to welcome people from around the world to the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia. Instead, that money's gone. It's been spent on interest. It's been spent, hon. Speaker, in a way that's forced us here today.

I come back to my point about this belief, somehow, that we can't do things without resorting to foreign capital, that governments can't manage things without resorting to private partners. W.A.C. Bennett didn't have to turn to a private partner to build the great series of dams in this province that gave British Columbia a significant economic advantage over jurisdictions all over the world and that enabled this province to develop. He did it through a Crown corporation — a Crown corporation that this government has tried in its clumsy fashion to privatize. That has put us in a position where we're guaranteed now to pay more for electricity generated through so-called green sources than we have to through any other sources.

I note with great interest that — unlike other debates in this Legislature, where there are government members just chomping at the bit, just so happy to jump up and debate and support the government's bills — so far, on what has been a long afternoon and is going to be a longer evening, we've had the minister give one of the shortest speeches supporting a major piece of legislation that I've heard in a very long time, and then defended rather tepidly by the Minister of Finance, who, I suspect, in the back of his mind is remembering his responsibility for the Olympic file and is thinking maybe he better defend what was his baby, lest there be some political fallout in the May 12 election over what's happened with the Olympics generally.

I mean this in the nicest way, hon. Speaker. There's usually a lot of crowing roosters over there. But the chickens are home to roost, and I don't hear any crowing roosters on the other side. I don't hear anyone saying: "Gee, we've done a great job, and we're proud of the Olympics."

Now, the Minister of Finance tried to do a bit of a job over here defending the Olympics, and halfway through his speech he was quite properly, I suspect, called to task by the Speaker, who suggested he get back on topic.

But this bill…. As we debate it, the real question is for the taxpayers of Vancouver. Ultimately — they can fudge around the language — what's the cost going to be for the taxpayers of Vancouver? What does this bill tell them about what the real cost is going to be? That's the question.

I would have expected, if the government thought its position was really defensible, that we would have heard from the Premier. You know, the Premier, more than anyone on the government side, has championed the Olympics — how it was managed, how it was going to be on budget and on time, and how it was only going to cost $600 million.

I would have thought the Premier would have taken the opportunity to stand in this House — and he still has that opportunity, and I hope he takes it — to stand up and defend his baby, because it was the Premier who promised the most open, transparent and accountable government in the province's history.

[1850]

Yet what we have today now is a request to pass a bill that gives unlimited borrowing powers to the city of Vancouver, at the very time in our province's history that taxpayers are most concerned about their tax burdens, the economy and how government is managing their affairs. There's something wrong with this, hon. Speaker. There's something wrong with it.

You know, we close every session of the Legislature in the spring with the remarks from the Lieutenant-Governor, who thanks the House on behalf of Her Majesty for its benevolence. The most basic thing that we do in this chamber year in, year out, the most basic thing for which kings were beheaded and revolutions fought and people died was to ensure that the Queen, on behalf of the people, didn't get to spend money without the consent of the people.

Here we are today being asked to give a blank cheque. Not even Her Majesty expects a blank cheque. At the end of the session, there's a number, and it's a big number, but we know what the number is. We know what the number is. Today the city of Vancouver is asking for a big blank cheque, and I think it was this government's job to turn to the city of Vancouver and to say: "What's the number? Let's put a limit on it. Let's ensure that the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver are protected."

Those are some of the questions that I want to ask the Minister of Community Development when we get to committee stage of this bill. I want to know about the conversations he's had and the amounts that we're talking about, because I don't believe for one moment that this Legislature would be called back in the extraordinary way in which it has been called unless the Minister
[ Page 13452 ]
of Community Development and this government had a pretty good idea of how much the city of Vancouver was going to borrow.

Our reputation, the city of Vancouver's reputation, the reputation of this province to have the ability to hold and host the Olympic and Paralympic Games is at stake here, and it's a little late in the game for everyone to be pussyfooting around and being afraid to disclose the numbers.

You know, you go into Hudson's Bay, you want a piece of china, and they've got a price on it. It's not a difficult process. You go to the gas station, there on the pumps, and you know what you're going to pay. But you come to the B.C. Legislature and the city of Vancouver, and guess what. There's no price tag. There's no price tag.

It is the duty of the members of this assembly, as it has been for well over a hundred years, to ensure that we don't go around giving blank cheques to anybody. Hon. Speaker, today we're being asked to give that blank cheque. Now, I'm sure — I am just sure — that the Minister of Community Development will be able to enlighten this chamber. I'm surprised he didn't attempt to enlighten it in his opening remarks in second reading debate.

What do we know about this? We know that this Legislature wants to help the citizens of Vancouver. But, you know, when I hear the Minister of Finance, in his remarks, talk about the ten billion television viewers around the world who will watch these winter games unfold, now, I have to ask myself: was that an exaggeration, given that I'm reasonably informed that there's only about six or seven billion of us on this planet, or is he talking about repeat viewers? Or is his grasp of numbers as the Minister of Finance so good that just a little exaggeration, a few billion here and a few billion there, doesn't really bother people?

You know, Churchill said it best. There were three kinds of lies. There were lies, damned lies and statistics. So I just want to inquire: what ten billion television viewers, and how many hundreds of millions or billions are we talking about when we talk about the Olympic Games and the cost of this village?

[1855]

There was that wonderful line that Hillary Clinton used to use: "It takes a whole village to raise a child." Well, what we've learned here today is that it takes a whole city to pay for a village. Indeed, the great fear is that it will take the whole province to pay for the Olympics.

But we know now that it's not just going to be the province on the hook. It's going to be the federal government. We're already in those pleasant little wars about who's going to pay for the significant cost of security.

So when I hear the Minister of Finance defend this, and defend this bill and still say: "I've made it quite clear right from the get-go that we accept that we have an obligation for $87.5 million in security costs, and we have a security agreement, which is on the website…." It's on the website. It must be true; it's on the website. Then I hear him talk about ten billion viewers, and then I'm expected to approve a bill that doesn't contain a number in it.

You know, I suspect that like most British Columbians, the credibility of the government is maybe just a little bit weak; that maybe it's lost a little bit of its shine and tarnish; that maybe this openness and transparency and accountability that was talked about so much actually hasn't come to pass; that maybe, in fact, with Bill 47, what we're really doing here is continuing to do what this government has done since it took office — and that is to talk a great game and to play a very different game.

There is nothing open and transparent about this. There is not the kind of oversight in this bill that one would expect to see when we're talking about the kind of project that we are, and it's disappointing. But to use that shopworn and timeworn cliché, at the end of the day, the city of Vancouver needs this legislation. So with enormous concerns and no small degree of reluctance, I will support this bill because we are at zero hour.

This government has done an inept job of managing the Olympics from start to finish. We are now basically a year away from the Olympics. The village isn't completed, Vancouver is in hock, and we've just got to do it. It isn't pleasant, but the old cliché about a rock and a hard spot certainly applies.

So yes, I will support this legislation, but I'm looking forward to hearing the Minister of Community Development defend each of its sections, because notwithstanding the left-wing nature of my politics, some of us are getting just a little bit tired of having to bail out private enterprise.

M. Karagianis: Well, I have watched this story unfold with great interest over the last few weeks and certainly listened to the very able debate by my colleagues here. I have to say: what a mess. What an absolute mess that this government has made of the Olympics file.

Throughout this province we now have people not excited about the Olympics for itself, not waiting for this wonderful event to unfold here. We have people all across this province saying: "What in the world is going on with this government and with this Olympics file?" And now there is a taint upon this because of this government's mismanagement of this file.

We are here right now debating Bill 47, an urgent bill, forced here on a weekend where, in some ways, we are outside of the eye of the public. We are here debating this urgent bill because of a bungling of this file from beginning to end by a government that has repeatedly touted itself as being the best business-friendly, the most capable of handling these kind of business transactions. What a mess.

[1900]
[ Page 13453 ]

So it concerns me greatly as to what kind of conditions now are going to follow our Olympics from this point forward till the day that they open in Vancouver and on the mountain. I think it's a travesty that in fact we have so much controversy around Olympic spending and around now what is happening here to the city of Vancouver.

We're here actually changing a very significant charter, the Vancouver Charter. And why are we having to do that? Because of, partly, an ideologically driven government that has led us straight into the hands of privatization schemes that are falling apart like wet Kleenex everywhere we go.

I'm going to talk a little more about that because it is something I have canvassed repeatedly in this House. I have, along with many of my colleagues, repeatedly in estimates debate…. We have asked over and over and over again about the kinds of risks in these privatization schemes that the government has insisted on imposing on every single project in this province over $20 million. For municipalities, for communities across this province, for everything that the province has engaged in there has been this insistence that these privatization schemes were the way to go and that that was going to alleviate the province and the citizens of this province from risk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. And so here we are on a Saturday night debating an urgent amendment to a very important charter for the city of Vancouver because of a failure of a privatization scheme. I think this is a very important part of the component of the whole Olympics here that has not had enough attention. So it concerns me greatly about what the complete implications of this are going to be.

You know, we are currently in a very interesting economic time here in North America and across the world. So many of these huge multinational corporations, the banking that backs them and all of the other components that go into what was supposed to be the magic bullet of privatization schemes in fact turn out to be the very thing that's ripping our economies apart right across the globe.

I think that the failure of these privatization schemes is actually plunging us into an unknown future, and much of it will be tied to the Olympics. This, I believe, is the first collapse of something that we may see have further implications here.

It think it's really important that we are here debating in whatever way we can, on behalf of the taxpayers of Vancouver and the taxpayers of British Columbia, around the significance of what we're talking about doing here.

We have now forced the city of Vancouver to engage in a practice with a privatized partner, where they are now having to go out and borrow money and put their own taxpayers at risk and back a failed scheme that, frankly, was touted and put together by the very government backers and supporters, the Premier's special group, Partnerships B.C.

We have heard for the last eight years that this government has been in power here that Partnerships B.C. was putting together all these wonderful deals, was promoting all these wonderful privatized deals, where the taxpayers were going to be alleviated of risk. They were going to be spared the risk of any of these investments in huge projects. And yet what we're seeing right now is that those very same individuals — these groups that were promoted by the Premier, that have had oversight throughout their process by the Premier and his advisers — are at the heart of the first of a failed scheme here that has put the city of Vancouver at risk.

That, to me, is absolutely unacceptable. I spent nine years in local government, as did many of my colleagues here on this side of the House, and we are very aware of what happens when the government imposes conditions upon local government that they must engage in these kinds of privatization deals. And when they fall apart, what happens? Now we have a city coming to us in an urgent and emergency crisis mode, having to pick up the pieces of one of these failed projects.

The reason I bring that up is because, as I mentioned, I have canvassed this numerous times on a variety of these kinds of privatization projects that the government has engaged in that I believe put taxpayers at risk, that will continue to put taxpayers at risk. We can see what's happened with the city of Vancouver around Bill 47, and I expect that there may be more risk that is going to have to be borne by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

[1905]

I'll just go back to a conversation I had here while canvassing the Minister of Transportation about the kinds of weaknesses inherent in these privatization schemes. It was very interesting, because this took place some months ago. We were discussing the fact that even as much as a year ago there were signals out there in the marketplace that there were some economic problems developing for many of these multinational corporations, many of whom our government was engaging in business with.

I brought forward to the minister's attention an article that had run in the Globe and Mail in January of 2008 which talked specifically about the issue around bank loan backing for these major corporations. I laid the article out in front of the minister and talked about the fact that bond insurers and bank loans were on the brink of some kind of major catastrophe in the marketplace and that, in fact, signals were there for some time.

In the case of several of these very large corporations that are engaged in doing huge infrastructure projects here — some of them very directly tied to the Olympics, like the Sea to Sky Highway…. I asked the minister if he was concerned about the crisis that was going to occur in guaranteeing these loans to these corporations.
[ Page 13454 ]

I asked the minister very point-blank: does the minister, at this point, have any comment about the impact, the risk, that is going to occur around these bank loan failures? And certainly, I said: in a very volatile market that we see today, what are the implications going to be to our infrastructure projects here in British Columbia like the Sea to Sky Highway and, potentially, like the Olympics village that the city of Vancouver was involved in?

It was very interesting to me, because the Minister of Transportation said, when I asked him about what would happen if any of these backers, any of these privatization corporations that were involved in these privatization schemes with government…. What would happen if they failed, if they went, say, bankrupt or were no longer able to carry out their fiscal responsibilities?

It was interesting that the minister…. His comment was this, and I will quote you from Hansard:

"One of the things that I think is important for the member to understand is that these companies that engage in these projects are very, very large concerns. As I refer to them, they are big boys and girls. They know exactly what they're getting into….

"You know, it's a risk that the private sector takes every day when they enter into these agreements. They are very large concerns. In many cases, large companies like the ones we were discussing are massive companies backed by banking concerns that are some of the largest in the world, certainly equal in size to British Columbia, if not larger, in terms of assets under their management….

"I'm sorry if a contractor enters into a contract with their eyes wide open and signs an agreement and then finds out later, through whatever happens — whether costs go up or financing goes up or the myriad of risk that the private sector deals with every day could result in them losing money…. I genuinely feel sorry for them. I'm sorry that their shareholders are going to eat that, and no doubt their shareholders will hold management accountable at some point if they do too many of these side agreements."

Well, isn't that interesting? The Minister of Transportation assumed that the company would take the risk. They'd lose the money. The shareholders would lose the money. But in fact, the very opposite is true — is it not, hon. Speaker?

In the case of Bill 47, we're here debating because when the finances failed for a major corporation engaged in a privatization scheme on the Olympics village, was it the shareholders of that company who took the risk? Was it as the minister claimed: "They're big boys and girls and know what they're getting into"? No, not at all.

What happens? The taxpayers of Vancouver are going to pick up the tab on this one. So we are here on a Saturday night debating a bill because in fact, all of the assurances that this government has given us all along on privatization funding schemes have failed to be true, have failed to protect the taxpayers of Vancouver and, I would also say, are putting the taxpayers of British Columbia as a whole at risk because of these privatization schemes.

[1910]

I've had grave concern for a very long time. In canvassing this with the minister responsible for transportation infrastructure, we can see that the minister did not have a grasp of what would happen in the city of Vancouver around the Olympic village and that the failure of the Olympic village backers has landed square in the lap of the taxpayers of Vancouver. Now we are looking here to change and amend their charter so that they can take the very necessary steps to try and protect their taxpayers from further risk.

It would seem to me that one of the very basic tenets of government's responsibilities, certainly around the Olympics, is to look at ways that we protect our taxpayers from risk. But if all of these privatization schemes are beginning to fail…. They are on many other projects — not just the Olympic village, which we are standing here debating Bill 47 over, but other infrastructure projects, many of them tied to the Olympics and, I believe, many of them tied up in the cost overruns that the government has been so very, very secretive about and has been so loath to disclose to the people of British Columbia.

It goes right back, maybe, to this basic misunderstanding that somehow these privatization schemes would pick up the risk, that those shareholders and those corporations, wherever they are in this world, would pick up the responsibilities that government has dropped or would protect the taxpayers.

Why would they do that? They're there to protect their shareholders and make profit, and I don't think they give a darn about what happens here as these schemes fail. The people of the city of Vancouver are going to be the first victims of exactly this failure. I suspect we will see at the end of the day that the cost of this may be greater than what we even know on the surface now.

Like many of these kinds of initiatives, these endeavours that the government has gotten us into, we will not always know what the end result is going to be unless they fail, as in the case of the Olympic village in Vancouver, where a failure of financial backing has driven the true costs and the true implications of this privatization scheme out into the daylight. Now the city of Vancouver is on the hook, and we are having to amend their charter in order to give them a way to protect their taxpayers and get on with the very real responsibilities that they have taken on and signed on, which is to finish the Olympic village in time for the Olympics.

I would think, unfortunately, that this foreshadows a bigger and greater problem that we may see begin to snowball on us as time goes on. We have a very short time to the actual Olympics event itself. We know that Bill 47 — the urgency of that — is because of the short time line here. But all of the other transactions that are tied to this, and many that are not, that are a part of the whole privatization scheme ideology of this government I think are at risk as well.

I have here a recent article which appeared around the privatization, or P3, banker embroiled in a bond scandal. In fact, this is the DEPFA Bank, a major lender to public infrastructure projects here in British Columbia.
[ Page 13455 ]
This is not offshore. It's not in another country. It's not someplace else. It's here. This is a bank, a major lender to these P3 public-privatized projects in British Columbia. This company has found itself embroiled in a major bond scandal involving the Italian government. The city of Milan is considering legal action to recover losses they face over derivative contracts arranged with a group of five banks, including DEPFA.

The interesting thing for me…. You know, it always comes back, for us as MLAs, to representation of our communities.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I'm going to read a statement that the Speaker read earlier — okay? As stated earlier:

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

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I appreciate the reminder. I do believe I have been speaking very specifically about Bill 47 and the purpose we are here for: to amend the charter and, certainly, some of the other projects tied to it.

[1915]

My concerns are that some of the very same components that have got us here debating this urgent bill are inherent problems elsewhere that affect my constituency and that my constituents phone and talk to me about, because you see, this now has raised an alarm bell.

Bill 47 and the circumstances of what is occurring in the city of Vancouver around this fiasco, the funding fiasco with their Olympic village, has raised questions right across this province, and justifiably so, with taxpayers who feel themselves at risk. As many of my colleagues have very, very ably laid out here earlier in this debate today, I think the implications are, at the end of the day….

We heard the Premier of this province and we heard the Liberal government here stand up and say that they are backing the Olympics, that they are ultimately responsible for all aspects of what it takes to bring this event to fruition here in British Columbia. In fact, this is one piece of it — the failing of this Olympic village funding, the fiasco around that — and we are here debating this as an emergency.

If the taxpayers of British Columbia could ultimately be on the hook for this, then I think it's justifiable for me to listen to my constituents, who are very concerned about these cost overruns, about the implications, about the possible failure of other parts of the whole Olympic planning.

Let's be clear. Many of my constituents have lost faith in this government's ability to come clean with the costs and the implications to them for the future. Many of my constituents are very concerned about the enormous costs that we are hearing about and the fact that this is coming at the cost of things that could be happening in my community, like more home care for seniors, like more long-term care beds for seniors, like remedies for wait-lists.

Very justifiably, I think, my constituents have a right to say that if this kind of money is at risk in the city of Vancouver, backed by the province of British Columbia, if this kind of money is at risk by burgeoning, huge cost overruns…. Whether the government will admit it or not, they are leaking out everywhere, and the truth will out, as it has here in Bill 47 with the Olympic village. If that is going to be costing my constituents in services, in schools, in affordable housing, then they have a right to ask. They have a right to know and have a right to have their voice heard.

I will tell you right now, hon. Speaker, that I have had phone calls to my office. I have had e-mails. I have had messages. I walk down the street to get a loaf of bread from the grocery store, and people stop and talk to me about what is happening with the Olympic file and why this government has bungled it. I have a right to stand here in the debate on Bill 47 and speak up for my constituents and say to this government that if you are going to engage in risky privatization funding schemes that are failing, these kinds of backed loans and privatization schemes are jeopardizing much more than just this Olympic village.

We saw the other day that the much-touted Port Mann Bridge is in question because the privatized partner is not able to get funding and may walk away from this. We see stories here about how the bank that's backing the Royal Jubilee Hospital wing here is in trouble with a bond scandal in Italy.

These are very real conditions, and standing here talking about an emergency debate to amend the Community Charter…. If this is the beginning of an endless snowball of Olympics-related costs that are going to cost my constituents and the communities here on the south Island and taxpayers across British Columbia money, then I have a right to ask those questions. In fact, that is clearly what I see — that the very essence that has caused this emergency at the Olympic village in Vancouver is a failed privatization project.

[1920]

It's a failed privatization funding scheme that the government has required. These privatization schemes have been promoted by Partnerships B.C. They are required by every community on projects over $20,000. They have us engaged in huge projects like the Sea to Sky Highway.

If these privatization schemes are going to start falling apart like the one in Vancouver did because of failed bank backing across the world, then I think we have a
[ Page 13456 ]
right to ask if the government has contingency plans, if they are doing due diligence. Or are we going back to this reliance that the Minister of Transportation talked about only a few months ago — that these are big boys and girls, these corporations, and that it's their problem if they lose money?

Well, it's not their problem if they lose money, because we can clearly see from the Olympic village cost overruns and the need for Bill 47 — a change to the charter — that it is not the corporations who take it on the nose. It's the taxpayers of this province.

We are here to speak up on behalf of our taxpayers and to speak out for the taxpayers of Vancouver, because my community is worried about the implications of this. They want to know: how deep does it go, how far will it spread, and are we going to see this province and the taxpayers of this province indebted for 30 years like Montreal while we very nicely listen to the ministers here tell us that all is well?

It's laughable to me that….

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: Montreal was very bad, but it's laughable to me that we've actually had debates here….

We've had the Minister of Finance stand up and try to convince us one more time that the Olympics are only going to cost us $600 million. It is actually just absurd to me, and I think a little disturbing as well, that our Minister of Finance seems unable to come clean on the costs. The Premier is unable to come clean on the costs.

You know what? We all want to see the Olympics occur. We want a successful event here, and why the government thinks it's necessary to fudge the information here in some way is absurd to me. We have the Auditor General of this province giving us a report and talking — very clearly, right? — about: "My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that the British Columbia share of the full cost of the Olympic Games is considerably higher than $600 million."

Yet today we still have the minister responsible for all of the financing of this province insisting that that's true. It just seems to me that if you cannot get the Minister of Finance to either grasp the depth of the problem or admit to it, then what faith does the public have here that any of this is ever going to come to light in a way that is credible and that does them justice?

I am very concerned about that. I'm even doubly concerned about the fact that when the Auditor General made this very clear auditing report…. And we do trust the Auditor General to look into the affairs of this province at many levels, in many different projects, and we trust what the Auditor General is saying. That's what we hired him for. That's what the government hired him for. Yet what does the government say when the Auditor General says we have not disclosed the full cost of the Olympics? The Premier says: "I'm not saying he can't have his opinion. I simply disagree with that position."

That is the most audacious thing I have ever heard. An independent officer of the Legislature gives an independent audit of the most important event that we are to hold here, which is costing hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of British Columbia and has now got the city of Vancouver indebted for — who knows? — perhaps as much as a billion dollars. And when this is disclosed in an open and accountable way, the Premier says: "I disagree. I disagree with the independent position. I disagree with the figures."

We've got the Minister of Finance standing up and saying: "I disagree with the independent information. I disagree with the figures, the real facts." I mean, honestly.

[1925]

You know, the security costs for the Olympics…. This is not even the government giving us their numbers. These are independent figures coming in that say it could cost up to a billion dollars. We have the government still saying $175 million, nothing more.

It's patently absurd that we would have the person responsible for running the government of this province, the Premier, stand up and say: "I disagree with the facts. I don't agree with that position, and therefore, it's not true." We have the Minister of Finance, on December 13, 2008, only a couple of months ago — not even that, a month ago — saying of the Auditor General's report: "It's up to him to release those documents, and I urge him to do so. Lots of people have different definitions of what should or should not be an Olympic-related cost."

Lots of people have different definitions of what should be included. Well, it would seem to me that if it says "Olympics" on the cover, that would be one indication. I'm not an engineer, and I'm not a chartered accountant, but it seems to me that if it's an Olympic village, like Bill 47 here — we're debating something around the Olympic village — that would say to me: "Olympic cost."

Olympic security. Well, that would be an Olympics cost. Let's talk about the Olympic secretariat. Do you think that might be about the Olympics? In my world, yes, it is about the Olympics.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please take your seat.

I'm going to read the statement that the Speaker read earlier, and I would like you to abide by it. As stated earlier:

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

Please continue, Member.
[ Page 13457 ]

M. Karagianis: Certainly, reading from the first line of the letter from the city of Vancouver to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition: "Olympic village project: urgent request for Vancouver Charter amendment to protect the interests...."

We have here some comments by the minister, but I think that in reality…. Because I see that my time has almost run out here, I will say to you that sitting here amending the Vancouver Charter…. The citizens in my community have been bereft of so many things they need at the expense of the Olympics that they are justifiably concerned that as we sit here and debate amendments to the Vancouver Charter to try and rectify the very poor decisions this government has made in how they've established these public-private partnerships…. I'm here to stand up for those citizens. I'll continue to do that.

You cannot constrain speech in this House by continuing to try and keep us to a bill here that is really about repairing the poor decisions made by this government on how Olympics costing is being disclosed to the citizens of British Columbia. It is outrageous, as far as I'm concerned. We'll find out, I believe, as time goes on, that these cost overruns are bankrupting this province.

This government needs to come clean and tell the people of this province — who are doing without seniors care, who are having their schools closed, huge tuitions, no child care — of the cost of the Olympics. Hundreds of millions of dollars going into the Olympics. So I am justifiably outraged on behalf of the citizens of my community about the Olympics costs.

[1930]

S. Fraser: I rise today to speak to Bill 47, intituled the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. I must say that when we got called back for this today…. It's Saturday today. I had a number of my constituents call, confused about what exactly the process was that was happening around Bill 47 and just what was happening in Vancouver regarding the Olympics, because — as we've all heard in the press and from the Auditor General — there have been a number of spiralling costs that have certainly scared a lot of British Columbians who are looking forward to an Olympics that can be something we're all proud of.

With respect to my constituents, I am sure they are not alone in the province. I know many, many people are wondering just why we're here and how we got to a point where we're dealing with Bill 47.

I must say that Bill 47 is the most abbreviated bill I have seen. It's basically one page, and some of that is definitions. It's really quite a small amendment to a charter, the Vancouver city charter. In essence, if passed, it would allow Vancouver mayor and council to be able to borrow money — a lot of money — required to back the Olympic projects, for the Olympic village in this case, at False Creek area. The village is essential, as we saw from the letter that was written to both the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition from the new Mayor Robertson — Gregor Robertson. I'd like to congratulate him on Hansard here.

The urgency of this was brought forward by the mayor. They have been left basically holding the bag for a questionable deal where the taxpayers in Vancouver are on the hook for upwards of $875 million in a deal that was not made public. We heard about it during the municipal election.

If I can, for the sake of those of my constituents and certainly people across the province that just want to know what we're doing here today…. We came into this chamber midday, and we had first reading of Bill 47. We're currently in second reading of Bill 47.

Prior to that, there was a discussion, certainly from the House Leader and from the opposition House Leader also, regarding how fast this would come through the House. The House Leader put forward an argument that this was urgent and that it had to be passed right away. It's called Standing Order 81.

We in the opposition argued — I thought our House Leader argued this very eloquently — that while the matter is of urgency to everyone, certainly the people of Tofino — sorry, of Vancouver…. I was the mayor of Tofino. I digress. The understanding was that they saw this as an urgent matter.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

Now, urgency has many meanings for many people. This particular deal is costing the taxpayers of Vancouver $87,000 a day, and that's certainly urgent. Having the ability for Vancouver to be able to negotiate a better deal through Bill 47 could help alleviate that, and hopefully it will to some extent.

That being said, it does not take away the argument that we've put forward from this side of the House. It does not take away the necessity of public scrutiny when it comes to passing Bill 47 and looking at why we are at a point where Vancouver taxpayers and, indeed, the citizens of British Columbia could be on the hook for a project that is $875 million.

It's hard to get your head around that kind of number when we hear that this is only one small part of an Olympic project with cost overruns pretty much every step of the way. This village concept in False Creek is…. I believe that in the last report out of the new city manager for the city of Vancouver the cost overruns are about 20 percent now. That's $125 million.

[1935]

Essentially, if this bill is not passed, this construction cannot continue, and that could put the entire Olympics at jeopardy. Every other project associated with the Olympics could subsequently be put at jeopardy. While
[ Page 13458 ]
this is definitely an issue of urgency for the taxpayers in Vancouver, it is an issue of some urgency and concern for all British Columbians because the investment that's been put forward so far by all of us for the entire Olympic project is at risk if this village is not completed.

Just so that the constituents will understand, the opposition lost that bid to have a full and fulsome debate over a period of days to make sure that we could ask all the hard questions that the public and the taxpayers of British Columbia demand on an issue such as this.

So this will be somewhat abbreviated. I believe we will be running all night. Certainly we have so many questions to ask. That is the intention from the opposition, and we're hoping at the end, I believe, to pass this bill, Bill 47, because there is no alternative. The new mayor and council of Vancouver have been put in a box on this one.

I referred to Tofino earlier. That's why I'm going to go there now. I was the mayor quite a few years ago of the district of Tofino, a small metropolis compared to Vancouver. One thing I did learn is that mayor and council is a continuing body. The obligations, good and bad…. From a previous mayor and council, there is an obligation with a new mayor and council of continuity. There's an expectation that deals that are made before will be honoured by a new mayor and council. To not do so would be to the peril of a new mayor and council. The reputation of integrity can be put at question.

Even a bad deal — in this case, I would suggest, an 11 percent interest rate on a very big loan that now has to be renegotiated because of that, and that high interest rate certainly — is a deal that was made by a previous mayor and council, and the new mayor and council are now asking for help in an urgent way. I do not believe, in my opinion, that it was urgent enough to warrant Standing Order 81, but that is the purview of the Speaker of the House, and I do respect that decision.

This request came from Mayor Robertson, on urgent request, formally, I believe, on Monday. It is Saturday. The fact that we are sitting here on a Saturday to discuss this means that there is no question period. That has been raised by constituents who understand the system, wondering, if it was urgent, why this was not brought forward earlier. Monday it was requested, and certainly all of the information that I have at my disposal indicates that the Premier, the government and the minister must have known about the fact that there was a crisis in the financing of this particular deal and that it could fall through and also put the entire Olympic project at risk.

The bill had to be drafted, certainly, and looked at by the Attorney General, I'm sure, to make sure it was appropriate, but I'm going to repeat myself. It essentially is a one-page bill. In the sense of urgency I do not think it needed to happen on a Saturday to avoid question period and avoid the questions that the public — that my constituents in Alberni-Qualicum — certainly have about how we could get to a place like this where this House is coming back on a Saturday to have very little ability to scrutinize and ask the hard questions about the Olympics and how we got to a point where a deal was made like this, which must have been known about by the Premier and the ministers and this government.

[1940]

Mayor Robertson and the council, I think, are wise to bring this forward. This is going to get around the necessity under the Community Charter, I guess, to have a referendum. Normally a borrowing of this size would require public assent. Anyone who's been involved in municipal politics knows that much smaller projects and much smaller borrowing requirements certainly require a referendum. In the case of Vancouver, there is certainly the concern that this will cause a precedent.

So these kinds of questions should normally be asked in a detailed way through committee stage and that sort of thing. Our ability to scrutinize this and for the public to see this document has been curtailed through Standing Order 81 because we're going to be going through this all in basically one day — long day though it may be. I do not believe that's in the public interest.

There's a term I learned on the west coast of Vancouver Island from the Nuu-chah-nulth elders. It's hishuk-ish ts'awalk. It is "all things are connected" or "everything is one." For us as legislators to pass a bill without looking at it in the context of what is happening around the entire Olympics would be foolish. That's according to Nuu-chah-nulth wisdom, certainly, and I've learned to trust that piece of wisdom, hishuk-ish ts'awalk.

Knowing that the taxpayers and, at the end of the day, not just the taxpayers of Vancouver but the taxpayers of British Columbia could be on the hook for a lot of money — hundreds of millions of dollars through such a bill — is of concern. So in that context, I think it's important that we look at the other cost overruns because the people of British Columbia need to know that.

The Auditors General have been raising concerns about cost overruns on the entire Olympic project, whether it's the Sea to Sky Highway, the $400 million cost overruns on the Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project or the costs of the B.C. Place Stadium roof replacement or the Olympic secretariat. There are so many costs that are not being calculated by this government, by this Premier and by the minister responsible still sticking on a ludicrous figure, if I may say, of $600 million as total cost. My constituents know that's not the case. They do trust in the Office of the Auditor General and the Auditor General's role, in an unbiased and non-partisan way, to be the watchdog for the public purse.

The fact that we have a Premier and a minister sticking to a $600 million figure as the true cost of the Olympics is a problem for most people in this province. I think it will be more cause for concern as we get through this
[ Page 13459 ]
process. From everything I'm hearing, it certainly will be a cause for concern for those voting in the next provincial election on May 12.

The total Olympic costs are spiralling out of control. I must say what the Auditor General was suggesting puts it from $600 million…. Well, depending on how you calculate it, it could be well over $2 billion. I've heard other calculations that could put it closer to $4 billion.

So while we are debating a bill that will allow Vancouver to borrow substantial sums…. And we don't know what those sums are, so this is to some extent a blank cheque.

[1945]

I want to take issue with statements made by the Minister of Finance earlier today, this evening. The Minister of Finance did not stick to the strict terms of this bill. He had a long, far-ranging, rambling discussion about many issues, so I'm hoping there would be some leeway there. But I'm going to speak specifically to one of his statements.

He took a position contrary…. He criticized the member for Surrey-Whalley, our critic for Finance, and he suggested that the critic was wrong in suggesting that the taxpayers could be on the hook for these cost overruns. He further suggested that there is nothing, at least written legally, that would put the province on the hook for these costs. I suggest that shows just how far out of touch the minister and the Premier and this government are.

The fact is that if the city of Vancouver were not able to cover the costs of this borrowing, it would put the Olympic village at risk. That, by definition from the documents, as the House Leader for the government said earlier today, could put the entire Olympics at risk.

If the minister was suggesting that if that money was not forthcoming from Vancouver and if there was a default or an inability to pay and the Olympic village could not be built, the government would allow that to occur — that the province would allow that to occur and allow the Olympics to fail…. I believe that is a scenario that the government could never allow to happen, because it would put every other project, with all those cost overruns to the taxpayer, at risk too. The entire Olympics could be at risk.

I would suggest that the minister…. By saying that the taxpayers of British Columbia are not on the hook for this as well as the taxpayers of Vancouver, I would suggest that he is wrong. I would suggest that he should take a reality check, because the government could never allow the Olympics to fail at this point. It would be, at this point, a public betrayal. The investment has been made.

We in the opposition have a lot of issues with how this has been managed — this Olympic project under this government and this Premier. But for all that, we are hopeful that we will have an Olympics here, something that we can celebrate for British Columbians. We're all on the hook for that one.

Bill 47 will allow borrowing for the city of Vancouver, mayor and council. If the Millennium project…. We've all heard the problems with that. We've heard that the lender is no longer coming forward with those funds. The city of Vancouver must be able to "guarantee" — I guess the word would be — those moneys, to be able to borrow those moneys. This bill is required for that.

How we got there is questionable. Where we are in the entire Olympics management from government is questionable at best. The Premier, the minister and the government have not been, in my opinion, forthright with the public. They ignore the advice of the Auditor General — the Auditors General — over and over again. They seem to be able to pick and choose what pieces of the Auditors General's report they want to agree with and then disagree otherwise.

That is wrong. The Auditor General is the watchdog for the public. We in the opposition are the mechanism for the public to have proper scrutiny of this bill and the hard questions of the entire Olympics, all the parts of the Olympics that are now part of a scandalous cost overrun — potentially billions of dollars over budget.

[1950]

There can be reasons for that. We can rally as a province to support the Olympics, but that becomes much, much more of a difficult and bitter pill to swallow for British Columbians when the Premier and the minister and the government refuse to disclose the real costs of the Olympics.

It's hard to rally around a project of this scale. It's hard to have the citizens of British Columbia be stewards of the Olympics when they do not believe they can trust the statements coming out of the minister, of the Premier and of this government about the true costs and the real costs of the Olympics to the taxpayer. It's a particularly bitter pill to swallow for….

My constituents in Alberni-Qualicum are not unique. We're okaying the borrowing of a lot of money that the taxpayers of British Columbia may all be on the hook for. This comes at a time where there doesn't seem to be enough money for obstetrics at the Tofino Hospital, where there doesn't seem to be enough money to support Fir Park and Echo Village seniors facilities in Port Alberni, and there isn't enough money to protect sensitive watersheds in the Parksville-Qualicum area.

So when cost overruns of this magnitude are being brought forward in the name of the Olympics, it's very, very difficult for my constituents to see us in the opposition being denied the right for a full and fulsome debate on the true costs of the Olympics on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

I've learned a lot in my almost four years as MLA about the parliamentary system. It doesn't matter what your
[ Page 13460 ]
party stripes are. Our system is designed as a check and balance. An evasion of due process, evasion by government and Premier of the ability of the opposition to do their job, either by cancelling sittings in this Legislature or by bringing forward standing orders, suggests that, yes, this is urgent, but not more urgent than the public interest.

The fact is that we needed to scrutinize this bill in its fullest of ways, not through Standing Order 81 that says all of the readings of this bill can happen in one day. Now, there are urgent bills and there are urgent bills, but Bill 47 is a blank cheque — at least half a billion dollars, maybe more — and that deserves full scrutiny of this House. It deserves more than the Premier is giving. On behalf of the people of British Columbia, we in the opposition want to ask all those hard questions.

They — the people, the taxpayers of British Columbia — deserve to know the true costs of the Olympics. If the taxpayers in Vancouver and British Columbia are going to be on the hook for the costs, the hundreds of millions of dollars potentially indicated in Bill 47 — although there are no numbers in here, which is of concern — they need to know all of the costs of the Olympics.

Unless the taxpayers can put that into perspective, unless we in the opposition can put that into perspective, it's very hard to deliberate on a bill in isolation. The costs of the Olympics, it appears, are going to be a burden on future generations, and that's not a legacy that's worthy of the Olympic Games.

[1955]

The people of British Columbia are going to host the world in 2010, and it's scandalous for this Premier and the minister responsible and the government of British Columbia to withhold the truth about the true costs of these games for future generations.

How we got to a point where the city of Vancouver can be coming to this place, to this Legislative Assembly, asking for help to get out of a mess left by their previous council, according to the documentation, with the full knowledge of this Premier and this minister and this government…. That deserves accounting for in this House. This is what we are here for. This is the people's House.

Madam Speaker, this bill has brought us back for one day. This is our sixth day of sitting since the end of May, since a meltdown in the economy worldwide, since the loss of thousands of forestry jobs, since the Auditor General has come forward with yet another report showing massive and spiralling cost overruns on the Olympics. We have sat here for six days.

And this one day we're back has been abbreviated by Standing Order 81, with the opposition on this side of the House who are trying to get some accountability from this Premier, from the minister and from this government — who will be accountable at the end of the day. They will be accountable. We hope, on this side of the House, that it doesn't tarnish the Olympic experience for all of us, for the world.

This Premier, this minister and this government had the chance to do a world-class Olympics that we could all be proud of. Now it's mired in scandalous spiralling cost overruns where the city of Vancouver is being forced to come to this House with Bill 47 to allow them to borrow money, which shouldn't have to happen at this point. This should have been done openly.

The Premier knew this was coming down, the minister knew this was coming down, and the government members had to have known this was coming down. There were so many reporting checks and balances that led us to this urgent bill.

We still have a chance to have an Olympics that we can all be proud of. We have to assist, in my opinion, the new mayor and council in Vancouver and the taxpayers of Vancouver to get out of the hole that was dug by the previous council — for everything I can see, with the complicity of this Premier, this minister and this government.

It is shameful that we are dealing with this issue now in an abbreviated form, that we are not allowed to go through the full readings and the number of days required for that to do it justice for the people of British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Interjections.

S. Fraser: I relish the heckling from the ministers across the way.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Your time has expired.

[2000]

D. Thorne: A few minutes ago one of my colleagues started out her discussion by saying: "What a mess this whole thing has turned into — the Olympics." I can't think of a better comment to make, starting out.

The best part, actually, of getting the opportunity to stand up tonight — other than to read out a couple of letters from the stack of e-mails that I've received in my constituency and to represent the constituents of Coquitlam-Maillardville and their comments and thoughts around the Olympics, and particularly the financing and the money aspects of the Olympics — is to just say that it's a very interesting….

We have not really had much of an opportunity up until now to discuss the Olympics and how the people in British Columbia feel about how things are going so far, aside from how we feel as legislators — but how our constituents feel. Certainly, we're not going to get a full debate this weekend, or at this time in any case, around Bill 47, but at least now we can express something.
[ Page 13461 ]

You know, it's been very difficult before now because really the whole strategy of this government around managing Olympics costs has been to try to hide them from the public. Bill 47, at least, is giving us the opportunity to discuss things like the Auditor General's reports over the years and how our constituents feel about aspects of the Olympics and Bill 47, which is an integral part of the….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before you go further, let's just remember the content of the bill, please, and stay relevant.

D. Thorne: Yes, thank you.

Well, we are here today to discuss Bill 47, the Olympic village fiasco in Vancouver, and the horrible situation that the current city council in Vancouver finds itself in and the reason that they have come to look to the Legislature to give them help.

I believe that the financial mess in Vancouver is indicative, more or less, of the financial mess that we find ourselves in with the whole Olympics and may find ourselves in, in the future in a worse mess.

In terms of Bill 47, I did want to just go over sort of a time line about how all of this came to pass — how we ended up here today — and going back a couple of years and how this Legislature, certainly the government, had to have known that this was happening.

In January 2006 VANOC sought $110,000 in additional funding from both the federal and the British Columbia governments. At that time B.C. and Canada required due-diligence reports prior to agreeing to fund the request. I would think that alarm bells would have gone off at that time, and we would have all been aware that there were problems brewing in Vancouver.

In May, just five months later, due-diligence reports made recommendations regarding stronger reporting of venue construction costs and cost containment. In September of the same year the province and VANOC signed an agreement regarding an additional $55 million in venue funding. The agreement contained requirements to strengthen reporting between VANOC and the province.

[2005]

By this time I would imagine — this precursor to Bill 47 — alarm bells would have been going off right across the government, not just the city of Vancouver. Then the following year in April, Partnerships B.C. reported on capital planning and budgets for all Olympic venues. The report detailed how enhanced reporting and the relationships between VANOC, the city of Vancouver and the province of B.C. regarding all venue projects…. Then a little later the finance committee reported to the Premier and to the Finance Minister. The next month, in May and into June of 2007, there was a financial guarantee approved to backstop the Fortress loan for $190 million.

Surely Bill 47 didn't just appear by magic this week. I mean, this is a year and a half ago that this was happening. At that time the city manager in Vancouver reported to council that the Millennium developer was in anticipatory default and that this was unlikely to be constructive to our important relationships and to the completion of the village. I would say that this might have been one of the understatements of the year — that this was unlikely to be constructive when they're in default and asking for $190 million and it's only May of 2007. In September the city approved a completion guarantee to Fortress for the full $750 million loan to Millennium — certainly a huge red flag.

In April the following year — last year, 2008 — the city annual financial report detailed the expanding risks to the Olympic village. In October the old council of Vancouver authorized $100 million to pay construction costs, as Millennium was out of money. Okay, that was just a few months ago. In December KPMG did an audit for the new council that came in, and the new council came to the government for the authorization to borrow.

Now, if we are going to stand here and accept the fact that this was a surprise and very sudden, I find that very difficult to believe. And I can tell you that the people in my constituency don't believe it at all — don't believe it at all. They believe it even less — that Bill 47 is a new, sudden, shocking surprise — than they believe that the Olympics are going to cost them $600 million.

Anyway, we're here today regardless of how we got here. I just outlined how we got here, and we're here today. We're talking about Bill 47.

Of course we have to help the city of Vancouver out. You know, the council in Vancouver — this isn't their fault. This isn't their fault, but we need to debate it. In the debating, I would hope that the shroud of secrecy around Olympic financing will be lifted somewhat for the citizens of British Columbia. I would hope.

It's very, very difficult. We're being shut down every way we turn. We were shut down on having a full debate. We're shut down when we bring up anything that isn't fitting in absolutely very narrow confines, and it's very, very hard for us to get out the word, the information that the people of British Columbia want.

I'm just going to read you a couple of e-mails that I received today — well, yesterday and today. I have a bunch more, but they're repetitive. I've just picked out these ones because when my constituents heard that we were coming back to the Legislature to talk about the Olympics….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.
[ Page 13462 ]

D. Thorne: You see, after four years here I'm beginning to realize — well, I always knew this, but to really realize — that people who are out there doing their everyday work, people in all of our constituencies…. They get up, they go to work to feed their kids, they do what has to be done, and they're not following this Legislature, unfortunately, day to day, minute by minute. They're not following what the member at the end of the table there is doing day to day in his riding or even what I'm doing in my riding, but they know when something is out of whack. They know when they want information that they're not getting.

[2010]

We've all been getting e-mails. I would even venture to say — now, I will never know this — that there are members on the other side of the House that are getting the same kind of e-mails that I'm getting, saying: "What's up? What's going on?" It's very hard for me to imagine that the constituents in Prince George are so different from the constituents in 100 Mile House and Coquitlam. I can't imagine it. So I suspect that the member at the end of the table and the members over here are getting the same questions that I'm getting.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

D. Thorne: The member across the way, Madam Speaker, wants to know what I know.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your….

D. Thorne: Well, he won't tell me. I don't know anything.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

Interjections.

D. Thorne: And that's what….

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please.

Members, every member of this chamber deserves a right to be heard, so I ask, please, for decorum.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: But it is that very lack of information that is upsetting the constituents in Coquitlam-Maillardville and, I suspect, right across the province.

However, I'm just going to briefly read these little things here. I'm hearing from outraged British Columbians who want to know the truth about Olympic cost overruns, including the Olympic village in Vancouver, because people are not clear on exactly what's happened there. They're worried. They're concerned that the P3s that are involved across the province in what are considered non-Olympic expenses, like the Sea to Sky Highway, the big rink in Richmond…. There are a number of different things.

But the people are telling us, MLAs on this side of the House — and, I'm sure, on the other side of the House — that they want an end to any financial secrecy. If there is out-of-control spending, they want a plan to contain that out-of-control spending.

So I have this letter from one of my constituents. I'm not going to give his name, although he would probably be delighted if I did. I'm not going to. He says:

"I hope you and your colleagues will take every opportunity at this weekend's hastily called legislative session to press the government to open up the books on obligations that they have taken on for all of us. They cannot be allowed to withstand the calls of the Legislature's own Auditor General to provide a full accounting of all the costs we will pay off.

"The city of Vancouver will need your support in gaining permission to take on the debt today to avoid the disaster that could come tomorrow if they can't act to salvage the situation the current council finds itself in. A situation that need not have arisen from the past council has shown the openness of the present council to try and deal with their citizens.

"That is exactly the kind of openness that our government has stonewalled. That is the openness that will allow the people to judge the performance of the government as stewards of our resources.

"Please do not allow one more day of evasion. We're all counting on you."

Now, I'm sure they don't mean just me. I think they mean the official opposition, because they're very, very worried that the government is not telling them everything they need to know. In their minds, Bill 47 is part of that suspicion and mistrust that is growing up rapidly, and this is what people don't understand. This is why they need a clear accounting of every cost of the Olympics — every cost, as this letter referred to; as the Auditor General himself and, in fact, several Auditors General have said.

I'll just read briefly from another letter.

"Although I have never been a big supporter of the Olympic Games, I am appalled at what we are learning regarding the budget, especially given these tough economic times. The Vancouver issue is a big problem, and I am not sure if there are other possibilities other than what the mayor is asking for. However, it does point to an ongoing lack of accountability in general with the Olympics and the government, and one suspects that there are more surprises in the future.

[2015]

"I think that the government needs to reassure the public that they are watching carefully, reducing costs, and be very, very clear about the money they are spending and how they are doing it."

And then she goes on and on about the economic meltdown. She does say at the end, though, which I thought was rather a good way to end: "Right now, $600 million sounds very, very good. Oh, if only that were true." That's how the letter has ended.

I wanted to move on from there to…. I have some notes here from the Minister of Finance's comments this
[ Page 13463 ]
afternoon, and I must say I was a little amused by the part about the Auditor General and the utterly superb rationalization made by the Minister of Finance about what really the Auditors General — and I use plural — have meant over the years when they talk about Olympic costs.

And he says: "I think it's important to emphasize that none of the reports have identified any undisclosed money, any undisclosed costs that somehow the government is aware of but has not made known to the public. What these reports really come down to is the question about what should or should not be considered Olympic-related costs."

So this goes back in a way to Bill 47, in that there are people…. I'm not saying the Auditor General, but there are people who might not think that the Olympic village — what I'm calling the Olympic village, the basis of Bill 47 — is really an Olympic-related cost. It might just be a big development in Vancouver that's going to make somebody — the city, the developer or both — a whole bundle of money down the road. Is this really any more an Olympic-related cost than the Sea to Sky Highway or the SkyTrain to the airport or any number of things that aren't included?

I have a list here of costs that I would consider Olympic costs and that I think a lot of my constituents consider Olympic costs, which are not included in the budget by the Finance Minister and the Premier — things like the VANOC secretariat, the B.C.-Canada house in Torino, the cultural centre in Squamish, the Paralympic Centre in Kimberley — I mentioned the Canada line already — the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, the Sea to Sky Highway and the renovations to B.C. Place. How are they any different from the village that we're discussing in Bill 47? How are they any different?

That's what my constituents are wondering. They're confused by all of this, and then I hear the Finance Minister saying that really it's not that there's money that hasn't been disclosed — so we're not talking about any kind of financial irregularity or crime at all — and what the Auditor General is talking about is what should or should not be considered Olympic-related costs.

I just found it, in a sad kind of way, a bit amusing because that would sort of be like me in my household budget listing all my expenses in my entertainment budget and my grocery budget. So I wouldn't think that I was spending too much money in my entertainment budget — because, you know, you have to watch that when times are tough — I would kind of slide some of those expenses over into my grocery-list budget. Then I would be able to say to my friends or to my children or even to myself when I was rationalizing what I was doing: "Well, you know, we really spent $20 more this month on food, but we spent $20 less on entertainment. So we've really, really tightened our belts, and aren't we doing a good job?"

[2020]

In fact, I still spent the money, and it was entertainment money. Perhaps it was a bottle of wine, and I put it on the grocery budget, and I felt better about it because it was groceries instead of entertainment.

That's how I kind of thought. When the Minister of Finance was talking, I thought: he's really doing a great job of rationalization. It's really, really excellent.

The whole issue around the Auditor General and what is and what isn't an Olympic expense really does tie into Bill 47, which, as I said earlier, I absolutely believe we have to pass at some point in time. But I am hoping that through the minimal debate we're having, some information that the public is crying out for, some openness, some transparency will happen.

Madam Speaker, I'm going to finish up. I have….

Interjections.

D. Thorne: I see members across the room are happy that I'm going to finish up. They must think that….

Interjection.

D. Thorne: They probably do.

I have some questions for them, so I'm hoping that when I'm done, they're so happy to see me finish that someone over there is going to get up and answer the questions — unless they know that the next speaker is going to have some information for them that I don't have, which I rather doubt, because we don't have very much information.

As I said earlier, very few people now in British Columbia believe the government anymore when they say that the Olympics are going to cost $600 million. They now know, though one of the questions that they might have been asking prior to today and yesterday and the past few days….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members.

D. Thorne: It gives me a break. It lets me take a drink of water.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

D. Thorne: At least now the taxpayers of British Columbia know how much they're on the hook for with the Olympic village in Vancouver. So this is the beginning of opening up that Pandora's box that we — well, not we; some of us in the room — have kept locked up tight for a very, very long time with a little bolt that says
[ Page 13464 ]
$600 million. And now that little bolt, that little lock on that Pandora's box is starting to break open.

I suspect that lots of other information and figures will come out over the next few months, which perhaps the government had hoped to keep in that box for a little while longer.

The security budget is a very interesting part. As far as Bill 47 is concerned, I think it's tied directly to security. I think that is one area — where the athletes will be staying — where very much of those security costs will be spent in Vancouver. So it's very important that this village be built to the right kind of specs and that they'll be able to properly secure it.

Nobody knows yet who will bear those costs. We do know, though, that the taxpayer will in the end, whether it's the city of Vancouver, the federal government or the province of British Columbia. The very taxpayers that are being kept in the dark are the ones who will pay all of these costs in the end.

It's so easy for us to stand up here in the Legislature and say: "Oh, that's the federal government. We don't need to worry about that," or "That's the city of Vancouver. We don't need to worry about that." But we are all one and the same taxpayer — another reason to get that Pandora's box open as soon as we can, air out the insides of it and at least let people know what's going on.

Many Olympic projects in the city of Vancouver and across the province are over budget. The preparation centre in Surrey may not even be ready in time for the games. We would like to know, the citizens of British Columbia, how many projects are in trouble — not just how much they cost, but what kind of trouble they are in. Are we going to get them done, or will the costs escalate even more to get all of those things finished in time?

[2025]

We're wondering after seeing what happened in Vancouver with Bill 47. People are now very, very worried about other agreements. Are costs in place? Are these agreements signed? Who has guaranteed them? What costs are outstanding? There are a hundred questions around agreements.

The government so far has refused to listen to the prudent advice of the Auditors General — or Auditors Generals; I'm not even sure quite how to say that. But about the Olympics — still refusing to cooperate with the Auditor General. Why? He wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance in December. It wasn't even made public, really, because I think that he felt there was no point. There was no point….

Interjection.

D. Thorne: Sorry — to the Speaker. I apologize, Minister. It was to the Speaker. You're absolutely right. Sorry.

Deputy Speaker: Member, address your remarks through the Chair, please.

D. Thorne: Yes. Sorry, Madam Speaker.

I will close by saying that I do support giving the city of Vancouver what they need so desperately because of the hole they find themselves in, but I do want to reiterate that the lack of transparency, openness and full debate around Bill 47 is quite dismaying to me. I expect when I go back to my riding next week to hear a great deal about this, and I suspect, again, that so will the members on the other side. I can't believe that half of the province feels so strongly about something and that the other half doesn't.

N. Macdonald: It's always a privilege to stand in this House. It is, I guess, 8:30 on a Saturday night, which is an odd place to be on a Saturday night, but I can honestly say that it is a privilege to be here. Over the four years I have always felt that this is a place that's important to the people I represent. They want me to come here. They want me to take every opportunity that I have to speak for them. So I say very sincerely that it's a privilege to stand at any time and to speak for them.

I want to just say three things before I get into the main part of what I want to say. I just want to take this opportunity to start by offering congratulations to a former colleague and a man who we all came to know and admire here in the NDP caucus — it's Gregor Robertson — on his election as mayor of Vancouver. That is a fantastic accomplishment.

Vancouver is really one of the world's truly great cities, and we have tremendous confidence in Mayor Robertson's abilities to not only deal with the issue that brings us here today but also make Vancouver the city that can truly be a model to the world — not only with social justice but his commitment to environmental innovation, a city that's artistic and culturally rich. I mean, all of those are possible with Mayor Robertson. I just want to pass along those congratulations.

I also want to just say hello quickly to Chuck, who's at VGH. He's watching. I want you to know that we're all thinking of you here and that the work we did together in Kimberley gave me an opportunity to see an MLA do work that would make all of us proud. I've got my New Westminster pin here. I've not only got the pin from him, but I also know how to say New Westminster, which for somebody from Golden is not an automatic.

The last thing I would like to do, which is slightly off track — and I know we've been careful to keep things focused — would be just to congratulate the minister and just say that he, I think, very consciously took seven years to become a minister through his own decisions, and he knows the respect that he's gained from colleagues on both sides of the floor for making the choices that he did.
[ Page 13465 ]

I don't mean to be cryptic, but very often compliments here seem like they're sarcastic. It's not. It's something that we really admire him for, and we wish him all the best with this bill.

[2030]

So we'll get directly to the bill. I was pleased that speakers on both sides have provided an opportunity to speak to a lot of issues that people in my area would like to see raised here.

Bill 47, the Olympic village act — or the act that deals with the Olympic village — that's before us this weekend arises from a financial crisis in the city of Vancouver. There is no question that there's a clear parallel with what the B.C. Liberals are doing provincially.

The B.C. Liberals municipal party, the NPA, in their recent election tried to hide the truth about the financial boondoggle that the Olympic village has become. They hoped to keep costs hidden and their financial obligations that they'd put the city in hidden until after the election. That did not work. What you see is that not only did it not work for the Vancouver wing of the B.C. Liberals, but I don't think trying to keep the true story about what's happening with the Olympics is going to work for the B.C. Liberal government as well.

In 2002 the city of Vancouver undertook a project with Fortress Investment Group and the Millennium Development group to develop the Olympic village. That was to be completed by November 2009. There's no question, I think, that that project has been bungled — a combination of arrogance and neglect. Some misfortune has led to this problem that we're trying to deal with today.

This bill will provide a type of solution, but I think we need to be clear that the solution is really a solution of desperation and no more. The NPA council tried to hide the true situation, just as the B.C. Liberal government tells us that the Olympics will cost no more than $600 million.

During the last election in an all-candidates forum, in a debate, my B.C. Liberal opponent said she wanted to make it clear that B.C. Rail wasn't sold, that it had only been leased for a thousand years. And the people there laughed. They thought it was a ridiculous statement.

I get the same reaction with any suggestion that the true cost is going to be $600 million. That is simply not a figure that is accurate or meaningful for people here. They realize that trying to narrow what you define as a cost makes no difference to the amount that we're going to spend — the amount of money that is going to go towards the Olympics.

Where I come from, people are excited about the Olympics. We are distant from Vancouver. It is difficult to get from Golden to Vancouver, to get from Revelstoke to Vancouver, to get from Kimberley to Vancouver. We are distant from Vancouver and distant from Victoria. It means that very often things that are happening here, which seem like they are the centre of everybody's universe, are not necessarily the same things that we care about. But like most British Columbians and most Canadians, the Olympics is something that we hope is going to be successful and be something that is not only successful but useful in economic terms.

But they want to make sure the money that is spent is spent properly. They want to make sure that the true costs are put in front of them. That surely is an obligation of any government, but particularly a government that came into power in 2001 promising to be the most open and accountable in…. I forget if it was in Canada or North America or the world. I've heard so many of these sorts of claims that I get them confused. Certainly, there was a clear promise that this would be a government that was going to be open and accountable.

The truth is that on almost every count, they have failed. They have failed to be truthful. You look at freedom of information. You look at a whole host of areas where they not only have not tried to be open and accountable, but they have deliberately tried to do the opposite.

[2035]

The very least with these Olympic costs that people in my area would expect is to know that the money is being spent properly and that the money that is reported is an accurate reflection of the obligations the taxpayers have. I think on those counts, there's been a failure, just as there was a failure with the Olympic village — just as there was a failure that a local government, the NPA, felt that they could keep those costs hidden, those obligations hidden.

There's no question in my mind not only that we have to look at what has happened with the Olympic village but also, as a Legislature, that we should be exploring the wider picture and looking at the lessons that need to be taken from here.

That $600 million figure — that's something that Auditors General in B.C. have rejected and that they do not accept. These are non-partisan, these are professionals, and we should respect professionals in all fields. Certainly, when they tell us that the $600 million figure is inaccurate, then that's something that should be listened to.

Certainly, the opposition disagrees with that figure, the wider public disagrees, and the most sympathetic of the mainstream media dismiss it as a fiction as well. So let's put an accurate picture in front of the public and allow them to understand what is going on. The cost could be as high as $6 billion for the Olympics.

I think anytime — and other members have talked about this — you say that the Olympic secretariat is not part of the Olympic cost, you invite ridicule. That ridicule is well earned, and it's there. So to persist in saying it's $600 million…. Well, give it up. Tell us the true cost — what is going to come out of our pocket — so that the
[ Page 13466 ]
public can judge the benefits and whether that money is spent wisely.

If you look at the Olympic village, there is no question that it is a mess. It is a mess, and we need to understand how it came to be that way. I would say that there are clear lessons that we need to learn, which we can apply in a wider sense. So part of what we need to do is understand what went wrong and understand how to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

Again and again we see with this government the tendency towards secrecy. I would say that anytime you remove the scrutiny and do things in secret, you are inviting the problems that we see. You invite mismanagement. You invite poor decision-making. You set up a scenario that is bound to create problems. Certainly, in the Olympic village case we see it.

We see it in other things as well. We see it with the convention centre, the same scenario where secrecy invited incompetence, where misleading the public — and clearly, with the convention centre there was a misleading of the public — allowed a project to go off track to such an extent that to go and recover that project was extremely difficult and came at a tremendous cost.

With the convention centre we were told originally that it would cost $495 million, and the provincial taxpayers would be responsible for about $220 million of those dollars. We were guaranteed. We were guaranteed $495 million. Later on the Premier himself guaranteed $565 million.

Well, none of that information was accurate. It was based, according to the Auditor General, on information that simply was not there. The best information that was available at that time was that it would cost at least $635 million. A project done in secrecy with minutes that the public could not understand or could not get access to….

Projects that are misrepresented are bound to create problems, and that's what you have. That's what you have with the Olympic village. That's what we are here trying to fix, just as we have a mess with the convention centre that will need fixing.

I think that from a rural perspective, we need to understand that the money that is spent on these projects represents lost opportunity in other parts of the province. Now, if it is money well spent, then people in rural British Columbia can understand it.

[2040]

But at the same time that you have an open chequebook for the Olympics, the context for that, especially between 2001 and 2005 in rural British Columbia, was pretty dire. While money was being spent on all sorts of projects, you had an unprecedented cutting of services in rural British Columbia, in the area that I represent. What people would say and would continue to say, even though it has improved substantially since 2005…. They would say that there was a fundamental unfairness in where resources were going in this province. Now, they would accept if the money was being spent wisely, but they would not accept….

Point of Order

Hon. P. Bell: Point of order. There's little or no relevance of the member's comments to Bill 47. I believe the Speaker has been clear on the importance of members being relevant specifically to the bill. The member has talked about convention centres. He has talked about services to rural British Columbia. I'd ask that you direct him to refocus his comments.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member, please remember the content of the bill and direct your remarks accordingly.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: Certainly.

While I may take issue with the Minister of Finance's $600 million figure, I certainly know that his experience in the House would give me the example to set in terms of the breadth I can take on this sort of issue. So I certainly fall in line with what the Minister of Finance spoke about. I think that compared to the fact that he has…. He mentioned Bill 47 once. I think I've mentioned it a number of times, and it's within context. The people that speak to me in coming here and talking about an issue such as….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

N. Macdonald: So when we're looking at an issue like the Olympic village, which we are here to deal with, and the mess that we are here to clean up, it leads people from my area to look at how money is being spent. At a time when in my communities, you had dramatic cuts, it really begs the question as to whether the money that we spend on the Olympics is well spent. It's not $600 million — remember. It will approach $6 billion, and many of these projects….

Deputy Speaker: Member, I ask you once again. Please, relevance of remarks, and please address your remarks to the content of Bill 47.

N. Macdonald: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

To understand the context of what is being said, it is this. Bill 47 deals with the Olympic village. The Olympic village is an example of a project that has gone off track. It's not the only one. It is one mess that we're here today to clean up, but it's not the only one we're going to be
[ Page 13467 ]
cleaning up. The convention centre is another mess. The convention centre isn't….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

N. Macdonald: The convention centre is another example of a project that has gone off. Now, when these projects go off, there's a certain frustration in the money being wasted at any time, but in the context of what rural British Columbia had to put up with over the past seven years and certainly in the first four years — between 2001 and 2005 — it is particularly offensive.

Point of Order

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Speaker, the member is swaying off the topic of this bill on a regular basis. He has not redirected his comments and focused them on the matter of the bill. It is a relatively simple bill. There are some very specific things that could be discussed as a result of the bill, and I would ask that you direct the member opposite to refocus his comments to ensure that they are relevant to the bill.

J. Horgan: I certainly am well aware of the rules of this place, as I'm confident the Minister of Forests is. If he had the class and dignity of the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke, he would allow some latitude for him to take the half an hour that's given to him to speak his mind on issues of importance to people in his constituency.

We are confined by the rules of this House. No question about it. You've made the issue quite clear to the member. The member has respect for the Chair. The member will follow the Chair, but he does need to have some latitude to paint the broad mosaic of issues that his constituents want put before this House. If that is uncomfortable for the Minister of Forests, that's his issue — not the Speaker's and not the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke's.

[2045]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I ask you to continue, I simply want to remind you that second reading debate is about the principle of the bill.

I would also like to remind members of the statement made earlier by Mr. Speaker in which he did draw the attention of this House to the fact that this is not second reading of either throne or budget debate, which does allow a great deal of latitude. So our latitude in this respect is narrower. In spite of that, the Chair has allowed, I think, considerable latitude, but I do ask that your remarks be directed to the content of Bill 47.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: So the cost of the Olympics, then, needs to be seen in the context of the wider B.C. Liberal spending.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: Oh, for goodness' sake.

You know, after you speak….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Thank you, Members. I am once again reminding you of the purpose of the debate here, which is to debate the principles around Bill 47. I would also like to ask members, if you have a point of order to raise, to stand and raise it appropriately. You will be recognized.

Continue, Member.

N. Macdonald: Bill 47 deals with the Olympic village. The Olympic village is a project, like many with the Olympics, that has gone terribly off-kilter.

There is a new government in place that is fixing that mess. Well, that's something that in a few months will be the work for other people, just like the city government in Vancouver has to fix up messes. There are plenty of messes being left for the next government to fix with the provincial set of projects.

In particular, when you look at local government and look at the obligations that are being put on the people of Vancouver with a project that is being bungled, you start to look at how that came to be. There is no question that there are lessons to be learned. As I said before, one of the key lessons is around secrecy. It is not only with this project but at a provincial level too. We can look at the convention centre. We can look at the mistakes that were made with the convention centre, and we can see the parallels. We can see the parallels.

Before the minister stands up to object again, he should have listened to the debate that has gone on here. He should have heard his own member and seen where his own member has taken it. We sit in this House how many times since last May until the next election? How many days are we going to be sitting here?
[ Page 13468 ]

Every opportunity I have taken, every opportunity I have been given, I have come to this House and tried to speak for the people that elected me. To have ministers not able to sit through 30 minutes of what people in my community want to have said and just be quiet and listen to it is highly objectionable.

[2050]

Now, I ask for no special privileges, but I certainly expect the same respect on behalf of the people that I represent as any other member of this House.

The fact of the matter is that there has been money misspent. It is not our money in the sense of being legislators. It is the people of British Columbia. In this case, with this bill, it is the people of Vancouver whose money has been misspent, and in all cases they are going to look at that money and see how it could be spent better.

If you come to the area that I represent, there were cuts all over the place. There were cuts between 2001 and 2005, and money that could have been spent….

Point of Order

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Speaker, again, you've warned the member opposite on a number of occasions. The member is talking about something that from his perspective, perhaps, occurred in the past. It is completely irrelevant to the bill, and I'd ask that you redirect his focus on the topic of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member, with the same guidelines that have been mentioned before.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: So Bill 47 and the Olympic village. The Olympic village is, of course, a key part of the Olympics. What makes that project so difficult to manage and why it has gone so badly askew is because there is an artificial deadline. There is an artificial deadline just like there was with the convention centre project.

What is in common with all of these projects — and B.C. Place is no different — is the hand of the Premier — the hand of the Premier directing, making decisions that have not been thought through. That arbitrary date for 2009 for the Olympic village creates problems. We would not be here if there was not that deadline. It is the same with the convention centre expansion project.

By the way, the convention centre expansion project was not supposed to be an Olympic project. It clearly is now. The decision was made by the Premier to make that the broadcast centre instead of where it was supposed to be in Richmond.

A decision by the Premier sets that artificial deadline, and what you see is a project that's supposed to cost the people of British Columbia $200 million ending up costing closer to $700 million. That's the provincial taxpayers' obligation on that project.

What we see with project after project — whether it is the NPA, the junior B.C. Liberals, or it's the B.C. Liberals themselves — is projects botched. The Vancouver Convention Centre expansion project was one of the worst-managed projects in the history of this province. It shares that now with the Olympic village. It shares that in the same way with B.C. Place.

While this government wastes taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, we see program after program, cut after cut in the area that I represent.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: It's interesting to have this minister talking now. Let's talk about Kimberley Hospital, closed by this minister. Kimberley Hospital — closed.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Continue, Member.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

Continue, Member, and relevance to the bill.

N. Macdonald: So we come here for — what? — five, 13 days from the end of May until the election. How many days are we going to be here? Thirteen days, 16 days — that's it. That's a year's work.

People expect us to come here and speak for them, and we cannot even get a sentence out without interruptions from the ministers. I can see why they do not want me to speak about what is important to the people of Columbia River–Revelstoke, because each one of the ministers that is interfering with what I want to say has failed the people that I represent dramatically. The Forests Minister, when there has been an unprecedented collapse in the forest industry …. He is a minister. It is a legacy of complete and utter failure.

Point of Order

Hon. P. Bell: Madam Speaker, the member opposite has completely disregarded your direction on three separate occasions.

[2055]

I am very concerned about the way this debate is proceeding. I believe that the Speaker, in his earlier com-
[ Page 13469 ]
ments, has been very clear in terms of the latitude, or lack of latitude, that would be offered. I would strongly encourage the Speaker to ensure that the member stays on topic. That is not the case at this point.

Deputy Speaker: Member, before I allow you to proceed, I want to remind you once again that second reading is on the general purpose of the bill. This bill is, in fact, very narrow in its content.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: As part of what the government described as an emergency measure, clearly we couldn't spend two days talking about this bill. It clearly is an emergency in some way related to the Olympics. I think in everything we heard, we had the Olympics raised. When we look at Olympic projects, I've already made the point that the idea that it's $600 million is a complete fallacy. That's clear.

I've also made the point that secrecy is part of the problem that led to this mess that we're trying to clear up with Bill 47. It is a mess. It is a mess created by the B.C. Liberals farm team in Vancouver. It is a mess that they created in secrecy. When we look at this government, it is the same modus operandi again and again. It is secrecy, secrecy, secrecy. It hides incompetence — and consistent incompetence.

I raised the point to make…. The minister wants me to back that up. I would say I back it up with the convention centre project. I back it up with the bungling of B.C. Place. I back it up with the fact…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please, relevant to the bill.

N. Macdonald: …that the Olympic village, as well, has been bungled because of that tendency towards secrecy, that taking of taxpayers' money and being indifferent or being reckless with it.

We are here to try to fix that mess. There's no question. The Minister of Finance is looking at me with a puzzled look. Is there any question? Does anyone question that that project has been bungled? It has been bungled. It is in a difficult, difficult place that we are going to extraordinary lengths in an emergency debate to fix. That is what we are doing. So any argument that it is not bungled…. It is bungled.

I have complete confidence that the people who are there now in positions of leadership, like Mayor Gregor Robertson, will fix it. I have complete confidence in that. But I know that we got to this place because of mistakes that were made by the B.C. Liberal farm team. We see those same mistakes being made by this government. Secrecy, then, is the issue.

Point of Order

R. Thorpe: I have been in my office listening to this nonsense. Madam Speaker, I would ask that the members — and through you because I know you've been giving him direction — keep on the relevancy of the bill. That's what we're here for.

A. Dix: In reply to the point of order….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

A. Dix: I know that the Minister of Finance, who spent a while talking about the curling rink today, is going to lecture us again about relevancy, but the reality is that you're not allowed to use points of order to harass and interrupt speeches. This has been the fourth interruption, and there has to be direction, in my…. I ask you. There has to be direction.

[2100]

Interjections.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, I just suggest to you that it is disrespectful to the Chair for members on the government side, members of cabinet, to pretend that they're the Speakers of this Legislature. They are not, and constant interruption of members' speeches, in my view, affects their rights as members of the Legislature. So I ask in fairness that control be exercised on both sides for these things.

When a member gets up on a claimed point of order and says another member's statement is nonsense, which is a point of debate…. He has every right to get up in that debate if he wants to. I look forward to it. He can get up anytime he likes. But that is a point of debate, and it is not a point of order. Points of order should not be used by people who don't have the respect to get up themselves and participate in the debate as points of debate.

Deputy Speaker: Sit down, member.

Members, before we proceed with the proceedings in this House, I am going to just remind both sides of the House once again, and I'm going to quote the remarks of Mr. Speaker when he reminded us once again that this is neither throne debate nor a budget debate, which both permit the widest possible range of discussion. This is second reading on a debate relating to the narrowly drawn bill presently before the House.

I have said that many times, and I would ask the members of this House to please direct their remarks to the bill at hand.

Member continues, but I wish to remind the member that I expect his remarks to be confined to the bill, or I will have to ask him to resume his seat.
[ Page 13470 ]

Debate Continued

N. Macdonald: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do hope that the member from Penticton will take the invitation to speak. I think there'll be an opportunity for him to speak about, perhaps, and draw on some of the things that I've said and maybe just explain about the convention centre.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I think it was this minister who stood up and guaranteed $495 million on time, on budget — guaranteed by this minister. Well, it's not $495 million, and it's not on time. So I think it would be an interesting debate to engage in as he finishes his career.

My point is that the problems we addressed today are things that we need to learn from. I don't think that that's an outrageous stretch to say that when there's legislation and you're addressing a problem, you would speak about what took you to the point, what took you to the place.

Why are we here in an emergency debate having to change the rules, which has been done, I think, since 1968 only six times? We are changing the rules so that we can ram this through in one night. How did we get to that place?

I would put it to you that one of the central lessons we need to learn from this is that when you remove accountability…. Let's be clear. Even this exercise today with these ministers is an attempt to remove accountability, to try to silence any criticism. When you consistently remove accountability and you put things in a hidden place, then you invite trouble. It is the reason that we have this institution. It's the reason that we have debates over a series of days. It is the reason that you have estimates that are supposed to last more than two hours on these important things.

But as soon as you hide them like you did with the Olympic village, then you invite a Bill 47. You invite this to happen again and again and again. If we do not learn lessons, then we are doing a terrible disservice to the people that we are supposed to be representing, the people whose money we are supposed to be spending wisely.

If we repeat mistakes…. Let's be clear. We are here not at a glorious moment. We are here in an act of desperation, forced to hold our noses and do what none of us would otherwise choose to do if we weren't in a desperate situation. This is not what the city of Vancouver wants to do.

We have in place rules around referendums so that people can decide for themselves as a public whether they want their municipal government to spend money or not. Here we're waiving that rule. It is an act of desperation. Let's be clear.

[2105]

The lesson that we need to learn is that when you act in secrecy, when you deliberately go out to hide what is happening, then you invite certain very predictable things to happen. We have seen it provincially with the B.C. Liberals. We have seen it on the convention centre project, we have seen it on B.C. Place, and we see it with the Olympic village.

Just as surely as there is a mess with the Olympic village, I would defy anyone to stand up on that side and say that the convention centre project hasn't been a complete boondoggle, a complete mess. B.C. Place — the same thing. That is clear.

The Olympics as a whole — mismanagement and an attempt to paint a picture that is simply not accurate for the people of B.C. So $600 million — who believes that? That comes nowhere close to what the cost is. The people of B.C. are paying for this. They have a right to know accurately what it's going to cost. Secrecy is at the core of the problem. Secrecy is something that you see not only with this project but you see as a consistent trend. So that we can learn from the experience, I would point to just a few examples from the convention centre, a few examples from B.C. Place.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

N. Macdonald: Thank you, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak here and for listening so politely.

J. Kwan: I rise to speak to Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. What is this bill? This bill essentially allows the city of Vancouver to borrow an unlimited amount of money related to the Olympic village project without going to referendum.

Let's just visit for a moment here some of the background about this scenario, how it is that we got to be here today in this Legislature in an emergency debate, on a Saturday no less, in the evening, nine o'clock — 9:07 to be exact. It's kind of like déjà vu for me. Been here, done that — on several occasions, I may add. The last time, I recall, the government called the Legislature back for Bill 29. In the dark of the night a bill was passed. Turns out the final verdict came from the court, and it ruled that the government was dead wrong in doing what they did.

With Bill 47, Fortress Investment Group is a Wall Street hedge fund. It oversees about $35 billion in assets. It was the financier of the Vancouver Olympic village up until it pulled out of the project. When? In September 2008.

The city of Vancouver has been providing bridge financing and paying interest of about $87,000 a day ever since. It is projected that this fiasco could cost each person in the city of Vancouver $1,400. In my family alone, a family of five, that's a $10,000 debt added on just like that. That's a huge debt load for every child and adult in the city of Vancouver.
[ Page 13471 ]

To be clear, Bill 47 does not take away the problem. All that it does is to give the city of Vancouver a better negotiating position and potentially secure a loan at a better rate. That may ease some of the debt load, but it does not, to be sure, erase it.

Here we are in an emergency sitting of the House to debate a bill that essentially bails out Millennium, the developer who couldn't finance the project, and now the taxpayers are on the hook.

[2110]

So let's call this for what it is. It is a corporate bailout, and, yes, the city of Vancouver is on the hook because the municipal Liberal farm team, the NPA, under the leadership of former Mayor Sam Sullivan, signed a completion agreement guaranteeing that the project would be delivered by the city of Vancouver — the same party, by the way, that the Premier was the mayor of when he was in the city of Vancouver.

Now, I have to wonder aloud. Tracey. People may recall Tracey who died on the streets of Vancouver trying to keep warm. Why didn't the Liberal government rush back to the Legislature to address the homelessness crisis that's happening across the province of British Columbia? They didn't do that.

Now, the Minister of Finance says that the government is unaware of the financial troubles. The Premier says that he's not aware of the financial troubles that the Olympic village is in.

Well, let's just walk through who knew what and when. The former city manager, Judy Rogers, who just happens to be Ken Dobell's protégé, had been aware of it at least since June of 2007 — that there were serious financial problems with the Olympic village. In fact, the city council was warned that Millennium was in "anticipatory default" and that the NPA farm team decided to sign a completion agreement, guaranteeing the project would be delivered with exact specs by the city of Vancouver.

Judy Rogers was one of two of the city of Vancouver's appointees to the VANOC board of directors. VANOC reports to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. Cabinet needs to deal with these matters. The Premier has to deal with these matters.

The province has three appointees, among them Ken Dobell. You recall Ken Dobell — the right-hand man of the Premier, the guy who had a desk in the Premier's office as an unregistered lobbyist. You recall Ken Dobell. Ken Dobell is also on the board's finance committee. In fact, he is the chair of the finance committee.

Now, Judy Rogers serves on the finance committee. This might be comical to members of the opposite side, especially to the Minister of Finance, who ought to be very concerned about what's going on here. Judy Rogers served on the finance committee. Since June of 2007, there have been nine scheduled meetings of the VANOC board: July 18, 2007; September 19, 2007; November 21, 2007; January 16, 2008; March 19, 2008; May 21, 2008; July 16, 2008; September 17, 2008; and finally, December 9, 2008.

Now, what do you think they talked about at these meetings? Could it be that the weather is not so nice these days or that the weather is nice or that it's raining too much? What do you think they talked about at these VANOC board meetings? Well, the public can't know because they're closed to the public. Minutes can't be made available, because secrecy is the operation here. It is how the government does its work. So nobody can find out.

What do you think, if they were responsible people doing their job, they would be talking about? Could it possibly be some of the progress with the projects or lack thereof? Do you think by chance that they might have — just might have — talked about the Olympic village, that they just might have talked about — oh, gee, you know — that the developer Millennium is failing to finance the project and that we're in deep trouble?

The city of Vancouver is going to have to bail that project out. And guess what. Taxpayers are going to be on the hook. Do you think that they might have talked about that at all?

[2115]

I don't know if they did. I can only assume that anybody with any due diligence might have talked about it, because that is what their job is supposed to be — at least one of them anyway.

If they didn't talk about it, surely, surely somewhere, someone would have asked: "Why didn't they? Why not?" And if they didn't talk about it, what exactly did they talk about, anyway? What were all those meetings about? As it happens — conveniently, I might add — none of the meetings' minutes are available to the public. If the Minister of Finance wants to step up to the plate, he may want to rise in this House today and table those minutes for everyone to see.

But it's too convenient for everything to operate under the shroud of secrecy. That's just how the government likes it — no public scrutiny allowed. The Olympic spending, like all aspects of this whole project — for the Olympic village, for security costs, trade and convention centre projects, and so on…. The government would not want the taxpayers, British Columbians, to know what is going on.

That is the truth of how this government's operating, because if it wasn't the truth then all the government's got to do, all the Premier has got to do, the Minister of Finance has got to do, is to get up in this House to say that the meetings will be open for the public, subject to scrutiny, that they would table the minutes of these meetings, that they would make available the agreements that have been signed between the parties for the public to review, and that they would actually allow the process of FOI to apply to all Olympic-related activities. That's all they
[ Page 13472 ]
have to do to actually set the record straight, to prove the opposition wrong, to prove to British Columbians that they have nothing to hide.

Now I, like many taxpayers, am wondering: did Ken Dobell not warn the Premier about the Olympic village financial status? He is, after all, the head of the finance committee, who is responsible in part to ensure that those projects are progressing and that, if there are challenges, to actually highlight them, to address them, and to deal with it. Now, did Ken Dobell not warn the Minister of Finance, who ought to know? Because at the end of the day, it is the province that is responsible for delivering the games, and we would want to ensure that it is delivered on time and on budget.

The truthful part of that would be the real budget, not some fictitious budget that the Premier insists is $600 million for the Olympic Games. Even the Auditor General…. Not just one, not two, but three Auditors General say that the Olympic budget is not $600 million. Which part of that doesn't the Premier get?

If the chair of the finance committee does not warn the Premier, does not warn the Minister of Finance, does not warn the Minister Responsible for the Olympics about these potential risks that taxpayers are faced with, then what is he doing there? What is he doing there? Why have the position? And what is the responsibility, then, of the finance committee chair exactly? I sure hope not to have meetings to talk about the weather alone.

I don't believe, frankly, for a minute that Ken Dobell didn't know about the Olympic village financial woes, and I don't believe for a minute, for a second, that he didn't inform the Premier. I don't believe for a second that cabinet…. I hope that the cabinet would have been alerted of this fiasco.

In addition to this, the government has signed an agreement with VANOC in September of 2006, and that agreement actually required VANOC in part to establish, yes, a capital advisory committee by October 13 of 2006.

[2120]

I wonder if the Minister of Finance can explain to this House and explain to British Columbians what exactly is the job of the Capital Advisory Committee? Were they advised of the Olympic village fiasco? Did that committee keep on top of what was going on?

It also requires that the province be provided quarterly reports, beginning October 31, 2006: "of construction progress, period-to-date capital spending, forecast cost and schedule to completion for each individual games venue, risk and mitigation strategies, and status and forecast use of the VANOC centralized capital contingency allocation".

Well, how about making available the Capital Advisory Committee meeting minutes for the public to see, for the opposition to see, if the government insists, if the Premier insists, to say that he does not know about the financial troubles related to the Olympic village that brought us here today with Bill 47?

That agreement was also to ensure that VANOC's venue management and construction team is appropriately staffed with experienced project managers and maintains a direct reporting relationship between VANOC's new executive vice-president of construction and VANOC's chief executive officer. In addition to that, the Village Advisory Committee was set up in September 2006 between VANOC and the city of Vancouver, as stipulated in the bid agreement.

So according to that, the April 2007 report, the committee meets monthly to make recommendations and decisions on project representatives. Based on that, the city's recently resigned project manager, Jody Andrews, has been meeting with VANOC's project manager on a weekly basis since 2006 regarding the status of the village.

Finally, there was a special committee that has been set up, and VANOC has an accommodations and villages group. That committee was responsible for oversight of the Vancouver village and the Whistler village. The city of Vancouver was to provide VANOC a project executive plan, including implementation details, by the summer of 2007, which happens to be right around the time when the completion guarantee was signed by the city of Vancouver to protect — frankly, to bail out — Millennium, the developer of the Olympic village.

So there are layers upon layers upon layers of reporting out about the status of the Olympic village project and other venue projects. It follows that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics ought to have known — they had to have known — what was going on. It is not believable for them to suggest, to anybody who's followed this, to believe that they did not know.

At issue here is the need for the government to come clean. Come clean with what they knew and when they knew about these cost overruns, about the financial troubles of the Olympic village project. To come clean with taxpayers on the financial exposure that they are at risk for. To come clean with why the Premier didn't say anything about this earlier.

Could it be that the very people who created this problem were the Liberal farm team, the NPA? Could it be that the Liberal farm team's political interests were more important than the interests of the taxpayers? That it is more important than appropriate public scrutiny and transparency related to the Olympic spending and to the Olympic village?

[2125]

Isn't that a big part of the problem? That we have a Premier who says one thing and actually does another? You will recall that the Premier said, when he was in opposition, and I quote: "Openness is better than hiddenness." That's a direct quote from the Premier when he was in opposition.
[ Page 13473 ]

Interjection.

J. Kwan: Yeah, please do clap. Please do, because that's what the Premier is supposed to be doing. That's exactly what the Premier is supposed to be doing, but it turns out that what the Premier really meant was not if he was in government, not if he is the head of the executive council. Then the notion of an open, transparent and accountable government is just a farce, because that is exactly what the Premier is doing.

He's too arrogant to admit mistakes. He's too arrogant to say that he was wrong in saying that the Olympic budget is $600 million. He would not admit the fact that the project is over budget. He would not admit and tell British Columbians when he knew that the Olympic village was in trouble and how much risk Vancouver taxpayers, British Columbian, are at risk for, because the Liberal government strategy around managing the Olympic costs is to hide the costs from the public.

I have to say this: British Columbians deserve better than that. British Columbians expect better than that. Come clean on the Olympic cost overruns. Let's start with the Olympic village cost overruns, but let us not stop there.

Bill 47 is the beginning. I hope that this will address some of the financial troubles that the Olympic village is faced with. I did not believe it would erase the problem, but at least we now know the depth of the problem. At least we now know that there is a project in the Olympics that's actually costing taxpayers a lot more money than anticipated. So that's a start. At least we know the truth.

We should not stop there, because there are many other aspects related to that. That's one example of showing the world how we do business here in British Columbia. Wouldn't it be nice to set an example, to use this as a lesson learned by the government to come clean on the costs — the real costs — on the security side?

The government projects $175 million, they say, for security costs. The minister, Stockwell Day, projects a billion dollars. So who's lying? Who's telling the truth? I do wonder. Is it the provincial government, or is it Minister Stockwell Day?

Interjection.

J. Kwan: The relevance is this: learn from Bill 47. Exercise scrutiny, transparency and openness. How about that for a starter? Haven't heard that before, eh? No wonder.

Madam Speaker, through you to the government MLAs and cabinet and to the Premier, to every one of the Liberal MLAs: listen and listen hard, because this is a lesson that's important for all British Columbians — transparency and openness, something that the Premier himself preached when he was in opposition. Those words are now coming back to haunt this government.

Madam Speaker, how about this for a change? Come clean on the full cost of staging the games. Tell British Columbians the real truth, the actual truth, for a change. So $600 million does not cut it, and everyone knows it.

[2130]

In fact, even Christy Clark — and, boy, I can't believe I'm paraphrasing Christy Clark — said that at some point you've got to tell people what is really the truth because if you don't, people will just start laughing at you. That's from Christy Clark, paraphrasing her. I don't have her exact quote. But that was the former Deputy Premier for the Liberal government. Maybe the government can learn from her. How about that? Come clean on the costs, because at some point people are going to start laughing at you. And if you hadn't already noticed, no one believes that the Olympic cost is $600 million.

How is that relevant to Bill 47, Madam Speaker? Lesson learned on Bill 47: unless you actually account for your spending, you cannot avoid the financial disaster that's coming, that's looming, that's going to come wash over us.

And I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, my son is in the precincts today, almost five months old now, and guess what. This is something I thought I would never preach, but there you are — that I wouldn't want him to have to carry a debt load that he knew nothing about. Because why? The Liberals wouldn't tell anybody what the debt load is, what the Olympic debt load is going to be for generations to come.

Come clean, and tell British Columbians now. What are the financial risks around these projects? And as the Auditor General said, Auditor General Jim Doyle — because it's not just the opposition who's saying it….

Interjection.

J. Kwan: John Doyle. Sorry. John Doyle, not Jim Doyle, the guy who actually tried to run. Didn't he lose for you? Anyway, okay, John Doyle, the Auditor General said: "I think they could be more transparent, and I'm the third Auditor General in a row to say this. We need to bring all expenses together in one report that shows everything and allows citizens to see what the financial footprint is for the games. Government should be confident enough to clearly explain what it is doing as it's doing it. There's no need to be anything but totally transparent."

Lesson learned from the Auditor General — not one, not two, but three. They're asking for the government to be transparent on the Olympic Games costs. It is time for the government to come clean and to tell British Columbians how much the games are costing them.

If the government is to learn anything from the Olympic village experience, then do what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, and that is to appoint the Auditor General to be the independent watchdog of the games. British Columbians deserve no less.
[ Page 13474 ]

This is serious. It is serious because it's people's hard-earned money, the people who are labouring out there, who are toiling from day to day just to make a buck. It is their money, and we have a responsibility in this House to be accountable to them, and it starts from the top. It starts from the top.

The Premier — I will say this — when he was in opposition, got it right: openness is better than secrecy. I will just substitute for the word "hiddenness" because I don't think that word is in the dictionary. Maybe that's why he's not doing it. He's got that concept right. The only thing he's got to do now is to practise it. That's what he's got to do. Talk is cheap in the life of politics. You don't have much to offer other than your own integrity in the words that you speak and what they mean to the people that you represent.

That's why we're here. We have a job to do. You will wonder, Madam Speaker, why the House Leader argued against passing the bill in one day, in one stage, all in one day. There is a strong reason for that. It is called oversight. It is about debate. It's about ensuring that the interests of British Columbians are protected. The government can live up to that if they choose to. Or will they choose to be too arrogant to do the right thing for the taxpayers of British Columbia?

[2135]

I hope, and I challenge all members on that side of the House to get up and say that their leader was right when they were in opposition: openness is better than secrecy. Show the books to British Columbians — how much the games are costing all of us.

M. Sather: Like my colleague who just finished, I too will eventually invite the members opposite to get up and say their piece. I'm just glad they didn't get up now, because I've been waiting a while here to get my chance to speak. I'm glad to be able to do it, to speak to Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, which is, as has been mentioned, a short piece of legislation — I think the shortest piece I've seen.

Let's not be fooled by the shortness of this bill, because it's a very significant bill in a number of respects. It's very significant to the city of Vancouver as they deal with the financial crisis that they're facing in order to complete the Olympic village.

I hope that in the course of our discussions here over this bill today and tomorrow and Monday if it should go that long…. I hope in that period of time that we will actually…. Particularly, I hope that the government will gain something out of this, because it's important to the people of British Columbia. They want to know what's going on with the Olympic Games. They feel very strongly that this government has not been open and accountable.

This issue that's arisen that resulted in Bill 47 is kind of like you've got this big boil, and this little pimple on top bursts. But really, there's a whole lot bubbling underneath, a whole lot that needs to be lanced, needs to be explored, needs to be exposed, and not just for the sake of the opposition to have something to criticize the government about.

It's a chance for two things. It's a chance for the people of British Columbia to become better informed, as they should be by their government. But for the government also, it's a chance for them to take a reckoning of where they've been heading.

It's really clear to me, watching the members opposite this evening, that they're not at all happy to be here. They're grumpy. They're not in a good mood. They brought us in here on a Saturday so they didn't have to face question period — neat little trick — but it's not really working in their best interests either, because they're going down.

If they continue the way they're going now, this Olympic legacy that the Premier wanted, his crowning achievement, is going to be the death knell that brings this government down, unless they turn the ship around, unless they start taking some accountability, unless they start using examples like what happened in Vancouver to chart a new course.

As I say, if they don't, you know…. Christy Clark had it right. People are laughing, but not in a kind way, about the government. They're just going: "Hey, these guys don't get it. We get it. We understand that we're being taken to the cleaners. But the government, our government, is not taking any responsibility for it."

[2140]

This bill is very relevant to the discussion of many aspects of what's been going on with the Olympics and the preparations that this government has been doing. I think it can be the beginning of openness and accountability for this government.

Interjection.

M. Sather: Maybe it is too late. The member says it's too late. I guess I'm an eternal optimist.

One of those things has been mentioned many times — the cost of the Olympic Games. That's a big issue. That's the issue right here in Vancouver with the Olympic village. It's just one part of the cost of the Olympic Games.

So let's hope that we can use this to gain more information from the government, and after I'm done, I hope that they will get up and speak. The member for Chilliwack I know is very keen to speak, and others I'm sure will as well.

The government says this is an emergency, and it is. It's an emergency in many ways, but it's not an opportunity — it shouldn't be an opportunity — for the government to use the emergency argument as a way to stifle debate, because it needs a fulsome discussion, and we need to look at as many aspects of it as we can.
[ Page 13475 ]

Fortress Investment Group is the financial body that lent the money to the Millennium Development Corp. to build the Olympic village. The Millennium Development Corp. itself has a little bit of an interesting background. How they got the bid — that would be interesting to know. Apparently the owner of their parent company was a member of the NPA board in the lead-up to that particular occurrence, but that's perhaps for another day to discuss.

But they ran into difficulties. The $750 million loan that Millennium obtained soon ran afoul this fall, and probably long before if the truth be known, and that's what we're trying to find out. What is the truth around what happened in Vancouver and the Olympic village and beyond?

We saw the secret agreement that the past council in Vancouver did to keep the project going with $100 million loan. Now that certainly hasn't been enough, and Fortress is asking for more. They're one of these typical high-risk, low-regulation kinds of groups. So they're looking for a return on their investment, and they seem to have the leverage to do it, to get what they want.

In the end, it will be the taxpayers of Vancouver, the taxpayers of B.C. that are going to take the hit. The big corporation is going to get off again. You can bet that Fortress will get their money, including their usurious interest rates — 11 percent — which, apparently, according to a lot of these outfits, can run up to 20 percent or more. Supposedly Millennium will get their project done, we all hope.

Now, the Minister of Transportation…. It was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues that he had said of these types of companies like Fortress: "These are big boys and girls, and they know what they're doing." Well, they certainly do, Madam Speaker. They know how to fleece the public, and they've been aided and abetted by this government right, left and centre.

The foreign capital is where the Premier seems to always want to go, and the structuring of these deals ends up with those kinds of companies in control, not to the betterment of the people of British Columbia, but to the betterment of those corporations. I don't know. We're seeing that it's not doing a lot of good for the people of British Columbia.

Looking at this deal, as I said, it really is important to know how much the Olympics really do cost. What did the Premier say about the Olympic costs back a few years ago? He said that $565 million would be the final cost of the Olympics: "Count on it. There are contingencies built in the project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. Kaputski. Done."

[2145]

I guess that was the Premier's equivalent of the "down to the toilet paper" quote, but it hasn't turned out that way, as we know. You would never know it, because despite the crisis that's happened in Vancouver and that we're discussing with Bill 47, the government still continues to maintain that, well, it's up to $600 million. But according to them: "It's only $600 million, and you know, everything's just fine. Don't worry. Be happy."

The people of British Columbia aren't buying that anymore. Everywhere I go and talk to people about it, they nod: "What is the government doing? Our money is at risk. Who's watching out for us?"

Part of the problem about this government, and we've complained about this over and over again, is the degree of secrecy that surrounds these deals. You know, the ultimate was…. The member for Surrey-Newton mentioned earlier the Olympic secretariat. The reports that they were making to the government were discontinued because then they would fall under the freedom-of-information rules. So: "Wow, we wouldn't want that."

A cloak of secrecy is how this government operates, and it hasn't been good for the people of British Columbia. What's happened in Vancouver and what we're discussing in Bill 47 is the awakening of the people, certainly of the Lower Mainland and I think throughout the province, about how their money is being treated. They're beginning to understand that there's really something wrong with the operation and the delivery of the Olympics insofar as we're being told by this government, and that's not very far.

Now, as has been mentioned, it's simply unbelievable, incredulous, that the government should maintain that they only learned of this laterally last fall or so. I mean, you have the deputy to the Premier and the Minister of Finance, who are sitting on the VANOC board, but I guess they don't talk to the Premier. They don't talk to the Minister of Finance. They didn't know anything about it. It's all news to them.

That's a problem. When you see that happening and when the public sees that happening, the trust in their government plummets. They realize that…. Well, I won't use the "l" word, but they realize that the government is not being open and accountable and not telling them everything that they need to know.

So what are the true costs of the Olympic Games? Various estimates run from $4 billion to $6 billion. That's seven to ten times higher than what the government is saying it should be.

You know, when we look at what's happened at the Olympic village and see how those costs have gone wild…. The financing isn't there. The structure wasn't there. It was all a big gamble. It's very believable to the people of British Columbia that this government has allowed costs to skyrocket — out-of-control spending.

Ken Dobell, the Premier's special adviser, who chairs the VANOC finance committee and reports out to the Premier at least once a month. But as the previous member from Vancouver said: "What did they talk about during those meetings?" Surely they must have discussed what was happening with the Olympic village in Vancouver, and when did those discussions first take place?
[ Page 13476 ]

Those are the kinds of questions that we would have liked to ask this government this weekend, this week, whenever this discussion was going to take place, but the government doesn't want that kind of scrutiny. They don't want to answer questions about the Olympics because they know it's bad news. It's bad news if the truth comes out, so they're doing everything they can to not talk about it.

I think that's going to change in a minute. Members are going to be up here to explain themselves in full.

[2150]

Interjection.

M. Sather: It's going to be a long wait. They don't know what to say.

The security budget alone — that's one that struck me early on. The security budget is around $800 million, we're told. The province, though, has said, "Oh, 175." These are figures that are way, way…. They're as disparate as you can get almost, so what is the truth? The people of British Columbia deserve to have the real facts, and this situation with the Olympic village should be a perfect springboard for the government to start acting, to start getting the facts of the whole Olympic spending picture out to the people of British Columbia.

Another thing that's been brought up…. There's a lot of stuff. There's a million dollars extra for transit rides that will be needed. How many of the Olympic projects are in trouble? That's what we want to know. Is this the only one? I don't think so.

An Hon. Member: What about the Golden Ears?

M. Sather: The Golden Ears is mentioned. I'll say a little bit more about that in a few minutes — the Golden Ears Bridge in my backyard.

An Hon. Member: What section does that refer to?

M. Sather: The member wants to know what section that refers to. It refers to every section in here, because this bill…. This bill has got to be about accountability. It's the most open and accountable government, we're told, in the universe. So it's all about that. That's what I'm trying to explain to the members opposite, that this is all about openness and accountability, which I know they're dying to embrace, and I can only hope that they will do so sooner than later.

One of the former Auditors General, Mr. van Iersel, said in his report that the province has agreed to indemnify the city of Vancouver for any losses flowing from the city's signing of the host city contract and that the host city contract places the financial responsibility for the games with VANOC and the city. So what does that mean? We need an explanation. The people need an explanation.

The Auditor General believes that the responsibilities of the government and where it all ends…. He says it's going to end up with the province, a lot of this, in the end, if things go wrong. So if things go wrong…. As I read that, if the city of Vancouver gets in trouble, the province is going to have to take over. I don't know. We need more explanation. We certainly didn't get it during the budget debates we've had with the government over the Olympics and related projects. It's been very, very difficult to get information from this government, but again, that's the hallmark of this government — this hiddenness. There it is — secrecy. It's catching, I think.

It's time for the Premier, who is the leader of the team, to set the example, to say: "Look, we're going to put it out there. My colleagues said, 'Just put out the true costs and then explain them.'" Maybe the people of British Columbia will agree with you that it's costing $4 billion, but you can defend that. But to say it's only costing $600 million when everybody knows it's way more than that blows your credibility completely. That's up to the government to make that determination, but it's not in the best interests of British Columbians to not be forthright with the truth.

You know, other things that are laughable we've heard about earlier today — saying that the Olympic secretariat is not part of the Olympic spending. It goes on and on. But the bottom line, what I hear and read the Auditors General saying is that the province is the sole guarantor of the games. We need a complete discussion and explanation of what that means.

[2155]

What does it mean? Because what we're finding out is that, despite what we've been told — that the taxpayers are not at risk — citizens of Vancouver are finding out to their dismay that they very much are at risk. If they're at risk, who else is at risk in the province? That's what the people want to know. That's what we want to know. We're asking the government to explain some of that to us.

The Auditor General in 2006 said that the province provided a guarantee to the IOC that it would cover any financial shortfall of VANOC if VANOC doesn't meet its revenue or expense targets or does not build in sufficient contingencies to cover items it cannot control, such as the state of the economy. Well, that's just exactly what we're facing. A situation that has hit the world is the recession, the state of the economy. What does that, then, have to do with the role of the government and the responsibility of the government?

The Auditor said the guarantee of the province has the potential to broaden the exposure to include other parties, which I am assuming would include the city of Vancouver, which we have here as the subject of debate, Bill 47. So this all ties together very clearly. As much as the government doesn't want to talk about anything except the city of Vancouver and the Olympic village —
[ Page 13477 ]
and very little about that, I think — the fact of the matter is that the implications of what's happened there are wide-reaching and to a far greater degree than simply what happened in Vancouver, although as if that wasn't troubling enough.

He also said that the province should provide a definition of Olympic-related costs and report regularly to the public on the status of those costs. That's a simple, straightforward kind of accountability that of course the Auditor General is going to request — the Auditors General; they all said the same thing. But this government says: "No, we don't agree. We don't agree. We'll do it our way." That's not good enough for the people of my constituency and, I think, for the people throughout the province.

The current Auditor General, Mr. Doyle, said he "shares his predecessors' view that the full cost of staging the games should include a number of items that are not included in the official budget" and "that the risks associated with some costs and revenues have not been adequately disclosed. Should these risks come to pass, the cost of staging the games could escalate considerably." That's just what happened in Vancouver. It's perhaps what has happened throughout the province wherever the Olympics are concerned, particularly in this part of the world and in the Lower Mainland.

What are those risks? We know about — to a degree anyway — the risks that were incurred in Vancouver, but what about other risks out there? We want to hear the government answer some questions about that. Bill 47 should be the springboard for the government to come clean on the cost of the Olympics, because there's going to be more and more. The government is running, ducking and hiding and hoping that that's not going to happen, but I think it's a gamble that they are ill-advised to undertake.

Mr. Doyle also said that the government should be confident enough to clearly explain what it is doing as it's doing it. "There's no need to be anything but totally transparent," he said.

[2200]

What was the Premier's answer? He said: "I'm not saying that he can't have his opinions. I simply disagree with that position." He disagrees with an Auditor General who said there's no need to be anything but totally transparent. That is apparent that he disagrees with that, because he is not transparent — anything but.

The related costs are really troubling about the Olympics too. You know, the convention centre — $400 million in overruns. The Premier lauded the convention centre when it was first introduced. As this was going to be happening, he said it was part and parcel of the Olympic bid. But now, no. The government says that it has nothing to do with the Olympic spending because, oh well, they would have built it anyway sometime. Doesn't pass muster with common sense.

The same with the Sea to Sky Highway. The government says: "Oh, that's not Olympic spending." What are they learning from what happened in Vancouver? We're here to discuss Bill 47, but I haven't seen any sense yet that they're learning from what happened, by not being open, by not being transparent, by not being inclusive of all the costs.

The Sea to Sky Highway was part of what the International Olympic Committee insisted that Vancouver build in order to get the games. So to turn around and say that it's not part of the Olympic spending, again, is incredulous. What about the RAV line that the Minister of Finance said earlier: "That's nothing to do with Olympic spending. It would have been built anyway." But he knows that's not true. Certainly the people of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and of Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam know that.

The greater Vancouver regional district wanted to build the Evergreen line because they rightly ascertained that that was where the line was most needed. But no, it was the RAV line instead. Why? Because of the Olympics.

Remember the Transportation Minister forcing the board to vote three times until they got it his way? The government should just simply say: "Yeah, these are Olympic-related costs. Everybody knows it. This is how much they are. This is how much the games are going to cost. Let's discuss it." But they're ducking and hiding, trying to avoid the truth.

Another troubling part, too, is that this secrecy in the way that government does business in this province has deepened with the proliferation of public-private partnerships, of which the Olympic village is one.

You know, we have been fed a lot of misinformation, and the government members talked about us giving misinformation. We have been fed a lot of misinformation on this side by this government about P3s. Now what's happening? Well, it was reported recently in the Vancouver Province, rightly or wrongly, that the government is considering taking over the Port Mann Bridge project. So much for no risks of P3s. No risk.

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevancy. Relevancy to Bill 47.

M. Sather: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It's essential that this government look carefully at what happened in Vancouver and that they recognize that one of the problems…. You know, it was very much part and parcel of the problem there that this was a P3 project where it's so structured that Millennium corporation couldn't get financing from any bank in Canada because they didn't have the collateral, and that should be a good reason not to finance a venture. So they go abroad to find a company that says: "Sure, no problem. We'll take you on for 11 percent interest." That's what happened there.

[2205]
[ Page 13478 ]

Then, when times got tough, problems really escalated out of control. My friend mentioned the Golden Ears bridge, just with regard to risk. I mean, we almost had the same situation — and I don't know if it's over yet — as Vancouver had. The Golden Ears bridge financers, the DEPFA Bank and Dexia…. DEPFA was nearly in receivership. They were bailed out by Germany, but that could very much have happened to us as well. It's illustrative, I think, for these projects all around the province that the government take another good look at them, because they're wasting a lot of our money — taxpayers' money.

J. McGinn: I rise this evening, of course, to speak on Bill 47. This bill would allow the city of Vancouver to borrow and undertake financing arrangements in respect to the completion of the southeast False Creek development project, otherwise known as the Olympic village. This is of particular interest to me, as this project is actually in my riding in Vancouver-Fairview. As a Vancouver taxpayer, I share the concerns expressed by many in my riding about the fact that we as Vancouver taxpayers are going to be on the hook for this project in particular and for the Olympics in general.

The winners here are the developers and the banks on this project, not the citizens of Vancouver. As a former banker, I know a good deal from a bad deal, and this is not a good deal for the residents of Vancouver or of British Columbia.

We're facing this situation because Fortress Investment Group, a U.S.-based hedge fund, stopped financing the project when it became clear that the project was way over budget and that the housing crash could make this project untenable. Vancouver city council stepped in with a loan of a hundred million dollars to the developer, Millennium Development, to keep the project going. But the cash is running out, and they'll need more money by February 15.

The city council of the day — the previous city council run by Mayor Sullivan and his Liberal farm team, the NPA — signed a completion guarantee. That would mean that the city and its taxpayers are ultimately responsible, regardless of the costs to complete the project.

Now, we're in a serious time crunch here. This deal is directly related to the Olympics, and the project needs to be completed by the fall. The city urgently needs the money to refinance this bad deal. The current lender is charging them an 11 percent interest rate, and rates have gone down much, much less since then.

The reason we're here today on a Saturday, of course, is that the city of Vancouver is looking for the authority under the Vancouver Charter to borrow more money to ensure the completion of this project. The costs of the project reportedly have risen from $750 million to $875 million. The funding sources so far include $317 million from Fortress and $100 million from a loan from council.

People of Vancouver-Fairview are asking me where the rest of the money is coming from, where the rest of the $458 million is going to come from. They're wondering how much on the hook they're going to be for this money.

The reasons for the introduction of Bill 47 are deeply concerning for British Columbians and for my residents of Vancouver-Fairview. Those reasons involve a culture of arrogance and government secrecy both here in Victoria and at the city, an approach that shuts people out and treats the taxpayers of Vancouver like they have an endless amount of money to fuel these Olympic cost overruns.

People I've spoken to wondered when this will end. They say that the costs of the Olympics are skyrocketing out of control. The costs of the overruns on everything from the convention centre to the Olympic village to the escalated security costs are causing great concern for my constituents. They're worried about their liability as taxpayers.

[2210]

There are some challenging economic times that we're facing right now. In fact, the Central Credit Union expects to lose 42,000 jobs next year. People in my constituency are worried about those jobs, about whether they're going to be able to pay their rent or mortgages, to keep food on the table and to make a comfortable life for themselves and their families.

The people of my riding are a good, hard-working lot. They believe in sound management, good fiscal governance and honesty. They expected much more prudence, responsibility and accountability from their government than what they've been witnessing. There's little doubt in the minds of the people of Vancouver-Fairview that the government was aware of the problems facing the village. After all, they're the ones that set up the series of reporting arrangements to ensure they would know.

If you allow me, Madam Speaker, just to review those arrangements briefly. In the middle of 2006, VANOC came to the provincial and federal governments asking for more money. Both governments commissioned due-diligence reports as a condition of considering the request. The report and a subsequent one prepared by Partnerships B.C. made a number of recommendations to increase the flow of knowledge between the city and VANOC and their partners between the provincial and federal governments.

VANOC created a village advisory committee to oversee the completion of both the Vancouver and Whistler Olympic villages. The city's project manager Jody Andrews, who this week resigned, met weekly with VANOC's project manager. Mr. Andrews also provided monthly written reports to VANOC. VANOC's finance committee, according to its public minutes, regularly received the reports on both venues.

The co-chairs of VANOC's finance committee, who reviewed and considered those reports through this
[ Page 13479 ]
period, remain today Ken Dobell, who reports to the Premier, and the CEO of the B.C. Olympic secretariat, who reports to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. Former city manager Judy Rogers was and is also a member of the finance committee and was considering those reports.

What was happening at the city through this reporting period? In May and June of 2007, city manager Judy Rogers reported to council that the Millennium group, the developer of the village, was in anticipatory default. In other words, they were running out of money.

Under the various signed agreements, the city had an obligation to share this information with VANOC. VANOC in turn, through its finance committee, shared the information with the province, the Premier and the minister. So let there be no doubt. The B.C. Liberal government had to have known what was going on from the start, but they refused to share that knowledge with the people of British Columbia.

As the spring of 2008 turned into the fall, the problem had escalated. In April of 2008 the city's auditors reported publicly on the financial risk of the project and to the city's taxpayers. Millennium ran out of money. The financier escalated its demands and was facing deep financial trouble. There followed a range of commitments by the city of Vancouver to underwrite both the developer and the financier in order to complete the development on time.

But it didn't work. Taxpayers were put on the hook without their knowledge for hundreds and millions of dollars in overruns and carrying charges. The final bill of this is still not known, and we end up here today providing the ultimate commitment — an open-ended waiver allowing the city of Vancouver to borrow as much as it wants to complete the village.

The people in my riding want the Premier to come clean about the true cost of the Olympics rather than to avoid responsibility and accountability. This bill, Bill 47, has no accountability built into it and no dollar figure attached to it. People tell me that they're sick and tired of the government playing with numbers and keeping them in the dark. The people of Vancouver-Fairview — indeed the people of British Columbia — deserve better. They deserve to know the truth about the true cost of the Olympics.

[2215]

Since 2003 the Campbell government has been ignoring warnings from the B.C. Auditors General that the true cost of the 2010 Olympics is much higher than the $600 million figure often quoted by this government. In reality, the overall cost of staging the Olympics is closer to $4 billion at minimum. The government completely lacks any credibility on this.

In a letter dated December 2008 to Bill Barisoff, Auditor General John Doyle states that he will not be releasing his expected report of the Olympic costs, and I'd like to quote the Auditor General from his letter.

"My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that has often been quoted. Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished….

"Fundamental differences of opinion between the government and my office remain unresolved…. I share my predecessor's view that the full cost of staging the Olympics should include a number of items that are not included in the official budget. In addition, I share my predecessor's concern that the risks associated with some of the costs and revenues have not been adequately disclosed. Should these risks come to pass, the cost of staging the games could escalate considerably….

"I have but one recommendation — that the government expand its definition of games-related costs to include all items that are reasonably attributable to hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with them."

Deputy Speaker: Member, can you keep the comments relevant to the bill.

J. McGinn: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Bill 47, the bill that we're discussing, puts our money at risk as taxpayers in Vancouver and in British Columbia. In fact, this is a big concern that we're here today to discuss. The people of British Columbia deserve accountability on this issue. They want the government to come clean and to stop ducking any accountability on this issue.

I want to tell a story. Yesterday I was walking down the street in my constituency, just over at 6th and Maple, and I ran into a couple of ladies that stopped me. Their names were Mary and Evelyn. Both Mary and Evelyn are women in their 80s, and they're women that helped to build this province. They're women who have seen hard times and have lived through them, women who have worked hard all their lives and know the value of a dollar, and women who value honesty and integrity and expect that from their government.

Well, I told them that we were heading back to Victoria for this special session, and Mary had asked me to deliver a message to the Premier on her behalf. I note that he's not here, so perhaps his esteemed colleagues will pass….

Deputy Speaker: Member, you cannot refer to whether a person is in or out of the House.

J. McGinn: Oh. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Well, this lady Mary told me what she thought of all the goings-on right here in the Legislature. She said, in her words, it was foolhardy — what was happening. She asked me how we got into such a mess, and she was worried about her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren and whether they will have to bear the costs of these Olympics and the overruns that have happened by the negligence of this government and of the previous city government.
[ Page 13480 ]

She said that she felt it showed a real lack of priorities from the government and from the Premier. Her friend Evelyn decided to pipe in. She asked how the province could seem to find $365 million to replace the roof at B.C. Place Stadium and for any associated renovation costs, yet at the same time they seem not to be able to find money to solve the homelessness crisis that has hit our city and our province, or how there's not enough money for affordable housing for seniors in our community, how they felt grateful because they happened to live in affordable….

[2220]

Deputy Speaker: Member, please sit down.

Minister of Environment.

Hon. B. Penner: Madam Chair, I appreciate your previous interventions and directions to the member. It appears she's not been heeding your directions, and I just encourage you to remind her that talking about a stadium is not talking about what this bill deals with. This bill does not deal with the stadium that the member just referred to. It deals with the housing project.

J. McGinn: I understand that this bill does deal with the housing development in my riding, in Vancouver-Fairview and southeast False Creek. It does, and it also deals with issues of priorities and a lack of priorities that my constituents expressed to me yesterday. They felt that there was a lack of priorities by this government.

They're concerned because our population is aging, and like them, they need homes — affordable homes. Most of the homes that are being built right now for seniors in this province cost about $5,000 a month. So they are just concerned and worried about how the government seems to be able to bail out and essentially write a blank cheque to the city for this project while at the same time not have money for other much-needed projects. So they were just asking me about that, and we had a good discussion. As mentioned, it's an issue of priorities is what Mary and Evelyn said.

These are wise women, as I mentioned. They're well into their 80s. They have lots more experience and knowledge than anyone in this room has, really, about what it means to be a civil society and what it means to take care of people. It's about building safe and affordable homes for people who need them or ensuring that seniors have access to long-term care beds and other supports they need or that students have access to affordable education or that parents have child care when they need it.

An Hon. Member: Back to the bill.

J. McGinn: Thank you.

In doing so, some of the other priorities are around building public transit to ensure that people have access to transit to reduce their carbon emissions.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, you do have to be relevant to the bill.

J. McGinn: Thank you. In debating this bill, Bill 47, what it's really about is setting priorities. It's about the true costs of the Olympics, and it's about pressing the government to come clean on those costs. It's about helping the city of Vancouver cope as best it can with the mess given to them by the Premier's friends on the previous council.

It's also about accountability and trustworthiness, and it's about respect. It's about respect for Vancouver taxpayers, respect for people like Mary, for Evelyn, for their grandchildren. Surely the people of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia deserve at least that.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to take my place today in debate of Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. I'm looking very much forward to the next 30 minutes where I try to outline the views of myself and my constituents on this piece of legislation.

Members will know — at least the members on this side of the House will know — that we've had very limited opportunities to provide scrutiny on some of the issues that were being debated today. The Olympic village project in Vancouver, the centre of this piece of legislation, could well have been addressed in budget estimates some nine months ago — the last time this House sat, save five days this fall.

Members will recall that the standing orders were amended and changed and that the time allowed to scrutinize the estimates and get to the root of the financial issues that are trying to be amended and rectified by amending the Vancouver Charter could well have been canvassed at that time.

[2225]

We've heard today members talk about the history of this project. We've heard members talk about where it went wrong. What were the challenges with financing? What was Fortress's role? Why was Millennium selected? Why did the NPA team— the Premier's former civic team — make these decisions? Who was involved in those decisions?

These are the questions that would have been asked, should have been asked, could have been asked had this House sat last week when this issue became public. These are the questions that could have been asked were we not here in an extraordinary session on a Saturday talking about a bill, in all three stages, based on a very modest presentation from the Government House Leader. But here we are. We're trying to make some sense of this.

It's all well and good, and I've heard some interventions from members on the government side. I've heard some rabble-rousing from members of the executive council concerned that we've somehow ruined their day
[ Page 13481 ]
by coming to this place to hold them accountable for amending an act and basically writing a blank cheque for the city of Vancouver to rectify a problem that was created by a lack of oversight or at least a lack of public access to the decision-making processes that led to these contracts being let and guarantees being provided.

I know that members on the other side don't like to hear anecdotes. They don't like to hear about what the people in my community are saying about these issues. That's profoundly unfortunate, because it seems to me one of the reasons we are here is to bring the voice of the people who elected us to this place to look at legislation that's been brought forward hastily and now is being debated hastily.

It's now 25 minutes past 10 o'clock on a Saturday night. On a normal day I would be at home watching the last bits of Hockey Night in Canada, like most good British Columbians, enjoying some time with my family. But no. Instead, I'm here in this place doing my job, which is holding the government accountable for the decisions they are making in the interests, allegedly, of all British Columbians.

This morning, before I came to the Legislature, I was at an economic development event in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca in the community of Langford. There were about 250 people there. I would like to have spent the whole day talking about the challenges we face in a changing and shifting economy. I would like to have been there to contribute and participate in that, but instead I'm here debating, in all stages, a bill brought forward in urgency by this government.

The people at that economic development summit today were pleased to see me, but they also understood that I was going to the Legislature today. They understood that something was going on.

If you listen to the members on the other side with respect to Bill 47 and the amendments to the Vancouver Charter that we're discussing today, you would assume that they think — they really truly believe — that the people of British Columbia have some idea what we're talking about. I want to just put some context around that, if I may, and I'll do nothing less than just reference the headlines in today's press.

I think it's important, and I'm hopeful that the minister and the Chair will indulge me in this because the public, the people of British Columbia, are probably watching Hockey Night in Canada right now, not watching us debate this legislation. I am hopeful that they are. But if they got up this morning and picked up their daily newspaper, I want to just read some of the headlines they would have seen, the framing of the debate that's taking place in this House right now.

"Legislation Expected to Allow Unlimited Borrowing Powers" was the headline in The Vancouver Sun today, referencing Bill 47. The public perception based on that headline…. Had they not the opportunity to listen to the informed arguments that we're hearing today, they would assume that what we're doing today is providing unlimited borrowing powers to the city of Vancouver. That's what the public thinks based on the headline they read in the newspaper today — the journal of record in British Columbia, The Vancouver Sun. That was the headline.

Let's go a little bit further to the editorial in The Vancouver Sun today. "What's Going On With the Olympics" is the headline, and I'll read from that editorial, hon, Speaker, if I may.

"With the benefit of perfect hindsight, it is easy to say that Vancouver city council mishandled the Olympic village project. It was viewed entirely as an opportunity to reap benefits for the city, with little appreciation of the potential risk to taxpayers. It is also unfortunate that Mayor Sam Sullivan failed in 2007 to tell Vancouver taxpayers that council had taken on liability for $190 million loan guarantee to Fortress Investments and the responsibility for completing the Olympic village project."

Absolutely relevant to the debate we're having today, absolutely relevant to this legislation.

[2230]

So ordinary citizens in the city of Vancouver today, picking up the journal of record, see a headline that says that today, in this place, now with hindsight, we are debating in one day all three stages of a bill that will allow unlimited borrowing powers. That's the perception. The minister may disagree with that conclusion, but that's the perception in the public mind right now.

They turn to the editorial page, and they learn that they have been kept in the dark about a funding process that will put them at risk, put their tax base at risk and cause them to have to find more money in a downturn in the economy to pay for their basic needs. The city of Vancouver has a big problem on its hands.

I'd like to echo the comments of my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke in offering my sincere congratulations to our former colleague Mr. Robertson, the new mayor of Vancouver. I wish him great success over the coming term to try and resolve the mess that the NPA council left to him.

I certainly will also echo the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that based on the arguments I've heard, based on the bill that's before us, I will be supporting it at second reading and look very much forward to some reasoned defence from the minister as to why we're giving a blank cheque today. I'm certain he'll be able to do that at committee stage.

That's the context. The members on the other side, when we have raised issues around confusion in the public mind…. The minister said today again, in his debate, that the total cost of the Olympics is 600 million bucks. That may well be, in the minister's mind, the actual cost of the Olympics — 600 million bucks.

It doesn't include the Olympic secretariat. I'm hopeful that the IOC will come and talk to the government about that. Using the Olympic name apparently is a problem if
[ Page 13482 ]
you make pizza in Vancouver, but it's okay if you're a secretariat in the government of British Columbia. Don't consider it a cost to the Olympics. Unlike the Olympic village, the Olympic secretariat is not a cost; 600 million bucks — that's it. All up.

"Don't worry about it, hon. taxpayer." That's what they're saying. That's what the people on that side of the House continue to believe. I would call that delusional, but I'm charitable. I'm generous on a Saturday night. It's now 10:30.

I don't want to leave the government with the impression that I don't hold anything but goodwill for them in their future, but they are living in dreamland if they think the public truly believes that Bill 47 is just a little housekeeping matter. "We'll just kind of tie this up. Nothing to see here, folks. Pay no attention to the people in the pointy buildings."

We're here today, based on what I heard in Langford this morning, to write a blank cheque for the city of Vancouver. Now, it's an urgent matter, because it said so in the letter. It said so in the letter from Mr. Robertson. It's an urgent matter, and I heard the House Leader refer to that. It's an urgent matter.

I know that the Minister of Community Development will be aware that in 2007 the Minister of Forests — without any consultation, without any thought to compensation to the people of southern Vancouver Island — allowed Western Forest Products to release private lands from a tree farm licence.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Now, this is relevant. If the minister will take his place for a moment. It has to do with the urgency of the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, which I know the Minister of Community Development is aware of.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please. Sit down, please.

Point of Order

Hon. B. Penner: I've reviewed the two sections of the bill that the member should make himself aware of. Nowhere at all does it refer to anything to do with forest lands or to anything else to do with municipal enabling legislation.

He seems to be criticizing the ruling of the Speaker that this matter is urgent. We were told that this is the bill that we're debating tonight. I would strongly suggest to the member that he restrict his comments to the bill itself.

S. Simpson: Just in regard to the minister's point of order, I took the opportunity….

Deputy Speaker: Member, are you making a point of order?

S. Simpson: I am discussing the point of order raised by the minister. It's debate on a point of order. I believe that's allowed.

Deputy Speaker: No, no debate on a point of order.

S. Simpson: Point of order, please.

Deputy Speaker: Make your point of order.

S. Simpson: The rules around order as I understand them — and I'm looking for clarification — say that it's quite relevant to speak about issues where relevance will come later in the debate. It's very clear to me that that's what we're doing here, and somebody should pay attention to that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

[2235]

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: Had the minister cared a whit about the people of southern Vancouver Island, he would know that the relevance that I was getting to with respect to the urgency of Bill 47 was that the capital regional district this month, based on two years of very, very botched history that the member for Saanich North and the Islands is well aware of, has asked the Minister of Community Development in an urgent way…. They may well not have written the word "urgent" five times in a letter, but they approached the Minister of Community Development and are seeking a MEVA to try and address the foul-up of a piece of policy on that side of the House.

It's absolutely relevant to Bill 47, because the reason we're here today on a Saturday at 25 minutes to 11 is because they're botching the biggest capital project in Vancouver right now, which is the point of this bill.

My concern is that the Minister of Community Development was quick to respond to a serious and significant and real concern in the city of Vancouver. But those on that side of the House seem indifferent to the challenges and concerns their policies are raising in the capital regional district.

Now, I think that's relevant. I think it's relevant, certainly, to my constituents. They've sent me to this place to represent their interests. They've sent me today to debate Bill 47, which is an amendment brought forward by the Minister of Community Development, and I'm just advising the minister in debate at second reading on the principles of why it's urgent that we address challenges and concerns in a downturn in the economy for communities right across British Columbia.
[ Page 13483 ]

I'm saying that the people in the capital regional district feel abandoned. The people in the Metro Vancouver area are delighted and pleased that we're here today to try and solve the mess that Sam Sullivan created at the behest of Ken Dobell and the member for Vancouver–Point Grey's buddies, and that's fine.

I'm confident that when the member for Vancouver–Point Grey takes his place to debate this bill and speak in favour of writing a blank cheque to make up for the mess that his buddy Sam Sullivan has left for our buddy Gregor Robertson…. I'm confident that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey and, if we're lucky, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview will join the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the three remaining members from Vancouver. I don't know if there'll be three remaining after the next election, but there are three today.

I'm hopeful that they'll all join in the debate and they'll all justify to their taxpayers why it is that we're sitting here at 25 minutes to 11 on a Saturday night taking away the rights of Vancouver citizens to vote in a referendum on borrowing up to $800 million — $800 million.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Now, I hear the sleepy member from Saanich saying that we should vote against this bill. Absolutely not. That's not the point.

This is not 1933. It's not the Weimar Republic. This is a democracy. We have rules in the place, and normally we take three reasonable days to vote on legislation. That's what we normally do.

We're not doing that today. We're doing this all three stages in one day. We're heading towards midnight. We're probably going to be here until six o'clock or seven o'clock in the morning talking about this bill, and that's fine. The Speaker has ruled on that. I'm delighted. I couldn't be happier. I couldn't be happier because it demonstrates the arrogance of this government. Seven and a half years, and the rot is starting to show.

We are here because of a colossal screwup by Mr. Dobell, by the VANOC board, by the Finance Committee, by all the people appointed by the Premier of this province. Now we're here, and it's supposedly just a minor housekeeping thing. Nothing to worry about, folks. Eight hundred million bucks — what's that among friends? Nothing. Chump change. Chump change to the realtors in Vancouver.

We've heard from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. We heard from the member for Vancouver-Fairview. I'm looking very much forward to hearing what the member for Vancouver-Burrard has to say, as well as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway.

This is a profoundly important issue to the people of Vancouver. I don't want to diminish that one whit. But the people in my constituency, the people in Columbia River–Revelstoke — they didn't send us here to be toadies to the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That may be well and good for people on that side of the House, but it's not good enough for people on this side of the House.

I was elected to come here and debate the issues of the day. When the people of Vancouver pick up their paper in the morning, they don't know what the heck's going on in this place. The government thinks that's all right. They think that's okay. They're mushroom farmers. Keep everybody in the dark. We'll have a great harvest.

I think they're in for a rude awakening. It will come on May 12, 2009, when they take their arrogant road show to the people of British Columbia. The response is going to be: "I don't know what the heck you people do in Victoria. I don't really care, but stop wasting my money."

[2240]

Most of my constituents, over the past six months, have lost a quarter of their savings. The value of their homes has gone through the toilet. Yet we're here today potentially increasing the risk to taxpayers in Vancouver, potentially increasing the risk to taxpayers right across British Columbia, and the government thinks it's okay to do it in 24 hours on a Saturday.

They think that's okay. That's fine. I'm okay with that. We have standing orders, and I guess that when I heard the Government House Leader read a letter, I thought: man, that's good research — brilliant. Brilliant stuff. He was rewarded by what we've got going right here, right now.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

J. Horgan: Apparently, the Auditor General is not relevant to the finances of British Columbia. I've heard that from members of the executive council when others have mentioned it, and I did hear a very eloquent and impassioned denial by the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the renewed Finance Minister.

I think it's important, again, in terms of the context of why we are here debating Bill 47. The people in my community want to see capital projects accelerated in the downturn of the economy. Malahat–Juan de Fuca is one of the fastest-growing regions on southern Vancouver Island. There's a lot of pent-up economic frustration right now because they can't seem to free up capital from the province or the federal government to realize some public projects.

Yet at an economic development conference in my community today, I was taken away to come here and rush something through in the dead of night so that the Premier could go back to Vancouver and say: "Pay no attention. Everything's fine. It's all fixed. And oh, by the way, it's Gregor's problem. Let's blame Vision Vancouver." Absolutely outrageous.
[ Page 13484 ]

Ken Dobell, the man of many hats, apparently had too many hats on to tell the government of British Columbia that the Olympic village was going in the tank. Maybe one less hat might have helped there. The dunce cap is apparently what the member should get Mr. Dobell for this.

Imagine if you live in the city of Vancouver. I can only imagine, but I've heard from Fairview; I've heard from Hastings. These are taxpayers. These are their constituents.

When the member for Vancouver-Fairview tried to tell a story about one of her constituents' thoughts on Bill 47, the Environment Minister was quick to hop to his feet and say: "What's the relevance of what taxpayers think? What's the relevance of that?" Absolutely unbelievable.

When I looked at the bill this morning…. I've often said that I have a lot of time for the Minister of Community Development, although it's been a long day, and I can understand that his temper is a bit short, and some of his comments have been, I believe, uncharacteristic of him. That's fine, because this is a passionate place. We bring forward our arguments, sometimes eloquently, sometimes in a ham-fisted way. I'd like to think I'm kind of halfway between ham and halfway between eloquence. That's my opinion. I'm sure the members have a different opinion on the other side.

Hon. I. Black: Which half are we seeing now?

J. Horgan: I'll leave that to Port Moody to figure out.

The challenges we have when we leave this place…. I understand that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena doesn't want us to talk about it. "It's 600 million bucks; that's it. Pay no attention to the Olympic secretariat. Pay no attention to the Sea to Sky Highway."

One of my friends said to me: "That's quite an economic development policy the B.C. Liberals have. A highway to Whistler — fantastic. Fantastic unless you live in the Kootenays, unless you live in the north coast, unless you live on Vancouver Island. Then it doesn't do a whole lot for you."

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

So when I come into this place and I have to debate at second reading the principles of Bill 47, I have to say to myself: "Well, how the heck am I going to make amendments to the Vancouver Charter relevant to the people in my community? How is it relevant to them, when they want a MEVA, a municipalities enabling and validating act, as quickly as possible to make amends for a decision made by the Minister of Forests two years ago?

There was downzoning in the capital regional district. There was a lawsuit. There's an appeal. There's municipal chaos in the capital regional district. I don't see any emergency session for that. I don't see a bill to be thrown through all in one day for that.

[2245]

I've got to say to my constituents: "Well, just wait until Vancouver gets its fill. Wait till the Premier's pet projects are taken care of. Wait till he dumps a whole bunch of responsibility on the taxpayers of Vancouver, and then maybe he'll come and help us out.

Part of me says: "Thanks for nothing. We don't really need the help if this is what you get — amendment to the charter; $800 million more in debt because the man of many hats forgot to tell the Premier that their preferred developer, Millennium, and their preferred hedge fund, Fortress, and Intrawest kind of made a mistake along the way, kind of didn't really follow the market the way we folks.

My friend from Fairview's 80-year-old friends are paying attention to the market, because they're trying to feed themselves and pay the rent and look for where they're going to be in their senior years. Not so if you're buying condos at False Creek.

Heavens to Betsy. That's what I've got to say to this. I think that's parliamentary, isn't it? I didn't say "crock." I know I can't say "crock," hon. Speaker, so you don't have to correct me on that. But heavens to Betsy.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It was Snagglepuss who said: "Heavens to Murgatroyd." That was a trivia question the other day. I bet you not everyone in the place knew that. I know the member for Surrey–White Rock knew that. Heavens to Murgatroyd.

Another one of the headlines that of course caught my attention — again, trying to understand how the public is viewing the actions and activities here in the pointy buildings today…. The Vancouver Sun on Thursday, noted columnist Vaughn Palmer. The headline read: "Security Budget Games Mean Another Games Embarrassment." Another games embarrassment — what are we to make of that? What is the public to make of that?

We come into this place. We're well informed. We get briefings from our staff, and certainly, the members on the government side have got a $36 billion corporation over there. They're well informed. But ordinary citizens — they'd like to see some light shone on these issues. They would expect — certainly, the people in my community expect — that the Legislature of British Columbia, from May until January, would have sat for more than six days, one of which is a Saturday in January all night long, to avoid questions and scrutiny.

That's what the taxpayers in my constituency expect: accountability from me as their representative. But more importantly, they can ignore me. They can discount me.
[ Page 13485 ]
They don't have to vote for me ever again, but they expect the government of British Columbia to come clean on what the true costs of the Olympics are. No more blank cheques for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Pet projects are fine if you're not playing with someone else's money, and it's time that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey took his place in this debate and fessed up to what he knows, when he knew it. When did Ken Dobell tell him that Sam Sullivan had booted this ball all the way across False Creek? When did Ken Dobell brief Jessica McDonald, the deputy to the Premier, and when did the Premier know that the taxpayers of Vancouver were potentially on the hook for an $800 million real estate venture in the worst market we've seen in 70 years? When did that happen? We would like to know that. The taxpayers of Vancouver would certainly like to know that.

When I started my comments, I referenced my friend from Columbia River–Revelstoke. Like myself, he comes from a rural part of British Columbia. Of course, mine is kind of a suburban-rural constituency, but nonetheless, we have people in our community that like to come to Vancouver. They like to go shopping. They like to see maybe relatives. Maybe their kids are trying to find work in the big city. They are now becoming taxpayers.

Our extended families and people in our community are going to Vancouver, and they're potentially going to be going to Vancouver to enjoy the Olympics. I know I'll be watching it on my television, but that's just the way it goes. A lot of people are looking forward to the Olympics. I am one of them.

However, what I want from the government of British Columbia — what the people in my community, what the people from Columbia River–Revelstoke want — is accountability. I don't see accountability in a bill that says: "Here's a blank cheque, Vancouver. Try and fix Mr. Sullivan's problem. And oh, by the way, if it goes badly, we're going to blame Vision for the whole damn thing." Outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.

I can't for the life of me understand why it is that members on the other side of the House don't have the time for the Auditor General. We have selected the Auditor General. A bipartisan committee selected him from a range of candidates. He issued a report again on the Western Forest Products lands, and the Minister of Forests, who was so concerned about debate, so concerned about anecdotes from constituents and from taxpayers concerned about escalating costs for the Olympic village…. He was so concerned that he said: "We don't want to talk about that."

[2250]

When the Auditor General pointed out the glaring and egregious mistakes in the forest policy that the minister is going to correct me on, he said he didn't know what he was doing. When the Auditor General….

Point of Order

Hon. B. Penner: The previous Chair had to admonish this member a couple of times about relevance. I know, looking at the two or three sections in this bill, that there's no reference to forest management practices or reports of the Auditor General to do with matters other than the Olympics.

Hon. Chair, I respectfully request that you remind the member to constrain his remarks to the two or three sections of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please continue. I won't read what the Speaker read earlier, but if you could direct your remarks to the…. I know that the bill is very narrow, but direct it to that portion of the bill we are discussing. Thank you.

Debate Continued

J. Horgan: I will do my level best to speak to Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act. Again, as a member from outside of the Metro Vancouver area, as I bring my thoughts to this debate on behalf of my constituents, I believe I have to shape them in a way that they'll be understood back home.

I think all of us, as we speak to legislation, particularly a piece of legislation that's confined to the city of Vancouver…. If we don't live there, we have to bring other experiences to the debate, but I'm absolutely mindful of the Speaker's ruling and your admonition, and I will do my level best to speak to the Olympic village site.

In so doing, I would like to go back to some of the comments that the public would have seen in their morning papers today, again trying to understand what it is we're doing here as we amend the Vancouver Charter and not provide a municipal enabling and validating act for the capital regional district, which is of more importance to my constituents, certainly, than this.

However, in today's Globe and Mail: "Olympic Village Problems Ask Some Never-Again Questions." So again, the public, as they're looking at what we're doing today with respect to the amendments to the Vancouver Charter, are confused. I know that the minister will say that the debate from this side of the House is doing nothing to inform those citizens. Well, had we had the opportunity to have reasoned debate over the course of three days, then maybe we might well have been able to shed some positive light on that.

When we look at what the Globe and Mail had to say…. The Globe and Mail said in their lead story today: "How Did Things Go So Wrong?" How did things go so wrong? I'll just read from that. It says: "By last fall the developers were in the soup." That's charitable. "Fortress had stopped lending the money, construction bills could only be met with an extraordinary $100 million advance
[ Page 13486 ]
from the city, and today an emergency session of the Legislature is being convened to provide Vancouver with the power to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent the project from going belly up."

In the soup, belly up — that's what the public is reading about the debate that's going on in here today. That's the public perception of what's happened — in the soup and belly up.

The Minister of Community Development: "Just a housekeeping thing. Nothing to worry about. Everything is going to be fine." Broad parameters. No limits on how much, what instruments are used in section 2 of the act.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the only Vancouver member from the government side to speak to this bill so far…. I know that the member for Vancouver–Point Grey will stand in his place and offer an eloquent and passionate defence of Sam Sullivan and the NPA's botching — into the soup, belly up — the Olympic village that we're discussing here in Bill 47. I'm certain of that. I can't wait.

I'm hopeful that at about five or six in the morning the member for Vancouver–Point Grey will take his place and proudly declare: "Hey, it's not my fault. It was Sam." Better yet: "It was Gregor. Blame Gregor." Thank goodness for Gregor Robertson. Thank goodness for Vision Vancouver.

Thank goodness for Vision Vancouver. The end of NPA — the only thing that's greater than that is the end of the B.C. Liberal Party, which is going to happen on May 12, 2009. You know why? Because they have the arrogance to bring forward Bill 47 on a Saturday, when no one's paying attention. They're watching the hockey.

[2255]

Today was the nicest day we've had in a month. Some of us went on holidays. Some of us went to the sun, some of us went to Hawaii, but I shovelled snow. Then I started filling sandbags. That's what I did with my summer vacation. The nicest day we've had in a month, and we're in here instead of in our constituency talking about the challenges that we face in a downturn in the economy.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It was good exercise. I didn't lose any weight as a result, but that's my problem, not the minister's.

I know that the minister is anxious to hear more about the municipal enabling and validating act that's desperately needed in the capital regional district and will put his mind to that as soon as we finish with Bill 47. I'm hopeful that bill 48 will come tomorrow morning in an urgent manner so that we can dispense with it in one day — all three stages — to do something, finally, for the people of the capital regional district.

I want to go through some of the clippings again, because I do believe that it's absolutely relevant. What's the state of mind of the public as we sit in this place? We're here virtually alone.

Thank goodness for Hansard. Thank you very much for being here, keeping a record of this.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

J. Horgan: Am I out of time, hon. Speaker? Thank you very much. I look forward to the municipal enabling act tomorrow.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Burrard. If I could remind the member to direct his remarks to the portion of the bill.

S. Herbert: When I came into Victoria last night, there was a deep fog. Many here today had trouble getting here because of this fog. As I awoke this morning in Victoria, our capital was enveloped in this fog, a deep murkiness where you could not even see across the street. Much of B.C. has been in this deep murkiness lately. Whether it's Kamloops, Prince George, Burnaby, Comox, Vancouver or rural B.C., we have all been unable to see because of this fog.

I speak now of the fog and murky haze that surrounds the Olympics and the backroom deal that led to this Olympic village fiasco, which has caused the debate we're having today on Bill 47 — a fog made up of Olympic boosterism, doublespeak, passing the buck and utter fabrication.

This B.C. Liberal fog needs to be cleared. The make-believe that everything is fine needs to stop. Our people deserve much better. It is our money that this government is spending, after all.

Please, Mr. Premier, turn the fog machine off, and tell us the real answers. Come clean on the real Olympic costs.

Now, I'd like to let the hon. Speaker know that the fog cleared briefly today here in Victoria. The sun burnt it off, just as I hoped the people of British Columbia's concern would burn off this government's arrogance and foggy complicity in hiding the true cost of these games. The Premier has a real opportunity to come clean on the real cost of the Olympics tonight, and maybe we'll hear that a little bit later. Maybe at 5 a.m. the fog can be lifted.

I think it was then Social Credit Opposition Leader Bill Bennett who said, "Not a dime without debate," and went on to champion the people's rights to know for months. The same principle rings true today. Our people — my fellow British Columbians, my constituents — are now on the hook for billions in Olympic spending, with probably at least a billion in cost overruns. But the Premier says: "There are no cost overruns for the Olympics." The fog descends again.

I'm here today to speak in support of Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, and I do it
[ Page 13487 ]
because taxpayers in Vancouver need this change. As a taxpayer in Vancouver myself, I don't like it that my municipal government has had to go to this distance. I don't like it that my government has to be in this situation to ask us here in the Legislature to waive the rules for referendum, to sidestep them, but that's the reality. I don't like that this amendment has to exist, as it strips taxpayers of their rights to decide what their local council spends their money on, in this case.

But as my fellow members have noted, the B.C. Liberal farm team of the NPA and Mr. Premier's friends Sam Sullivan and Peter Ladner stuck us all on this hook when they agreed to put no conditions on their agreement to spend the money with this hedge fund and Millennium.

[2300]

We need this amendment in Vancouver to reduce the exposure faced by Vancouverites. Private borrowing costs of 11 percent are crippling the city's ability to provide the crucial services Vancouverites pay for. Instead, that money is being shipped out the door to investors on Wall Street. This is not right, but it's consistent with programs this government has watched over. We need this amendment to stop the bleeding.

When this problem came to light, I went out onto the streets, into the community centres, the bars, the seniors centres, the coffee shops to speak with my constituents about what they thought, to allow them to have the debate since they were not allowed to vote in a referendum. I would like to share some of their concerns with this House.

I heard from Rodney, who said: "Why is it that you can have a special session to bail out a failing luxury condo deal, but you never had a special session to deal with the highest child poverty rate in this country?" He's right. The priorities of this government are out of touch with where the people of British Columbia are. Bill 47 has people concerned.

I spoke with John, who said that what has happened with the Olympic village is all too typical of this government and its priorities. He spoke of the convention centre cost overruns of $500 million and how much he wanted that money back to support programs at St. Paul's Hospital and to deal with the homelessness crisis in our community. He spoke about how odd it was, in his words, "that the government responds when fancy condos are on the line but not when people on Davie Street burn to death."

Again, these are my constituent's words in Vancouver-Burrard — a constituent who wants real answers and real action for the challenges facing him and his family today. He told me that he's happy that the mayor has shed the light on this deal. He's happy that it's being debated here today, because he needs answers, and he wants the government to take action. He's glad that we're able to do that today, but he's concerned about what this bill means and about what it's teaching us about what the government has not learned and has failed to do — to watch out for his interests.

When I attended a tourism function the other night, I spoke with a number of people who identified themselves as former friends of the government, who asked me why I thought the government would schedule a session on a Saturday and why the government would not be frank with taxpayers about the other projects in similar situations to the Olympic village, projects which have gone massively over budget and they are on the hook for.

I don't know why the government thinks they know best, why they think hiding the real numbers is better than being forthright. Could it be because they know the people of B.C. will not stand for billions of their dollars spent on the Premier's pet projects when homelessness has gone up, when we're the worst in terms of child poverty?

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, I'm going to read what the Speaker said earlier this evening or today.

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

So I would ask the member to withdraw his remarks following the Speaker's instruction.

S. Herbert: I'm not sure about withdrawing my remarks, because…. I'll just continue, hon. Speaker.

Could it be because the people that I was speaking to are upset that this bill has to come to the House, that they're upset that the government wasn't watching out and working with their partner at the municipal level to make sure they were not going to be on the hook for these costs? Yeah, I think that's the reason they're upset. They're upset that this government has not been open and accountable with their partners and has not worked with their partners to make sure these kinds of situations do not arise.

Unfortunately, Bill 47 is necessary because of this government's lack of accountability and openness, because this culture of secrecy that this government is famous for has permeated all the Olympic projects in this city, including the Olympic village.

Instead of being open and accountable, the government in Vancouver tried to hide the problems in the fog, but we in B.C. know that there are more problems like this hiding in the dark shadows. Devastation is waiting. We hear the coins being poured into the great money pit of cost overruns — our coins. I'm talking of hundreds of millions of loonies and toonies pouring out and — in the case of Bill 47, what we're trying to stop here, currently, in the Olympic village — going to Wall Street.

[2305]
[ Page 13488 ]

Bill 47 is necessary because of this culture of boosterism I spoke of earlier. Now, I'm going to quote the Premier on the cost of the convention centre in my constituency because I think it relates to the culture of boosterism which has unfortunately led to the devastation we're seeing with the Olympic village project. He said, when asked about the $565 million price tag in 2004, that it would be the final cost. "Count on it. There are contingencies built into this project, and it's going to be run professionally. That's it. Kaputski. Done."

"That's it. Kaputski. It's done." Well, we now know that that was far from the truth, and the costs have radically increased to upwards of $900 million for the convention centre, just as we've seen the costs increase again and again in the Olympic village.

As my friend Lindsay always says, toughski shvitski. She claims it's Polish. I don't believe her. She says this in relation to this problem. She says the money is already gone, and we'll never get it back for use in our communities because of a lack of accountability and because of a lack of openness and proper management. Toughski shvitski. This project had the same sort of secrecy, the same sort of lack of accountability, as the Olympic village, which brought us here with Bill 47.

I want to return to what the Minister of Community Development — community services, as I've heard it called — said when he spoke in support of this bill. He said that the Premier heard about the city of Vancouver's Olympic village massive cost overruns from the mayor on January 5 and was told that the city needed some sort of charter change. He said that the Premier asked him to look into this. He said the Premier asked that the council have a resolution requesting this change, even though the mayor had made clear he needed action and, I assume, had council's support. It is a massive majority, after all, for Vision Vancouver.

Then the Premier waited. The minister and the Premier, from what I can tell, didn't draft a bill, didn't do their due diligence. They waited. For every day they waited, it cost $87,000 of Vancouver taxpayers' money — every day. The Premier and the minister for community services knew that the council was going to pass this motion. The mayor had indicated as such and made it very obvious that this was a big deal and needed their help.

Did the Premier, did the minister draft the bill then? No. As far as I can tell, they waited, costing more and more. Then after getting the motion passed at council, they waited to call the House back until today, because they needed to get a bill drafted. So my assumption is that the bill was not put together before the Monday vote at council — even though nine out of the ten councillors are Vision Vancouver and COPE, who are very much affiliated with the mayor, as I know — 12 days after being made aware of Vancouver's need. That's $87,000 a day for 12 days — over a million bucks because the Premier delayed, finally bringing us back today, Saturday, so as to escape question period and scrutiny.

He calls us back today and waives the rules so proper scrutiny by our citizens has no time to happen. One million bucks of Vancouver taxpayers' money in delays so that the Premier and this government can escape the opposition and the public scrutiny — shameful. But this is par for the course with this B.C. Liberal government.

I noted earlier today when the Finance Minister rose in debate, the Minister Responsible for the Olympics, and spoke in this House defending the government's decision to ignore all three reports of the Auditors General — two reports, because one's not made public — in the past number of years and the opposition's call for coming clean about the real cost of the Olympics, which would show that British Columbians were on the hook for millions, if not billions, more for the Olympics than the government claims, because of faulty business models, lack of scrutiny and cost overruns like we've seen in the Olympic village.

This shroud of obfuscation, doublespeak and make-believe continues. I heard the Premier say: "No. 1, there are no cost overruns in the Olympic village" and "There are no cost overruns." Then he said, when his staff reminded him that there were indeed cost overruns on Vancouver's Olympic village: "There are no cost overruns for the Olympics."

[2310]

I served as a commissioner with the Vancouver board of parks and recreation, partners with the provincial government on a number of Olympic projects, including the Hillcrest curling centre, Trout Lake and Killarney rinks, parts of the Olympic village. I seem to remember a number of cost overruns on those Olympic projects. Just to make sure, I contacted Commissioner Loretta Woodcock. She told me that the cost for the projects has increased from $80 million to $119 million. It's about $39 million in overruns.

Now I know the Finance Minister for Vancouver-Quilchena and the Premier for Point Grey — of course, I mean the members for Vancouver-Quilchena and Vancouver–Point Grey — will say that these are not Olympic costs, just as they say the Olympic secretariat is not an Olympic cost. They will pump out more rhetorical fog that the Olympics have nothing to do with the skating centre that's been redeveloped now for the Olympics.

The city taxpayers would not have taken this cost on now without the Olympics. I know that because I was there when we made that decision. Yet the government continues to claim no cost overruns.

When the Olympic village is facing massive cost overruns, which is the reason we're here today, you'd think the B.C. Liberals could admit that the taxpayers are in the thick of it. It's the same taxpayer. Whether it's Vancouver taxpayers or British Columbia taxpayers,
[ Page 13489 ]
we're paying the same taxes in Vancouver for those projects — bigger, way more than this government claims. The government needs to get that into their heads. These are Olympic costs.

The government needs to come clean on the real costs and have the Auditor General be the Auditor General for the Olympics as he has requested. What is the government afraid of?

I reference a Vancouver Province editorial: "The provincial government claims that taxpayers would not be asked to pay more than $600 million as their share of 2010 games costs has always been a sham." Their claim has always been a sham is what the Province says.

When the government is involved in what the Province calls a sham, I would hope the Premier and the members on that side of the House would sit up and pay attention, would sit up and speak truthfully about what's going on there. But instead we hear more boosterism and happy talk when the people of B.C. are asking for a government that will provide answers and listen to their concerns and their priorities.

We hear denial that there's even a problem when what we need is honesty, accountability and transparency. We need a government and a Finance Minister that are forthright with the people of British Columbia — as the mayor of Vancouver has done on the Olympic village.

Earlier the Finance Minister defended his government's estimate of $600 million for the Olympics — all in, total cost. I turn now to what the minister said outside of the House today about Olympic security costs. He was pressed to answer about the fact that no one believes that the security costs will continue to remain at $100 million when many experts expect security costs to be upwards of $1 billion dollars and have for years.

In the Globe and Mail today it reads: "When the minister was asked if that would blow B.C.'s overall $600 Olympics budget, Mr. Hansen hedged: 'I wish there was a simple yes or no answer to that question.'"

Deputy Speaker: Member, you do not refer to other members by name, and I would ask you to keep your remarks to the bill that we're discussing today.

S. Herbert: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm just referencing what the hon. member said earlier today in the House on this question.

When the Finance Minister refuses to answer a basic question, a question as simple as: will increased costs for security compromise your promised $600 million budget…?

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, please draw your remarks directly towards the bill that we're discussing today.

S. Herbert: Okay.

I get nervous about statements I hear from the government. I get nervous because this lack of scrutiny, this lack of accountability, which has led to Bill 47, is just what we're seeing here today and we've been seeing for months and for years with this government. This is the same sort of hedging that has led to the trouble with the hedge fund in New York for Vancouver and its Olympic village.

When you can't tell us what's really going on, when you don't believe the public has a right to know, something is very wrong in this province. When the Finance Minister and the Premier dismiss the advice of three different independent Auditors General, who are looking out for taxpayers' interests, the government has grown really out of touch.

As I've said, this is the attitude that led to the Olympic village fiasco. It's also led to the convention centre, the curling venues, skating tracks, B.C. Place — the list goes on. If we cannot learn from Vancouver's problem, when are we going to learn? When are the taxpayers going to be able to look at us, look at all the MLAs here today and trust that we are actually looking out for their interests?

[2315]

I'm calling for us to learn today from Vancouver. We should have learned this ages ago. I don't understand how the government can seem to believe that by hiding costs and moving them from one place to another we're going to be able to deal with situations like this. We can't. If you cannot properly account for how you're spending your money, it disappears, as we're seeing in Vancouver. I as a taxpayer and my constituents — the member for Vancouver-Fairview has mentioned it; Vancouver-Hastings has mentioned it — we're seeing this happen again and again and again, and it's got to stop. This is not right.

I spoke earlier about the fog in our province. For hours now my colleagues have been trying to get the government to clear the fog, to clear the air on these issues, to come to terms with the fact that what's happened in Vancouver is happening to all the other Olympic projects in one way or another. But there seems to be a fog inside this House. I heard an hon. member just yawn. Maybe that's adding to the fog. I'll try to be more exciting for the hon. member.

There's a fog in the Premier's office, a fog that seems to make it impossible for the public to get the real answers for the very real questions we have about Bill 47 and what led specifically to Bill 47 and the Olympic village fiasco and the many other Olympic projects that have grown completely out of control. When I took a look outside a little earlier, I noticed the fog had descended in Victoria again as well. I saw on the news that the fog had descended again across the province. Unless we get some real courage and some real integrity, I'm afraid this fog is going to continue till May 12, when we will clear the fog when this government is changed.
[ Page 13490 ]

N. Simons: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's now 11:16. I'm usually in my sixth hour of sleep.

Due to pressing commitments, I'm in this House speaking on a bill that was revealed to us earlier today so that we can contemplate a very important issue facing not just Vancouverites but British Columbians in general. It's an issue of great importance because it, in some way or another, exemplifies other issues that British Columbians are worried about. My colleague from Vancouver-Burrard expressed it in very poetic terms about the thickness of the fog and the lack of visibility that we see outside in the streets and a similar fog that seems to weigh on us in here.

Unfortunately, this is a place where we're supposed to get to the bottom of issues. It's a place where we're supposed to debate issues, to find out if there's an angle that we haven't yet seen or if there's a perspective that hasn't been adequately explained. Maybe there's a misunderstanding that needs to be clarified.

This is about giving the city of Vancouver, finally with a responsible administration, with responsible councillors — Vision, COPE and Green — influencing intelligent decision-making and sweeping up a mess that was left for them, the legacy of the NPA, sometimes referred to as the farm team for the Liberal government…. Well, we shouldn't have to be here to be discussing this.

I'm pleased to be here. I'm going to support the legislation. I think the mayor, my friend Gregor Robertson, has already shown that he's leaps and bounds ahead of the issues, attempting to deal with the mess, as I mentioned, in a way that perhaps will rescue some of the boondoggles that have plagued the Olympics so far.

How did we get here? How did we get to the point where it's 11:20 at night. Montreal won in a shootout earlier. It seems like eons ago. I don't know what happened with Calgary and Phoenix, but something must have. I was sitting in here wondering why I didn't have a pillow.

An Hon. Member: Phoenix won.

[2320]

N. Simons: Phoenix won. That's the most important information that anyone from that side of the House has offered to us all day, and I appreciate it. I don't know the score, but that's okay. If you tell me, I'm going to have to correct myself and my earlier statement.

This is about accountability, Mr. Speaker. This is about legislation changing the act that tells the city of Vancouver what it can and can't do. They need to borrow money so that the taxpayers of Vancouver aren't on the hook for $87,000 a day because they're paying an 11 percent interest rate. We have to be here to rescue, to put back in order, to fix. That's our duty here. That's our duty.

But it's also our duty to figure out exactly what got us into this mess in the first place and how we can prevent things like this from happening in the future. So far it seems to me that the defensiveness and the denial indicate that there's no lesson about to be learned. So I'm wondering.

I'm wondering why, first, there seem to be very few members of the governing side who wish to weigh in on this debate. Perhaps if they're standing up every few minutes saying that we're not staying on topic, they could maybe bring us back and talk about what issues they think are central to this. How did we get here? What were the decisions that were made that led us to being here on a Saturday night, even though we knew not just last December but in June somebody knew, and somebody didn't say anything. That's a lack of accountability.

We need to understand how that lack of accountability managed to sort of continue with no, or very limited, oversight that could have got us here earlier and perhaps have saved the city of Vancouver more money.

We got here because of a letter, a well-written letter, from the city of Vancouver to the Premier of the province and the Leader of the Opposition, saying that we need to get this done. We need to get this done soon.

There was no doubt whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, that both sides of the House would want to make sure that we could clean up a mess. We can't turn a blind eye to the fact that, really, the previous city administration landed us here. And it's perhaps the fact that the urgency was repeated in that letter that the Premier decided to wait a few extra days.

If it was that urgent, maybe we should have been here just a couple of days earlier. Was the legislation ready? No. Did they know it should be ready? Maybe. How long did it take? As the minister has pointed out, it's just slightly over a page. Actually, you know, when you think about it, that's a lot of paper for the page.

Speaking of paper, you know, there are emergencies throughout this province. There are issues that need to be discussed in great detail around the province. The threat to the pulp and paper industry is one of them, but we don't see an extra session on that. No, no.

This is covering up a little bit of an error that the farm team made. Unfortunately, it has this little…. There's this perception in the province that maybe it's an indicator of a greater problem. Maybe it's an indicator of a larger systemic problem, and if we can just quickly get it over with, like a child swallowing distasteful medicine, everyone will forget, and we'll all get better. That's not the way legislatures are supposed to work.

We're supposed to examine the problems. We're supposed to discuss the problems, and we're supposed to find solutions to those problems. But not in this chamber, it seems. Not in this chamber, which has found itself maybe sitting six days since May 30 — six days since May 30.

What have we seen since May 30? We've seen the devastation of the forest industry. We've seen industry, and we've seen manufacturing going down. We've seen
[ Page 13491 ]
housing starts drop. We've seen unemployment increase, we've seen child poverty continue, and — what? — now we have an emergency because the city of Vancouver, under its previous administration, made a blunder.

[2325]

Interjections.

N. Simons: That's exactly what I was going to say.

So what we're finding here is that we're debating an issue on a Saturday night because of the nature of it being an emergency, an urgency.

I take great offence at that thought that we will only discuss what the government thinks is urgent and not what the people of the province think is urgent. There are many issues we should be discussing. Bill 47. Bill 47 speaks directly to the fact that bad plans were made, that bad decisions were taken. We're here as the Legislature to provide that oversight, to provide the debate.

You know, the problem inherent in this is that the lack of accountability was not a mistake. The lack of accountability, in legal terms, would be considered wilful — a wilful blindness to the problems that this whole system engenders. It is wilful blindness to the fact that there are systemic problems throughout the whole Olympic financing situation.

The Auditor General…. Not a member of the opposition, not a member of any of the organizations that the government likes to ridicule, to put down or to dismiss, but the Auditor General…. Three Auditors General have repeatedly stated that there should be independent oversight.

There should be independent oversight to this system, and you know, perhaps we would have prevented this problem, perhaps, because certainly the people protecting themselves weren't about to release the fact that they were making mistakes. The people were doing what they did in order to hide the facts from the public, and it's a sorry state. The Auditor General says it very clearly: "My office's two previous reports…conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the Games is higher than the $600 million figure."

Oh, Mr. Speaker, you know, there's nobody in this province who believes that any more. The problem, when the public loses its confidence in government…. Well, we'll see what'll happen May 12, but when they lose confidence in government, they find other reasons, and they find other examples, and that's what we've done. There are other examples showing how this government's lack of accountability is systemic to their style.

You know, $600 million on the Olympics. We know that's what the Premier continually tells us is the cost: $600 million. "Don't count the other things. They don't count." Only he gets to decide what he wants to call Olympic spending. Let's throw a little common sense into the mix once in a while. If you've got something called the VANOC secretariat that costs $41 million, don't say: "That's outside the Olympics." It's the VANOC secretariat. Nobody's believing it.

It's troubling to me, because it essentially debases the entire system we have — to insult the intelligence of British Columbians in such a way. You know, people ask: "Why are people cynical about politics? Why are they disengaged?" I wouldn't blame them if they're not watching us right now. Any other time, of course, I expect everybody watching us on television, but it's 11:30 at night. That's understandable, but the cynicism that permeates the general population is not a mistake.

We need to make sure that what we do in this House, the issues that we discuss and the problems that we correct are the issues that the people of British Columbia want us to talk about and are the problems that the people of British Columbia want us to fix.

[2330]

I'm pleased that the mayor of Vancouver and his staff have found a way of remedying what is clearly an egregious error on the part of the former administration.

We haven't been in this House to talk about any of the issues around the Olympics since May 30, 2008. Have I mentioned the economic crisis, the forestry crisis, the unemployment crisis, the child poverty crisis?

Just because it's been five years that we've been the worst in terms of child poverty in Canada doesn't mean it's not still a crisis. I've seen the faces of these little kids who will tell you that it's a crisis, but they can't write a fancy letter to the Premier. One day they will.

That's what I find most problematic. This bill, which provides the city of Vancouver with the authority to borrow money in order to get a better deal for their citizens, is a rescue, but it's a rescue from a dangerous activity. It's like they've skied out of bounds. And you know what? We're here to rescue them — pleased to do it. But let's not make the same mistakes again.

The problem is that we don't seem to be learning from those mistakes. We see a government that's intending these issues to be seen as small, unexpected, unpredicted little problems that will be dealt with on a Saturday night with a one-page bill, and that's the job of the Legislature of British Columbia.

There are 79 of us in here. Well, there usually are. There are a couple out of the room right now. So 79 Members of the Legislative Assembly representing all British Columbians. We're not doing them a great service by sitting here on one day — suspending the rules, granted. But we could have been here earlier.

We could have saved the taxpayers of Vancouver a little bit more money, and if we were here earlier, maybe we could have asked the government some other questions, because they're awfully quiet about this. We know it's a style. It's a pattern. It's better not to answer questions, better not to hear any questions in the first place. But we have a lot of them.
[ Page 13492 ]

An Hon. Member: They use closure to pass their bills. We never sit anymore. They run it like a damn monarchy.

N. Simons: It's like a monarchy. We never sit anymore, and they use closure. You know, the members on the government side of this House would rather that government disappeared. They would rather that the corporate executives figured out their little Millennium-Fortress deals and solved everything themselves. But we have a responsibility in this House. We have a responsibility to the people of British Columbia.

So far the debate has looked like this. Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have pointed out the flaws of this government's plans, of their strategy and of their solutions. All they've done is stood up and tried to figure out ways to shut us up. A point of order here, another point of order there. "You're off topic, you're off topic…."

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue, and we should be examining every angle of it. The feeble defence of the government's position offered by the Minister of Finance, who's saying, "Oh, you know, we just disagreed with the Auditors General because we don't like their categories," brings up — what was it? — the stop for the….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Yeah. Section 3. For example, in the first Auditor General's report that came out in 2006, there were particular reports — a lot of costs. They didn't like referring to those many costs. You know, the feeble defence that you can read in Hansard is an indicator to all of us that if that's the best they can do, things are even worse than we thought. If that's the best they can do, it's shocking.

It's shocking but disappointing as well, because I think the people of British Columbia deserve better. I think they deserve better from this government. I think they deserved better from the previous NPA administration in Vancouver.

[2335]

But people in my constituency are concerned as well. We have friends, we have family, and we have brothers and sisters in Vancouver. We have a connection with the largest city in this province. We care about what happens to those people there. We're in the rural part of the province. Maybe our problems are a slightly smaller scale, a little bit further away, but they are as important to us as this is to the people of Vancouver.

But no, there's no emergency session for…. There's no regular session for the people of Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and that's a shame too. It's all about accountability, and it's all about credibility, and it's all about the absence thereof, in fact.

Nine meetings of the VANOC board before December 9, 2008, going back to June 2007, saying that we've got a problem coming up. We've got a big issue coming up. When did we find out? Earlier this month. The Premier must have known earlier. But his bad planning…. I remember walking into a store, or I think it was probably in university somewhere, where you go in and get your photocopying done or something. There was a sign behind a desk that says: "Bad planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine." It's true.

What we're here doing in an emergency session is dealing with flubs and boondoggles. You know what? There are greater emergencies in this province. There are far greater emergencies in this province, and I'd like the Premier, and I'd like his cabinet and I'd like the members of the government side to recognize those one day.

It's getting pretty late. I can tell you that people on this side of the House sure know what the issues that British Columbians are interested in. They know what British Columbians need, and they know it's not more of this — not more of this government, not more of their arrogance. One star. There are a lot of words for arrogance. We could choose other words for arrogance, and each one of them works just as well.

But you know what? To go back on script, it's like: why are they so arrogant? Why are they so out of touch? It doesn't help their cause even, because people smell a rat. They smell a rat. All of this trying to stifle debate, all of this distraction and obfuscation — that's cover-up. I'll try to use smaller words for the members opposite.

Interjections.

N. Simons: It's an expression for the overexcited members across the way. We're now two pencil-lengths apart, and things get tense.

An Hon. Member: Sharp pencils.

N. Simons: Sharp pencils indeed. Never get sharpened.

It's just troubling to me that we have to be here. None of us would deny the residents of Vancouver the opportunity to escape from the mess that they were put into. But the rest of British Columbians are asking questions. They're asking questions of their members of the opposition, because we do listen to them. Those questions centre around other important issues to be talking about. Or some say: "The Olympics — is this just the beginning?" I'm saying no, it's not just the beginning. We're well into the problems of the Olympics. We're well into them.

Of course, as proud residents and citizens of British Columbia, we want things to go well for our province. We want to showcase good things about the province. We want to make sure that people across the world, the 25 billion people of the universe that the Minister of Finance said…. The ten billion people who are going
[ Page 13493 ]
to be watching on their television sets…. I'm not sure where the ten….

Interjection.

N. Simons: Oh yes, the minister said ten billion would be watching. However many billion are watching, we don't want them to see….

[2340]

Interjection.

N. Simons: Nobody wants to see failure. We all want to see success, but the way we get to that is by open communication, by accountability, by oversight, by carefully examining the books, by allowing the Auditor General not to feel like a social outcast. He's got a job to do.

Oh, but there's another example. Every independent officer has had to fight this government in order to maintain their independence, in order to maintain their integrity. And why is that? We should be grateful to have outside oversight. We should be grateful to bring in the opinions of the experts.

The Representative for Children and Youth and other independent officers have had to reinforce the message that government doesn't always do everything right. The people of British Columbia know that darned well. They're fully aware of that.

My request to this government is to come clean on the entire costs of the Olympics. We're going to find out one way or the other, unless there's just too much to reveal and we wouldn't be able to handle it. But the silence just creates this uncertainty. The lack of accountability creates concern. Neither is good for government, and neither is good for the province. We should know.

I was born in Montreal, and I was in Montreal during the Olympics. I can tell you that my mother, who's now 73…. Oh, she better not read this. She's not going to read this Hansard. That'll be struck from the record. She paid off the Olympics. I think it was last year. I think she paid taxes — and she does pay taxes — until last year on the Olympics. I've been in the Big O. I've seen them try to stop the leaks in the roof or wipe home plate with a rag instead of a brush. It's not a pleasant….

There are a lot of concerns that British Columbians will have to anticipate. The mayor of Montreal said there was as much chance of running a deficit as of him getting pregnant. Well, he's had sextuplets, according to that. I just think that if people were as colourful in this province, perhaps we would have had a statement similar to that and we'd be talking about the Premier in those terms.

We have a $600 million cost that he has acknowledged and a bunch of other costs that he should acknowledge, just for the sake of common sense and decency. Own the Podium has nothing to do with the Olympics?

The Vancouver Convention Centre. I think that in 2002, the Premier said it was a central aspect of the bid application. Well, now it's nothing to do with the Olympics. "Nothing to do with the Olympics. Sorry about that."

The Sea to Sky Highway. You know, people could actually have walked to the Olympics if they wanted.

An Hon. Member: It's good exercise. Act now.

N. Simons: Act soon.

Renovations to B.C. Place. Those won't be part of the Olympics — no, no.

British Columbians don't want to be fooled. They don't want to be misled, and they certainly don't want more of the silence that government seems to offer on this issue. They'd like their Auditor General, chosen by the Legislature, to do his job without interference in a manner that meets the needs of the people of British Columbia. They'd like a government that's responsible enough to sit more than five days since May 30. They'd like a lot of things, and unfortunately, they're left wanting.

Mr. Speaker, it's getting towards the bewitching hour. I turn into a pumpkin or something like that, or I find a slipper. I can't remember what happens at midnight. Would that be me, or is that the other part?

[2345]

With that, I just ask that this government take seriously the issues that we have raised in this debate. Take seriously the warnings that we could learn from this fiasco — not hide from them, not hide it under a bushel. Expose it. Allow us to learn from it. Allow us to get past it. Help the citizens of Vancouver. Don't forget the citizens of the rest of the province. Support the city of Vancouver.

R. Chouhan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to talk about Bill 47, because I think we are not allowed to debate. There's not much to talk about with Bill 47. There's not much in it.

We're talking about an emergency session of this Legislature called on Saturday, on the weekend, to deal with very important legislation. What we were given earlier today or yesterday, depending on the time…. There's nothing much in it. I find very offensive the way this has been dealt with, and my constituents in Burnaby-Edmonds also find it very offensive.

I have never received so many phone calls and e-mails and faxes regarding any subject. In the last couple of days people have been calling. People have been sending e-mails. People have been sending letters. They're talking about how outraged they are about the government's action.

Many of the e-mails were sent to me. I'm going to read some of them, just to have a sample of the kind of issue the people in Burnaby-Edmonds think they have been given.
[ Page 13494 ]

One e-mail came. It said — and I won't name my constituents:

"I'm outraged and appalled this government has recalled the Legislature on the weekend. It is my understanding that there will be no question period, as per the norm for the Legislature, because it falls on a weekend.

"Given the nature of the crisis and the funding fiasco for the Olympic village, plus other related financial matters that this government should be dealing with, I feel it is essential that a full discussion, debate, should take place in the House.

"When will the arrogance of this government end? I urge you as my MLA to demand more time be given to full discussion and a complete debate of these issues."

C. Evans: You've got smart constituents.

R. Chouhan: Oh, it's not only one. There are quite a few, you know.

Another e-mail:

"I'm shocked and appalled with the news that there will be no question period in Saturday's sitting of the Legislature. I would like to know more information about the cost overruns and, more importantly, the true costs of the Olympics.

"I want to know why this government is running away and not telling British Columbians the truth. Taxpayers of this province deserve to know the truth, and it is time that the Liberal government allow a question period on Saturday.

"I do not believe that hosting the Olympics is going to cost $600 million, but yet the Premier refuses to answer the true costs or even include all Olympic-related projects in this figure.

"We have seen the mess in the Olympic village. What is the full amount that British Columbians are going to be on the hook for? We have seen the IOC wonder if $175 million is going to be enough for security. I believe that we are going to exceed that amount, but I would like to know what the revised budget is and what British Columbians are going to be on the hook for."

C. Evans: Yeah, good questions.

R. Chouhan: Very good questions, but when will we get the answers?

C. Evans: Not tonight.

[2350]

R. Chouhan: Okay, then let's continue to ask questions.

Another letter:

"Sir, please pass on my outrage at the actions of this government. Calling the Legislature back on a Saturday is yet another cowardly step on the government's behalf to avoid a democratic question period. When will they come clean about what is going on with the Olympics, the raid on the Legislature and a host of other issues? The B.C. Liberals' tenure in government has been a continual assault on the democratic beliefs of the people of our province."

Point of Order

Hon. B. Penner: I rise on a point of order. You've been remarkably patient with the members for straying way off topic from the sections in the bill, and I just think it's maybe time to remind the members that we are debating Bill 47.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please continue, and if you can….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you please take your seat.

Member, please continue and please keep your remarks towards Bill 47.

Debate Continued

R. Chouhan: All these e-mails were sent to me in relation to Bill 47 and this so-called emergency sitting of the Legislature. So I think it's important that my constituents at least have the ability to ask these questions. We know that we're not going to get answers, but at least they would have some satisfaction that their issues were put in the House, although the government is doing everything…. That side of the House is doing everything to stall, to deny, to refuse.

However, I'm only reading the issues raised by my constituents, and they deserve…. I'm here speaking on Bill 47.

Okay, I'll skip that e-mail. I'll make a compromise. Another e-mail. It says:

"I'm extremely concerned about the 2010 Olympic overspending. I'm hearing about and now understand that you will not be able to ask questions about this in the House when you are talking about this new bill."

When he sent the e-mail, he didn't know the number of the bill, so I'm talking about Bill 47.

"As someone entering senior years and the daughter of a senior who experienced unnecessary challenges due to spending cutbacks, I have to ask: if you, my elected provincial representative, are not allowed to ask questions about the 2010 Olympic funding, that has the appearance of being unchecked while some basic necessities for our vulnerable population are underfunded. How are we going to resolve this? How will that be addressed?"

Yes, we are talking about Bill 47. But there are seniors, there are students, there are homeless people, and they're all asking questions. If this government is so keen to provide a blank cheque without proper scrutiny, without some debate, then we have to make sure that those issues and their needs are also addressed. They have been neglected for so long.

I have so many other letters and e-mails to read. However, given the fact that we are talking about Bill 47, which doesn't provide much substance in it…. So I'll just make a few more comments.

An Hon. Member: About Bill 47.

R. Chouhan: About Bill 47. We're talking about Bill 47 without many details. However, it's a very import-
[ Page 13495 ]
ant piece of legislation. It is affecting the outcome of the Winter Olympics. We are talking about building a village where we are going to house those athletes who are coming from all over the world for ten days or two weeks.

An Hon. Member: A couple of weeks.

[2355]

R. Chouhan: A couple of weeks, and then what happens? They're going to go away, and people from Vancouver are going to end up with a huge mess created by the B.C. Liberal farm team, because they were so willingly agreeing with the demands of the Premier in order to make him look good.

But the reality now is coming out, and more and more people are realizing that the government's numbers that they were throwing at us — that it'll cost $600 million and this number or that number…. People now know that it is not the correct number.

We were told that this Olympic village will cost only $175 million. Now it's at $875 million. We were told the convention centre will be costing only $300 million. Now it's over half a billion over budget.

Interjection.

R. Chouhan: Exactly. Today we heard, when the bill was introduced, that we are talking about protecting construction workers' jobs. I think there is a saying that crocodile tears…. But this government has even pushed a crocodile to be ashamed, with their arrogance, with their denials. We are talking here about Bill 47, which provides not much help.

Why are we here in the House on the weekend? If it was so urgent, if there was an emergency, we could have met many days ago. As my colleagues have pointed out, we could have saved lots of money for the Vancouver city council and Vancouver citizens — $87,000 a day.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

No, it wasn't suitable to come here early, because the government is so afraid that if we meet on a regular day, there may be a question period. There may be some questions asked, and some people may feel that government is not answering. I think we have seen, so far, that government has never answered.

An Hon. Member: Even when there are questions.

R. Chouhan: Even when there is a question period.

A couple of days ago I heard and saw on TV the Premier of B.C. applauding the Prime Minister of Canada for public consultations. Wow. I hope the Premier would learn a lesson or two from that. We need some public consultation in British Columbia. The Premier can start the process here before he goes to Ottawa and talks about public consultation.

An Hon. Member: He could consult with those people who wrote those e-mails.

R. Chouhan: There are so many people in Burnaby-Edmonds who would like to talk to him. If not directly, they would like to talk to him through me, their representative, but I'm not allowed to ask questions.

What we have seen over and over again is this government's inability to manage these projects. Now we are giving this money to complete the Olympic village, but people of British Columbia do not trust this government and its ability to do that. Therefore, it's important that we have the Auditor General involved.

An Hon. Member: I wish we did.

R. Chouhan: I wish we did — yeah. Even now, if we had the Auditor General involved, at least we would have some hope that there would be accountability and transparency. But they don't listen.

If this government is so keen to protect the interests of construction workers — which is very good; we should all protect, all help construction workers — what about 20,000 forest workers? What about health care workers? But they're not. They're just simply…. I think they don't matter.

[0000]

As I mentioned earlier, we were first told that the cost of this Olympic village would be $190 million, and now it's $870 million. I guess Pinocchio is not just a fictional character in a child's book. He's alive and well in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: His nose is growing.

R. Chouhan: I hope the nose is not growing that fast and too big. It can hurt somebody.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Chouhan: We are here talking about Bill 47. Bill 47 does not provide much information, or anything. I don't know what more we can say about it, but people are hoping to get some answers. They have so many questions, and so far this government has failed on every account. Therefore, I urge this government to be fair, listen to those concerns and provide some decent answers. I know we won't get 100 percent complete satisfactory answers, but some answers.

With that, I'm going to sit down and go back to Burnaby-Edmonds to my constituents and tell them that I tried, but I didn't get any answers.
[ Page 13496 ]

S. Hammell: It is an honour to rise in the House to speak on Bill 47, the Olympic village refinancing bill. It's an honour because you get to give voice and put on the record ideas you have thought about as you read and listened to the debate and considered Bill 47, the legislation that's been tabled here today.

You know, being in government is very difficult. There's a lot going on a lot of the time. Some of what is going on is quite difficult to control, and being out of control in government results in lots of unpleasantness, like having to call back the Legislature and having to pass a bill like Bill 47.

It results in criticism, and no government likes to be criticized. No government likes to admit that some aspects of its world or its operation are out of control. So how do you stay in control and avoid the type of legislation like Bill 47, which says in every line of the bill that this Olympic project has gone sideways and that the taxpayers of Vancouver are going to be left holding the bag?

If you're faced with that kind of problem, there are a number of strategies that any government could consider. They would be considering some strategies for how to keep in control and maintain the proper face to their public.

Now, a government may choose to communicate like crazy with people to let people know what they're doing — how they're spending the money, what their projects are. You could be transparent and accountable and share the challenges and difficulties with those people who you represent, always keeping in front of people the costs and the benefits of the projects you're working on. You could engage the people, ask for their advice and look for input as you move through the work.

Another strategy to deal with control would be to minimize any exposure you have, especially on complicated and multifaceted operations like the Olympics. You could limit the number of aspects that you are directly responsible for, and in fact, you can deny responsibility for aspects that you are clearly responsible for. In fact, you can have an Olympic secretariat that is not a consequence or a cost of the Olympics.

This, I believe, is a strategy that the provincial government has adopted and, I think, a strategy that is fatally flawed, because it doesn't pass the nod test of ordinary people. The most glaring lack of a nod — in fact, throwing the eyes back — is continuing to tell people that the costs to the provincial government are only $600 million. That reasoning is so inside baseball that it is laughable to ordinary people.

[0005]

If you look at the Olympic fiasco…. Now, I know the Olympic village is not a particular project of the provincial Liberal government and is therefore not accounted for anywhere in the Liberal world of accounting to the people in the province of what the Olympics are really costing. It's off-book.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

S. Hammell: In fact, the Olympic village is on the books of another government, and therefore, the provincial government is not responsible or accountable for it. It reminds me of the poses of the monkeys. Hear no problems. See no overruns….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Every member of this House deserves an opportunity to be heard.

Continue, Member.

S. Hammell: You know, when you're interrupted like that, hon. Speaker, you do kind of maybe have to go back and kind of regroup and think through your train of thought again.

So what is clearly being said from this side of the House is that the Olympic village is not considered by the government as one of their projects. Therefore, they are not responsible for it. It is a cost, clearly, of the Olympics, but it is not one that the government is going to accept any responsibility for. It's off their books, and it's on to somebody else's books. But so are a lot of other things in the Olympic world.

There's a lot of money off the books. The oval is off the books. Another village is off the books. You can just go through lists and lists of other Olympic costs that are off the books. Therefore, people, when they hear that the Olympics cost $600 million, don't believe it. They don't believe it.

It seems to me a fatally flawed strategy to go around and say that the Olympics only cost $600 million when people can count projects across the Lower Mainland that cost a lot of money that they're going to pay for, including sponsorships from Crown corporations. And then to say that it doesn't cost the people any money is just unbelievable, and it doesn't pass the nod test.

People don't believe it. They throw their eyes in the back of their head, and they think that you're foolish, that you're absolutely foolish. And you end up looking foolish, and people don't believe you — don't believe you at all.

What the government has done is create all kinds of structures that make any kind of responsibility for the Olympics itself distant, and therefore, they don't have to accept responsibility, and they can use those structures to deny any kind of responsibility for it.

If you take a look at some of the structures — I thought I'd share that with the members — there's a VANOC board. And although the government doesn't express any responsibility for it, it has…. The three members of the VANOC board are Ken Dobell….
[ Page 13497 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I would like to remind you, please, of the spirit of the bill. If you could address your remarks to the content.

S. Hammell: Yes, I'd be delighted to do that, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

S. Hammell: You know, you're being plain, ordinary rude. You're just being rude, and I…. You are being rude.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

[0010]

S. Hammell: The Olympic village has been sort of mired or…. There's a shadow between the Olympic village and other structures. What happens is that the structures are there, and the people on the boards — such as VANOC and the secretariat and all kinds of other boards — clearly could see and understand what was going on in the Olympic village.

So although the government can say it's not their project, it's not their responsibility, people who were connected directly to the government and the overall responsibility such as the secretariat, which of course, is not accountable for…. The Olympic secretariat isn't responsible, but they also had people who understood what was going on with the Olympic village.

The issue is how you treat your voters. The issue really is more about: do you take people into your confidence? Are you open and honest? Do you tell them your difficulties? Do you share with them your problems? Or do you create a maze of organizations that then you can move behind and then deny any responsibility for?

All of us have our own set of values. All of us try to work issues through the way we see the world. What I'm saying, from my perspective on this side of the House, is that it probably would have been a lot better for British Columbians and would have been a lot better for all of us who need and want to have confidence in the whole process around the Olympics to just make sure that people understood all the costs.

I think people are genuinely willing and happy to embrace the Olympics. They think it's a great opportunity for our province, but all they want is the government to just be upfront and straight about where there are problems, where they need extra help, what they can do, how they can participate or how they can support.

So hon. Speaker, with that in mind, I take my seat, and thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

J. Brar: I rise to speak to Bill 47, and I will speak to Bill 47, Madam Speaker, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Vancouver Charter to allow the city of Vancouver to borrow money for the timely completion of the Olympic village. The people of British Columbia love sports. They love the Olympics. As a former member of a basketball team, as a national player, I love sports. I like the Olympics. The people of British Columbia are proud to be the host of Olympics 2010.

In fact, hosting the Olympic Games is a huge opportunity, and it's a huge honour to the people of British Columbia, to the people of Canada and to the people of Vancouver. But people are tired of listening to negative stories about the Olympics.

People are tired of listening to stories about the lack of funding for the Olympic village. The people of British Columbia are tired of listening to stories about the secrecy of the real cost of the Olympics. The people of British Columbia are tired of listening to stories about the arrogance and the out-of-touch approach of the Premier of British Columbia about the Olympics. People demand accountability.

[0015]

Point of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: This member began his comments tonight saying that he would address himself to the matter at hand, Bill 47. He hasn't remotely touched the subject matter of Bill 47, and I would remind the speaker of Standing Order 40, of which this is said. The basic point is that parliament's dignity is impaired by time wasted in idle debate. Therefore, it is the duty of every member to confine his or her remarks to the subject matter under debate.

I think the member should turn his attention to Bill 47 rather than waste the time of this House with rhetoric, as we've heard exclusively to this point.

A. Dix: I'm happy to respond to another intervention in debate disguised as a point of order. When this debate started, the decision was made by the Speaker to deal with all stages in one day.

Interjections.

A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, these are submissions to you, so I'll ignore the members opposite.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.
[ Page 13498 ]

A. Dix: I'll just make this point. At that time the Government House Leader read a series of letters that focused on the importance of this bill to the Olympic Games.

What the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge started this debate talking about was the Olympic Games, just as the Government House Leader did, just as the Minister of Finance did. It was the ruling of the Speaker that, in fact, that element of it, that letter, was central to us taking more than one stage of debate today.

I think that the statements by the member from Panorama Ridge are in order and that the comments of the Minister of Health are out of order. That's my submission.

Hon. Speaker, I think that the comments of the member are in order. I understand the comments you've made repeatedly for people to stick to the bill. That's what the member was trying to do, and I think the point of order raised by the Minister of Health is not correct.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members.

Member, sit down, please.

Members, before we proceed, I wish to remind the House that the Speaker has ruled on this. Within that ruling was the clear instruction that debate would be within the confines of the bill, and it was acknowledged that this bill has a relatively narrow focus. I once again urge members to confine their remarks within the program parameters of Bill 47.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: I think when we come here and debate any bill, including Bill 47, we debate the issues people of British Columbia want us to debate, and that's what I'm doing.

We are sitting here on Sunday morning now. We came here on Saturday evening to debate this bill, called an emergency bill, and this is very clear. I have no doubt, and the members of this side have no doubt, that the government chose to debate this bill on Saturday to avoid the questions of the people of British Columbia. Now, even today, whatever we debate here, members on the other side are not willing to listen to that speech.

[0020]

Deputy Speaker: Member, Member. I asked you please to confine your remarks to the bill. Now, proceed.

J. Brar: The people of British Columbia want accountability. This is a huge issue about the Olympics village. Bill 47 talks about the Olympics village. People of British Columbia want accountability. People of British Columbia want to ask questions. People of British Columbia want to know what went wrong about the Olympics village, and that is within Bill 47.

The story of the Olympics village is a prime example of mismanagement of the project related to the Olympics. The story of the Olympics village is a prime example of the game of secrecy being played around the project about the Olympics. The story of the Olympics village, which is part of Bill 47, is a prime example of the cost overruns — many projects related to the Olympics. The story of the Olympics village demands that the Premier and the B.C. Liberals must come clean on the total cost of the Olympics and the total cost of the Olympics village.

I am more than happy to speak to Bill 47, which talks about the Olympics village. Once upon a time, the Premier of this province told a story to the people of British Columbia about the Olympics village, which is part of Bill 47 — that the B.C. government; VANOC, responsible for organizing the Olympics; and the city of Vancouver came together, and they reached an agreement to build the Olympics village, and this is how it would happen.

The Millennium group, the developer, is going to build the Olympics village. A Wall Street investor group, Fortress, is going to finance the Olympics village. It was sold to the people of British Columbia by saying that taxpayers are going to benefit from this because the burden of risk has been transferred to a private company.

But now we know, on this Saturday, that this bill has been introduced in the House because the people of Vancouver are on the hook. The people of Vancouver are on the hook. In fact, the people of British Columbia at the end of the day are responsible for any funding shortfall for the Olympics village or any other cost related to the Olympics.

So people sure want to ask a lot of questions, and there are a lot of questions. One of the questions that people are very, very concerned with is: when did the Premier come to know about this? What we heard from the Premier just a few days ago was that the new mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, after his election, picked up the phone and called the Premier just a few days ago. And the Premier was shocked to know that. Then the Premier started acting after that.

But let me tell you some facts about that, and those facts will tell whether the Premier is telling the truth to the people of British Columbia, whether the Premier is telling the truth to this House or if the story is something different.

The fact is that B.C. has three representatives on the VANOC board of directors — and Ken Dobell. Ken Dobell, a very close friend of the Premier, is part of that board. In fact, he is the chair of the board's finance committee. The fact is that the province of B.C. guaranteed to cover any financial shortfall of the organizing committee for the Olympic Games. The fact is that the village advisory committee that was set up in 2006 between VANOC and the city of Vancouver meets monthly to make recommendations and decisions on the project.

[0025]
[ Page 13499 ]

The city manager provides written reports to the committee each month. The VANOC project manager meets with the city project manager weekly. The fact is that VANOC reports to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. The fact is that the Vancouver city manager, Judy Rogers, had been aware since at least June 2007 that there were serious financing problems with the Olympics village. The fact is that the former mayor and the NPA council knew about this much before the last civic elections.

The fact is that in April 2007 Partnerships B.C. reported that the Vancouver Olympics village is cited as one of the five venues that posed a challenge to VANOC, out of 15 venues reviewed. The fact is that the previous council of Vancouver approved a $100 million temporary loan to cover the funding shortfall much before the last civic election.

But surprisingly, very surprisingly, one person in this province, who happens to be the Premier of the province, was not aware of this. Can the people of British Columbia trust the Premier? The answer is no. The people of British Columbia cannot trust the Premier. The Premier came to know about this only a couple of weeks ago, when this has been happening almost since the middle of 2007.

This government has failed to take timely actions to stop what happened in Vancouver around the Olympics village. There could have been timely action, and one of the actions could have been that we would have come back in this House last fall to debate this issue and find a meaningful and a timely way out to fix this problem. That did not happen.

If you want to summarize the whole story in one word, that one word is "secrecy." The Premier is fully content with the secrecy around the Olympics — whether it's cost, whether it's cost overruns, whether it's the Olympics village. It's all about secrecy. People want to know the answers to the questions people have.

The other example that the people want to know is the real cost of the Olympics. That's a big story we have in the province, and that's actually an internationally famous story that the Premier has made. The Premier continued to believe somehow that the cost of the Olympics is $600 million — $600 million only. The people of British Columbia don't believe that, members on this side of the House don't believe that, and probably some members on that side of the House also don't believe that, because they know the real cost.

Interestingly, the independent watchdog of this province, the Auditor General, does not believe that as well. I would like to read a paragraph from a letter written by the Auditor General to the Speaker himself. This is what the Auditor General says:

"My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that has often been quoted. Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in even higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished."

This is the Auditor General of British Columbia.

[0030]

The cost as per the latest estimates by the Auditor General, by the opposition — by even one former minister, by even Christy Clark, who used to be part of this government just a few years ago…. The actual cost of the Olympics now is not $6 million. It's actually over $6.8 billion. That's way up from when we're talking about $6 million. The Premier continued to refuse to accept the reality that the cost of the Olympics is not $600 million. People want to know what the real cost of the Olympics is. It's time that the Premier and B.C. Liberals come clean about the actual cost of the games.

The other thing, probably, which is related to this Bill 47 is the cost overruns. This project itself, from where it began and where we are, is a day and night difference. One of the things this government always claims to be expert in is running a business. Even if you want to run a small business, people develop a business plan which talks about the risk factors, talks about the cost overruns, talks about the funding shortfalls, talks about those issues. People think it through even before they start it.

But we are talking about a project worth $800 million here, and the Premier is saying that the Premier came to know about it only two weeks ago. The Premier, who is the captain of the organizing committee of the Olympics, was not aware about the cost, about the funding shortfall around the Olympic village. The people of British Columbia cannot trust that. It's time for the Premier to come clean and to tell the people the real story as to when the Premier became aware, and why the Premier failed to take timely action.

Cost overruns. Talk about the convention centre. I think there have been a number of questions in this House about the convention centre. The cost was about $400 million; now it's over about $900 million. That's where we are. It's more than double. The cost has gone up. Time after time we have been asking questions and….

Interjection.

J. Brar: The minister on the other side is shouting at me. It's my turn.

Points of Order

Hon. G. Abbott: I've been a member of this House for some considerable time, and I think often what one sees is frustrations that tend to boil over because people do not, even at times, make the most cursory attempts to follow the rules of this House. We are guided in this by Standing Orders 40 and 43.
[ Page 13500 ]

Standing Order 40, as I indicated previously, says that members should be relevant in debate. Section 43, and I'll quote it, just as I did quote section 40, says:

"43. The Speaker or the Chairperson…after having called the attention of the House or of the Committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of that Member's own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct that Member to discontinue speaking…."

This member — and I've been listening, I think, remarkably patiently to him, as have other members — continues to speak of irrelevant issues and claims and nonsense, which is not only entirely specious but entirely disconnected to Bill 47.

[0035]

S. Simpson: Well, I would refer to the Parliamentary Practice in B.C., third edition, page 76. What the clause says is: "a member is not at liberty, in rising to order, to review the general tenor of a speech, but must object to some definite expression at the moment when it's spoken."

I would suggest, among other things, that the minister took an awful lot of leeway with that in suggesting frustration and suggesting comments that I think were inappropriate to the minister.

The other thing I would mention is that if we go to page 74 of the Parliamentary Practice, it's very clear under the discussion….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please.

There have been instances of rude and inappropriate passages between members across this House, which I would like to cease. Thank you.

Continue, Member.

S. Simpson: I would refer to page 74 of the third edition under "Relevance in Debate." It's very clear, and as the Speaker will know, second reading debate is meant to provide some latitude. I certainly know that the Speaker's ruling, the direction of the guidance of the Speaker earlier today, was to be on point, but there is room for some guidance. I would refer to: "that relevance may not be immediately visible but may emerge later in a member's speech."

Interjections.

S. Simpson: I would suggest, hon. Speaker, once the comments from the other side stop so that you can hear me, that the member has, in fact, been speaking to Bill 47. Relevance is not breached by making references to other matters and then coming back to the matter of 47. It's not that tight a line. It never was meant to be. The minister is simply wrong in his point.

Deputy Speaker: Member, would you just remain seated for a moment, please.

I will just remind the House, once again, of the earlier remarks of Mr. Speaker, which do address the issue that was raised. It points out that the bill has been carefully drawn to cover a situation in Vancouver brought to the attention of this House by the mayor of Vancouver. As such, it is neither a throne debate nor a budget debate permitting the widest possible range of discussion, but a second reading debate relating to the narrowly drawn bill presently before this House.

That was, of course, the message from Mr. Speaker.

Continue, Member.

J. Brar: I have some support on the other side, Madam Speaker.

We're here to debate Bill 47.

Interjections.

N. Macdonald: I just heard the minister, a member of the executive, referring to a member here as a moron. I think there has to be some level of decency, and I think the minister has forgotten that. The Speaker has talked to the fact that we should be attempting to speak to each other as adults. I would give you the opportunity…. In fact, I expect you to stand up and to apologize for that.

Hon. K. Krueger: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

Hon. G. Abbott: While we're at it, perhaps the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast would wish to rise and withdraw his unparliamentary comment as well.

N. Simons: I withdraw.

Debate Continued

J. Brar: Hopefully, we'll continue the debate as it's going on for the last few minutes.

We are talking about Bill 47. Let's be very clear. I think it's okay to stand up and question the rules. It is absolutely not acceptable — the indecency and unethical behaviour of any member in this House.

[0040]

We are talking about Bill 47. Think about this. We are approaching the Olympics very quickly. We're approaching very quickly. One of the biggest projects, called the Olympic village, where the athletes are going to stay, is at this point in time in trouble because the investor group has stopped making the payments. The city of Vancouver does not have the authority as per the rules of today to borrow money.

If that had been the situation in any private sector, I guarantee that CEO would be fired by the company. But it won't be a long time that these members on that side
[ Page 13501 ]
will be fired by the people of British Columbia — just after a few months.

There are a number of outstanding questions that the people of British Columbia want to ask and I just want to list. The people have been approaching us to ask a number of questions, particularly about this Bill 47 and the project we're talking about, and the Olympics. Of course, this is part of the Olympics.

The question we have is: why is the Premier continuing to tell British Columbians that the cost of the Olympics is just $600 million? How much will taxpayers be on the hook for, for the Olympic village?

Interjection.

J. Brar: The minister on the other side has some trouble listening, but I will continue making my point.

When did the Premier first learn that the financing for the Olympic village was in trouble? Did the Premier's former chief adviser and a provincial appointee to VANOC, Ken Dobell, keep the Premier informed on the Olympic village project, and if not, why not? Did Ken Dobell or any member of VANOC inform the Premier about the activities of the village advisory committee formed by VANOC, and if not, why not? Did the Premier, Ken Dobell or any representative of the Premier's office or provincial government ever advise the city against entering into the risky financing arrangements with Millennium?

Why did the Premier wait so long to take action on the Olympic village issue? What will be B.C.'s share of the extra security costs, which are reported to be increasing by over $800 million? When will the Premier come clean with the public on those costs? How many remaining Olympics projects in the city of Vancouver are over budget? When will the Premier come clean about the true cost of the Olympics?

The people of British Columbia, of course — and the people of Vancouver, particularly, in this case — are very, very concerned. What we see in Vancouver is that there are over 2,000 people who are homeless. They did not get help from this government for the last seven years, but now we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. We're talking about an amount of money which could have helped a lot of people who are out there and sleeping outside in the cold weather.

British Columbia has the highest child poverty rate, and those children are asking questions about this project, as well, as to why they didn't get help from this government.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We've heard numerous times your request to members speaking to Bill 47 to keep their remarks focused on the bill. I don't know how many more times you can ask, and I don't know how much more disrespect could be shown by members of the opposition by not adhering to your request.

So Madam Speaker, I would again ask you to direct the members to keep their comments, which I'm sure all British Columbians would like to hear, on Bill 47.

[0045]

S. Simpson: When we talk about what's involved here and the order of this House, the continued interference by ministers and by those on the government side — interfering with the legitimate debate of members on this side — is unacceptable. I would ask that you deal with those matters, please, hon. Speaker.

I would again refer to page 74, the "Relevance in Debate" section of the Parliamentary Practice, where it very clearly says: "relevance may not be immediately visible, but may emerge later in the member's speech." There is no question that this member has continually referenced back to Bill 47. He has continually talked about that, and he has interspersed other related and relevant comments.

Frankly, that seems to me to not be outside the observations and the directions provided by the Speaker earlier today — by the guidance provided by the Speaker. I don't believe it breaches that. Members need to be allowed to engage in debate. The minister and his colleagues over here seem determined to undermine the debate in this House, and that's unfortunate.

Deputy Speaker: Member continues.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

J. Brar: I heard the word "focus" from the other side. That's what we're talking about. We need some focus, because the Olympic village cost…. The trouble we have at this point in time…. The time the government took on that one is not acceptable to the people of Vancouver, to the people of British Columbia, because the government failed to focus on the project. The government failed to properly manage the project. Those are the outstanding issues.

The people of British Columbia want this government to come clean about the cost of the Olympic village. The people of British Columbia want this government to come clean as to when the Premier came to know about this and why timely actions were not taken by the Premier. The people of British Columbia want to know why this government is not prepared to face proper scrutiny of this project.

People have those questions, and I think people there in Vancouver, the homeless people in Vancouver, do have the right to ask questions. If these members are not prepared to answer those questions, that is their choice. But they do have the right to ask questions about this project.
[ Page 13502 ]

The children of this province who live in poverty have the right to ask questions to this government. It's their choice whether they want to answer those questions or not.

People of Surrey are concerned because of this project, I tell you. They are concerned because they were waiting for a new hospital — we have the minister here — for the last eight years. Now they're very, very concerned, after looking at what's going on, whether they will ever get a new hospital. Those are the questions as a reflection of this bill.

I would like to conclude my comments. It is time for the Premier, it's time for the ministers, and it's time for the B.C. Liberals to come clean and tell the people of British Columbia clearly about when in fact they came to know about the fiasco of the Olympic village. It's about time that this government and this Premier came clean about the real cost — the true cost — as to how much the people of Vancouver are on the hook for on this project.

It's about time that the Premier and this government tell the real cost — which is not $600 million, as per our own Auditor General. The real cost is over $6 billion. It's about time that the government and the Premier come out of the extreme arrogance and out-of-touch approach and tell the reality so that people get to know the real cost, what happened to this project.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

[0050]

J. Brar: So, Madam Speaker, thanks for the opportunity and thanks to members on the other side for listening patiently.

D. Cubberley: I do appreciate having the opportunity to address the important issues of Olympic funding that are embedded in Bill 47, almost as much as I regret the need for this legislation at this time and the circumstances under which we're forced to try and give due consideration to this bill.

I'm sure many are wondering why we're here on a Saturday night — actually, it's now Sunday morning — discussing issues relating to the funding and completion of the Olympic athletes village project. A case has been advanced — although not convincingly argued, to my mind — that the halt of funding to the developer constitutes an emergency so serious that it requires the suspension of the normal rules.

Certainly it is an urgent matter, though not so urgent as to require forgoing democratic procedure — urgent because it concerns timely completion of the key Olympic facility, the athletes village. That's why legislators have been asked to consider changes to law on an urgent basis, although I don't think that alone warrants sitting here at this hour of the morning.

If this were to do with a funding crisis for a condo project in False Creek, taxpayers.... If this were to do with a simple condo project in False Creek, we wouldn't be here at this time having an urgent debate about it. It would be a serious problem for the city of Vancouver to consider. It might even be a tragedy, but there would not be a provincial interest in the matter.

The reason that we are here and considering this is because it has to do with an Olympic facility. It isn't simply the exposure of the city on the project. It's the fact that we may not meet an Olympic commitment unless we act to change the circumstances that exist today.

It's that Olympic deadline, the requirement that this be ready in time for 2010 use that brings us here today, and that's the driving force behind the legislation. It's the Olympics and the government's role as overseer and as chief funder of Olympic venues that's central to all our concerns here today.

It's only because it concerns funding for the key Olympic venue that this bill is before the House at this time. The urgency in this matter is that the time lines are now exceedingly tight. The financing for this third party–delivered project…

Excuse me, Madam Speaker. My notes are out of order.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

D. Cubberley: …in which B.C. taxpayers have invested $30 million is now suspended.

Point of Order

N. Macdonald: A point of order. Once again, I would just ask the minister to have even the most basic decency. He's been asked to observe that standard, and I think that he should. So if we could direct this minister to conduct himself appropriately, we can continue with the debate.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Members, I once again remind this House of the tradition, I guess, of heckling across the House, but to remind members to use appropriate language.

Continue, Member.

Debate Continued

D. Cubberley: I was referencing the $30 million that taxpayers have invested in this project, the financing for which is now suspended, which puts completion in jeopardy and makes the resolution of the problem and
[ Page 13503 ]
a return to active construction a matter of provincial interest.

[0055]

There are many difficult questions around this project — all as yet unanswered — about the way it was set up; about the P3 format mandated by this government and why a private sector–financing model that supposedly transfers all risks to a private developer fell apart, a P3 ownership model that resulted in inflated borrowing costs; and now a complete suspension of capital supply by the offshore hedge fund, which appears to be insolvent.

How did that happen? And why don't members opposite have their own questions about that matter, given their cheerleading for P3s? That's why we're raising questions about transparency and accountability. Because taxpayers' interests are involved, not just those in the city of Vancouver — certainly those taxpayers are highly exposed — but all British Columbia taxpayers, because they're the true payers for this and every other Olympic venue, and they haven't got a clue at this point what their total financial exposure is.

That's not their fault. They'd like to know, but they aren't allowed to know, because government keeps hiding the ball. They'd like to know how the city got itself into this pickle. They want to know why the provincial oversight was AWOL in the months leading up to this debacle. They want to know why it was that more diligence wasn't shown in the way the project was actually set up. We share the public's interest in those questions, and we're trying to raise them in the context of this bill.

What's at risk here is public confidence in what has been and should be a galvanizing idea that's above politics. But you know, there is a growing sense of concern about the financial liabilities to be borne by taxpayers here, as costs escalate and overruns mount. There's dwindling confidence in the way the Olympic planning and funding is being handled by this government, particularly its refusal to come clean with taxpayers about how much is actually being spent.

This province has a long memory. We know how cost overruns and poor planning and poor reporting and lack of accountability damaged the positive feelings of Montrealers about their own Olympics; how that vast megastructure, the Olympic Stadium, ran up a $1.5 billion debt, which the mayor of the day, Jean Drapeau, claimed was no more possible than that a man have a baby; how that impossible debt that couldn't happen took 30 years to pay off, longer than it would have taken to raise the baby a man couldn't have to full adulthood.

The Olympic Stadium was supposed to be the legacy project that warranted holding the Olympic Games, but we recall today how it turned into an enormous albatross hanging around the necks of taxpayers, one they have only just got free of in 2006 — 30 years later. People here know the joke about the Olympic Stadium being the big "O." That's o-w-e.

Excessive secrecy about what we're doing, from security to add-ons to overruns, coupled with assurances that everything is on track…. All of it is highly reminiscent of Montreal. What should have been a success story in that city soured into a monumental debt carried by ordinary taxpayers. None of us want that to happen here. But in order to prevent it, government needs to not just hurry legislation past this House in the dead of night but rather to become accountable for its spending and how it's being managed.

Why are we here this morning considering a hurry-up amendment to the Vancouver Charter? It's pretty straightforward and clear. We're debating this bill because the Olympic athletes village project is threatened by financing arrangements that have gone sideways, not just on the city of Vancouver and Millennium Development but on this government as well.

These arrangements began going sideways, it turns out, months and months and months ago, and this government and this Premier knew, or should have known, from the ongoing reporting relationships that are supposedly in place, that finances were going sideways. But it's that Olympic deadline and our pride as a province in meeting our obligations to the world that has brought us here today.

Mark my words: it's no small change that's being contemplated in this House, however short that bill may be. It's an unfettered power to borrow at a magnitude never enjoyed before or contemplated for a municipality in British Columbia, a power the city now must have because of the poor provincial process that brought us to this place, a power the city needs and that I will support giving the city because there's simply no viable alternative.

[0100]

It's a longstanding requirement in B.C. that local governments considering borrowing over a defined threshold are required by provincial law to give resident taxpayers the opportunity to express themselves on the proposed borrowing. Presumably this is a recognition that local government might commit itself to a major investment without public agreement, that it could burden taxpayers unduly and that assent of the electors is necessary before proceeding.

I understand this very well, having a background in local government. It can feel quite fettering when you want to get on with your project. If you want to borrow large amounts of money, you have to give the electors a chance to say yea or nay, whether it's by means of a counter-petition process that eventually triggers a referendum if enough people sign it or a requirement to go directly to a referendum, which I believe is what the charter specifies. The electors in B.C. get a chance to express themselves on borrowings at the local level, and if they say no, the borrowing proposal is dead in its tracks.
[ Page 13504 ]

One of the things we're doing today in approving this bill is lifting that requirement. That's the design of the bill — the only way we can really respond, in fact, to the urgent need to re-establish capital financing so that the Olympic time lines can be met, so that our pride in our athletes and our abilities as a province to keep our word remain intact, so that our investment of at least $30 million in provincial money on behalf of all the taxpayers of British Columbia is protected and so that the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver can have their existing investments in this real estate scheme protected through the Olympics themselves and, hopefully, beyond.

What we are doing is saying that the potential harm of financial failure to taxpayers if this goes off the rails and the harm that would be caused to British Columbia through embarrassment to each and every British Columbian for not completing what our government committed us to doing, heaven forbid, is greater than the harm of removing the normal right of Vancouverites to say whether they want to authorize this borrowing or not.

I want to be clear here. I do support this in the circumstances we find ourselves in, but this is a major departure from public policy on local government borrowing. It is not a small change, and yet when the minister rose to speak in support earlier today — I guess it was yesterday, technically — he didn't mention it, to my knowledge. He didn't elaborate on government's position on taking this step, and it left the distinct impression that government was proceeding, as it has with the entire Olympic enterprise, lackadaisically, indifferently and without regard for the implications of what is being considered.

The implications are large. I know government wants to see this done quickly and quietly — that's obvious in the lack of substantive comment from members opposite on the implications of this bill — so that the fiction that this government is an innocent bystander at a tragic and unforeseen mishap that's happening to someone else can be maintained.

Perhaps that's why there's so little comment of substance on the Olympic village and its funding arrangements, because if you say nothing, it reinforces an impression that you knew nothing and you bear no responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. But that is clearly a fiction, and I think no legislature should be lifting a significant limitation on the power of municipalities to freely borrow, a limitation that forces them to have a connection to the will of voters. No legislature should be lifting such a power lightly, and it seems to me that that's exactly what this government is doing. It's lifting it very lightly and without any evidence of sustained reflection on the implications.

It also seems to me at the same time to be consistent with the whole pattern of Olympic management and spending — the secretive mismanagement of the Olympics, where the rights of the public to know and have a say in whether and how their tax dollars are expended. Those rights are ridden roughshod over.

[0105]

It's not enough, to me, to say, as the Finance Minister did earlier today, that government is doing this quickly because (a) the city of Vancouver asked us to do it and (b) because it's our obligation to give the city the tools it needs. I think it is our obligation to try to give the city, in this instance, the tools that it needs, but that's certainly not usually the case in this Legislature.

I recall recently when the capital regional district wanted this government to move quickly to approve zoning bylaw changes that would have enabled it to protect itself from undesirable development impacts, impacts caused by this government removing TFL lands without any consultation or opportunity for a community planning process to occur. Government's response was not only not to move quickly and give it the tools that it needed, but in fact to slow-walk the requested changes so that the opportunity to effectively limit the damage was lost.

So I think it's necessary in the House to do more than simply raise the spectre of Olympic deadlines and the potential failure to meet them, to propose significant changes to law and then show no inclination to canvass the impacts of those changes. So far I haven't heard a word about that.

Now, our Premier has said a few times that he's not in any way, shape or form authorizing any kind of blank cheque, that this is not another giveaway or a licence to print money, or an excuse to go further into overruns. But if it's true that the Premier is concerned that we not issue a blank cheque, then surely we need to look more carefully at the implications of the Olympic village financing act, which would appear to place absolutely no borrowing limits whatsoever upon the city with regard to something that is approaching a billion-dollar project — a billion-dollar project with a high level of risk, attributable to the volatility of current real estate markets in a very difficult and unpredictable global economy, risk that will continue to be in play despite any actions we take here today.

Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, decouples unlimited borrowing for the Olympic village project from the ratepayers' normal right to have their say in whether borrowing occurs or not. It does this for one reason only, and that's to ensure completion of the athletes village, we hope. It does this in order to enable the city to take steps to address the failure of a P3 arrangement that this government mandated be put in place to accomplish the building of any Olympic venue.

Will this do it? Will this get us to our goal of having the key Olympic venue ready on time for the arrival of the world's elite athletes so we can meet our contractual obligations, keep our word and feel proud of our accomplishments? We hope, but we don't know, because the
[ Page 13505 ]
arrangements currently in place involve uncertainty of funding. What we're hoping to achieve is that the city will be able to go the more traditional route for financing and get banks to lend the project the money based on asset equity.

To rescue the situation, we're making a change we wouldn't otherwise contemplate. We're bypassing an embedded form of accountability. Democratic scrutiny in the shape of votes on borrowing is a type of mandated public scrutiny and accountability, and it's being lifted in order to facilitate tight Olympic deadlines and get this project built so that the city and all of British Columbia don't wind up with a massive black eye, a black eye that's ultimately going to be the responsibility — should it happen, and we hope it doesn't — of this government.

We can see the need, given the situation we find ourselves in, to do this, but we have to ask how we got here. The answer is that too much of our Olympic funding is not transparent to taxpayers, local or provincial. When we look at the way this legislation is drafted, it is indeed narrow and targeted in order to increase the city's discretionary borrowing power, and it could deliver very appealing interest rates rather than the extortionate rates that have helped send this project sideways.

[0110]

But the opportunity was there to recognize the failures in planning and funding, a failure of government due to its disregard for taxpayer moneys, its refusal to be transparent and accountable, and its lamentable, lamentable arrogance and neglect of the real needs of communities to come clean and play on the up and up with those taxpayers whose money is being spent. Yet government refuses to do the right thing, which is to mandate clear oversight and transparency around its expenditures.

I believe strongly that there needs to be a quid pro quo of some kind in this legislation in order to justify the lifting of the right of electors to monitor and check what their governors are doing, which is the right that's being suspended by this bill. There is no quid pro quo in the bill as it's written. When I look closely at it, I don't see it.

You know, it is a pattern of this government to prefer to spend without scrutiny, so it's perhaps not surprising that despite making a major change to one local government's powers of borrowing, and with a $30 million provincial taxpayer investment in the project and our collective pride on the line, this government has neglected to put any form of financial oversight requirement into the bill.

Perhaps in government's haste to get the project done quietly and to get on quickly with pretending it has merely helped someone else solve their problem, it simply didn't think to consider the need for this kind of oversight. But I think it's more likely because this government habitually sidesteps scrutiny and avoids oversight and rigorous monitoring that this bill fails to supply provisions of any kind to keep taxpayers whole.

Rights are being removed by this bill, and I think legislators should grasp that. It's not a small matter. Given that rights are being removed, it would seem entirely appropriate to replace them with some guarantee in the form, perhaps, of an arm's-length agent or agency, so that someone is identified and mandated to look out for the electors' interests in the way this project is handled. That's a model that should govern all projects for the Olympics in British Columbia.

We have the opportunity in these exceptional circumstances to embed it in this act. It's not in the act. You know, where I come from — and I've heard this said — it's not enough to say that another municipal election is just three years away, the electors will have a chance to sit in judgment on those who are in power today, and that's enough of a check on what they do. If that were the case, we would have no controls on discretionary borrowings by local governments. As the House knows, we have a very tight rein on those in British Columbia. We mandate that local governments must consult. They must give electors the opportunity to say.

Now is the time that we have to provide for transparency and openness and dealings with public money spent on Olympic venues, because oversight, hon. Speaker — and I'm sure you will agree with this — helps predispose prudence in borrowing and the use of borrowed funds. It's a healthy thing, in other words. It's a sober second look at what people are thinking of doing. That gives the taxpayer some comfort that people are not engaging in short-termism or not taking sufficient account of their interests.

I'd like to think that government is capable of amending legislation in order to improve it. In fact, I think a government worthy of public confidence would be, no matter where the suggestion for change originated. But I also think that a government that's worthy of public confidence would come clean on its Olympic spending and that it would, without prompting, put in place oversight that would allow taxpayers to know that someone independent is there to look out for their interests in seeing things happen on time and on budget.

But you know, I'm not going to be holding my breath on this because this government resists any and every suggestion not originating in the Premier's office. That's why, I think anyway, we've heard so little of substance from government members on this bill and its serious implications. Nothing to suggest to taxpayers, whether they be in Vancouver or anywhere else in British Columbia, that government respects their right to know how their money is spent and for what.

[0115]

That brings my remarks to a close for the moment, except that I would like to say I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. But I would like to reiterate
[ Page 13506 ]
before I close that it is a shame to find oneself talking about these things at this time of night. I do have to say that while I would agree with anyone who asserted that there is a degree of urgency — in fact, even a high degree of urgency about the need to debate these matters and resolve this issue in this House — there's a very thin case for arguing that we needed to suspend the rules and sit all night in order to have a facsimile of that debate.

I think personally that the bill would benefit from an airing over a number of days. If government were to do the job it's intended to do, we might find that through reflection, we choose to cultivate the bill and groom it and address its deficiencies. I believe I've made the case that there are some deficiencies in this bill, and I would hope that government would take account of my words. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

G. Gentner: I rise from my slumber, like many of you in this House have been maybe taking a little bit of a moment of rest as we gather our thoughts under this crucial Bill 47, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.

Before I begin, I'd also like to start off by congratulating the member from North Peace, the new Senator representing British Columbia. I know that in our caucus, we're not necessarily moved by the view of finding a position in the Senate. But we do have a mayor from the city of Vancouver who's also in the Senate, and somehow he was involved in some of this mess called the Olympics, so I rise to congratulate the hon. member and just to note that his tenure there will be far more…. He'll have to rise to the occasion there, because the unelected Senate of Canada sat for 70 days while this House last year sat for only 49 days.

I begin by bringing into context…. I want to start off with some quotes regarding this project. I begin by saying — and I quote: "This is one of the largest construction projects in British Columbia's history. A project of this size is an enormous opportunity but also an enormous challenge. Done wrong, the Olympics can wind up being a huge burden on taxpayers and another source of division." The person who made these statements also went on to say: "And the government's Olympic plans are already being overtaken by reports of spiralling cost overruns that are putting key projects at risk."

I also quote: "Rather than work to find the best solution for the Lower Mainland..." the Premier "…wasted two years insisting — on ideological grounds — that the RAV line go ahead only as privatization projects and without making adequate financial cases."

And finally, I quote: "Community involvement, business involvement and labour involvement today equals Olympic success six years from now. The Olympics cannot be the private preserve of a few. They must become a common project for every British Columbian."

Those quotes were made by the Leader of the Opposition way back on May 10, 2004. We are well on the record as being suspicious from the get-go regarding some of the projects that this government has been involved in for many, many years.

[0120]

You know, when I address Bill 47, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, and when we look at the urgency here and particularly the letter from His Worship Mr. Gregor Robertson, the mayor of Vancouver…. He makes it very clear: "The city's commitment to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC for the games has been placed at risk."

In his submission to the Premier and, of course, to the Leader of the Official Opposition here in the Parliament Buildings, he goes on to say: "The city of Vancouver is committed to delivering the Olympic village to VANOC by the November 2009 deadline."

And finally he says that the VANOC deadline is nine months away. "The Olympic village is a central venue for the Olympic Games. Just as important, when the games are finished, the Olympic village development will be a permanent and remarkable place to live for many citizens in Vancouver." So with that, to give reference to why we're here, it's based on the project itself, which is certainly related to the urgent need of completing it in time for the Olympics.

This may seem like a small act, but certainly its implications are enormous not only for local governments and the taxpayers directly and indirectly in British Columbia but directly, of course, to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver — the Olympics and the nature of how the government carries about its projects and its due diligence and oversight of such projects. That's what our debate here is really all about. I mean, there are huge implications here. It doesn't just go relative to the specific project. It's what it conveys more than anything else.

Local government is by virtue of the act, and by all local governments…. The charter, but the Local Government Act. Through their application of that act, all local governments are creatures of the province. We've seen how school boards have been shut down by provincial governments. In fact, municipalities have gone so far in debt that they've actually had to declare bankruptcy.

I don't know if the House knows this — many may not — but Burnaby in the early 1950s had to do exactly that. The city of Burnaby had to declare bankruptcy. It was a major problem for the city then to try and deliver its services to their citizens. Therefore, what came about was a tightening-up, tighter scrutiny on how we borrow money, particularly at the municipal level.

The tradition developed where we would certainly look at a referendum. You would borrow. Through referendum, you'd get a mandate from the people. Recently, of course, over the last ten or so years we've also seen some levies that were applied, but there are specific
[ Page 13507 ]
amounts of money which municipalities can borrow without having to go to referendum.

We are certainly seeing a very, very different shift here. You know, the referendums and the levies were a sure way of taxation, which had representation primarily to the specific project. But now the game has certainly changed, namely because of a shoddy public-private partnership scheme that has been endorsed, if not promoted, by the province.

In fact, all municipalities must go through a P3 procurement process for its larger projects, and the Olympic athletes village project is just one of those projects. There is a filtering-through system that begins with the province, a recommendation to various municipalities that are connected with the games.

The bill gives unprecedented powers to what has been referred to as…. We call it the blank cheque. The media has certainly referred to it, and members of the House have.

[0125]

If municipalities are creatures of the province, where really is the scrutiny in this bill by the province itself? There really is none. There is no scrutiny with this bill. By granting Vancouver the right to borrow such huge substantial sums, it can incur huge liabilities, and the question we have to ask ourselves is: who will be responsible? How will this provincial assembly rein in governments who may go well beyond their means?

Hon. Speaker, we're here because of what has been known as urgency, and we had that debate earlier this afternoon — determining what is urgent and what isn't urgent. Yet we know that the government was well aware of the project for some time. We know, through various processes, through VANOC, which has a direct link to the government. We know, of course, through the public accounts procedure here in the Legislature where we had an oversight looking into the matter, and we certainly had the Premier and his right hand, Mr. Dobell, who was involved with VANOC.

So there's no question in anybody's mind that this government was certainly involved in the affairs and knew of what was happening for quite some time relative to the Olympic athletic village.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

What Bill 47 really implies — that's a question we must here answer. It's about responsibility, the public duty to get to the bottom of how government money, your money, my money, the taxpayers of Vancouver, their money, the shift of priorities that have become, due to the fact that times are tight…. We are now entering a major recession. We are looking into a fiscal world credit crunch, so to speak, and it's making the market very tight. Unfortunately, though, that is now playing havoc not only internationally but on how we deliver the games.

The province has provided a guarantee to the International Olympic Committee, the IOC, that it will cover any financial shortfall of VANOC. That was a commitment that was made long ago, and this cost, of course, could rise if VANOC is not successful in meeting its revenue or expense targets or does not build in sufficient contingency to cover items it cannot control — items such as inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, the state of the economy, etc.

So that was already built in, hon. Speaker. Now, when we look at some of the key findings in 2006 of the Auditor General, negotiation on amendments to certain key venue agreements were not quite finalized, and it was quite a concern back then to the Auditor General. The government certainly knew about this, but the government cast a blind eye in its religion, in its belief that the P3 projects were able to monitor itself, so to speak.

The Auditor General recommended that the province work with VANOC to help get all venue agreements in place as soon as possible and closely monitor VANOC's…

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, relevance to Bill 47.

G. Gentner: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

…progress in managing construction of venues. This was what the government should have done, but the government didn't. The Olympic athletes village responsibility lies with the province in the end, and the Auditor General was aptly pointing that out.

In a report by Partnerships B.C. in 2006, it identified that the athletes villages — both villages, of course; Vancouver and Whistler — raised real concerns. The others are complex — the other project, an expensive venue — which have inherent risks that VANOC is in control of. So it was flagged back then by the Auditor General that there were real, grave concerns.

[0130]

VANOC was to monitor the risk found within this development. And what did the province do? It did nothing. With the huge-salary bureaucrats, however, of Partnerships B.C. — the CEO was making salaries of close to half a million dollars — how could such an agency with such largesse and so-called expertise miss its due diligence since the Olympic village did not meet the litmus test?

This project, the Olympic residential project, this P3 project, simplifies the policy and priorities of what this government really stands for. It was determined that the Vancouver Charter and perhaps the Local Government Act must be changed in order to address this.

So who is actually accountable for the outcomes of such partnerships? It is, of course, the provincial Liberal government. Are the Olympics there for athletes, or is it more involved with the profit motive of P3s?
[ Page 13508 ]

An Hon. Member: Yeah, what is the answer to that question, anyway? I've been wondering that. Is it all about making rich people richer? What is it?

G. Gentner: It's certainly not necessarily about the athletes.

Amateur sport has changed over the last number of years. We have driven the Olympics into such a position where our duty there has been lost to try and promote amateur sports. We are now more concerned with the aspect of pushing profits from offshore consortiums who are here to make money. Now, I understand the need for incentives, but when you give away the store, which the Liberal government has done through its policies of P3s, we have to ask the question: what's happened to the accountability?

That is why we are here tonight, because there is no accountability. It's been lost. The whole boondoggle was to be swept under the carpet, but in the end the truth prevails. We're here tonight because we want to get to the bottom of this. We're here because this government lacks accountability, it lacks accountability, and it lacks accountability.

When we look at the nature of the P3s, it really was a sweetheart deal when the Olympic athletic residence was put together. Parent companies have very little liability. It's the taxpayer that in the end holds the liability. We're the ones who must pay when, of course, these financial structures collapse. What risk is there when in the end it always goes to the taxpayer?

What do we have with the Olympic village? We have bigger costs, bigger debt, bigger tax shelters and higher taxes. There's little equity. There's little that was put down on this. It's similar to the situation we're now seeing today in the United States with the credit crunch. The Olympic village is an example of how a P3 goes wrong. In my community, we can look very nicely with the comparisons of what goes wrong with a P3.

The P3s — and this is what the athletic village is supposed to be about — were to design, build, operate, maintain and finance the project. But I can tell you, we went last Monday, and I witnessed all the hoopla around another P3 built on the same premise, and that was the South Fraser perimeter road. It was quite a big show. We had the Prime Minister there; we had the Premier, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of International Trade to announce this wonderful project called the South Fraser perimeter road, built on the same premise as the athletic village that we are now here discussing.

The South Fraser perimeter road, like the village, was built that they would transfer the risk on to the private sector. Unfortunately, though, the financing now is a no go. The financing is no longer there. It has suddenly collapsed. The Prime Minister and the Premier were making a big announcement, a big hoopla, about how this wonderful road is going to save the day, and we've got a million dollars on the table. We're supposed to have these consortiums ready to go, but unfortunately, they're not going to be around till 2010.

[0135]

The whole financing is breaking down on a billion-dollar structure, and the sad thing about it is that while we are seeing a blank cheque being signed off today relative to this Olympic village, the residents in my community are being expropriated for a P3 project called the South Fraser perimeter road, with no understanding of what kind of money they're going to receive. Yet here we are in Vancouver writing out a blank cheque to bail out a very messy situation.

It's not fair. It's not fair to rural communities. It's not fair to my community. It's not fair to the residents in my community who live on a street called River Road, who are losing their homes — all because of a P3 that did not go through proper consultation. In the same way, the Olympic village development — the Millennium development — also didn't go through a proper litmus test relative to consultation, of course.

We saw the big announcement. Ironically, when the Prime Minister and the Premier had finished their big announcement regarding the South Fraser perimeter road, the media were on to it very quickly. The questions they were asking, strangely enough, were about the Olympic village.

I've been in this House now for three years. We've spent a lot of time talking about P3s. You know: "It's been ignored. It has not been answered." In fact, when you approach the Main Street press, it's never really talked about. But for the first time in a long time, since I've been witnessing what's been going on, we had the mainstream press demanding answers from the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of this province regarding how P3s work and why they're failing. They were asking the questions regarding the Olympic village, and they were comparing it to the failure of the South Fraser perimeter road.

It was quite amazing. We had 300 media people running around in this hangar at the Surrey Docks. The Premier was there to make the big announcement, along with the Minister of Transportation, on how wonderful the South Fraser perimeter road was, but it immediately defaulted into this embarrassing situation called the Olympic village.

The embarrassment is throughout the whole world. The whole world now is standing and watching what is going to happen to our Olympics. It's embarrassing to know that there are other venues that are now in question.

Interestingly enough, when the Prime Minister was asked whether the federal government would get involved in the bailout of the village, the Prime Minister was adamant that the federal government wouldn't pay a dime, because the liability is 100 percent that of the province of British Columbia.
[ Page 13509 ]

The question arises, of course: where is the Premier in this? Why is our Premier not lobbying the federal government like heck to come forward and give assistance to the city of Vancouver and all projects within the Olympics?

Regarding the South Fraser perimeter road, there's no accountability. It's another failure, and the government has not learned from the Olympic village fiasco. You look at the South Fraser perimeter road. We're more likely looking at another 99-year lease, where we're supposedly supposed to transfer the risks to the private sector. Meanwhile the government is out there preloading all up and down the existing South Fraser perimeter road, the perimeter way.

If the government was here to transfer the risk onto the private sector, why is it that taxpayers are preloading a road and bearing the risk and the liability itself? If something goes wrong 50 years or 20 years from now on the road, the finger-pointing will obviously be towards the provincial government, because it's the taxpayer who paid for the preload on very unstable lands.

[0140]

Yet we have a blank cheque to a municipality or a city. Meanwhile, my constituents are getting gouged for a P3 project. Not offering any money, they're being intimidated, and yet this P3 project gets a blank cheque.

You know, this is the way of the future. We've seen something similar now with the Port Mann Bridge. The financing from Macquarie has collapsed. The global market and the international financing behind it have collapsed.

You know, we can also look at…. The government had an opportunity before it got involved with the Olympic village. It could have looked at what it did with hydro, namely with Accenture and all the new call centres that evolved because of it. But the Accenture deal was based on joint and several liability whereby in the end the liability falls on all of us.

Now, we're looking to similar situations — P3 involvements with IPPs. The Abbotsford hospital — another 35-year deal where we will never know what the contract looks like. It's the same secrecy that has clouded…. We find with the Olympic village…. It's the same business, the same old tired-out P3 projects — concepts that were evolved out of the U.K. years ago. Most western nations have woken up to the fact that they don't work.

We can look at what's happened to the Canada line. That was a situation where the province assembled land in Richmond recently, and they wound up selling the parking lot to a casino for next to nothing — just gave the land away. Now we're closing down a potential station that was supposed to be built by the partner, and that was to accommodate some type of social housing, but that's collapsed as well.

We're seeing the failure of financing for the Evergreen line, which was promised for many, many years. You know, we can talk about the architect of the athletic village.

Deputy Speaker: Member, relevance on bill.

G. Gentner: Yes. Thank you, hon. Speaker. The architect of the Olympic village, it's involvement with VANOC…. Mr. Dobell, who was a director of The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships…. He was the Premier's chief adviser, and don't think for a second that Mr. Dobell didn't have any influence on how the Olympic village came about and was certainly just in the same manner regarding how we saw the huge expenditures regarding, of course, the convention centre that Mr. Dobell was involved with. We can see how his hand was involved with the Olympic village and how it's also collapsed.

I mean, we are looking at the right hand of the Premier and his involvement. He certainly was involved in this project. There's no question. Certainly, we're now seeing the end result. It's as though the Olympics, by this government, is being run as though it's another Enron. It's totally incompetent. We see a government that's arrogant. It's certainly not doing its proper due diligence. It's abandoned the public accountability. It's shown total disregard and disrespect to taxpayers. It's reckless; it's sloppy. Here we are today with a huge situation that's going to be foisted on the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver.

This group across…. You want to talk of the Vancouver athletic village, hon. Speaker, we might as well start calling them the village people over there. They're the new Village People. They got their own little disco gig going over there. They got their catchy tunes. They got their suggestive lyrics. They've got the appropriate costumes. This is the new Village People.

Hon. K. Krueger: You're deep, brother. You're deep.

G. Gentner: We're very deep. We're getting really deep. We're going to get down to the bottom of this. We're going to find out how this government is ripping off the people of British Columbia. We're going to get to the bottom of the Olympics, and we're going to expose the menace that's running amok in the province of British Columbia — that's this Liberal government of British Columbia.

[0145]

When you look at the new village people, they can run around…. You kind of think about the six main culprits here. I mean the Premier. You think of the village people. You think of the Premier. He's sort of like the biker running around. We call him the leather man. He's the leader of the pack, and he's really not accountable to anyone.

Ken Dobell. Well, he's the cowboy roaming around the range, and he'll hit any campfire. His presence is felt everywhere.

Interjections.

G. Gentner: It must be late, hon. Speaker. It must be late.
[ Page 13510 ]

You know, we're also looking at the former minister responsible for some of the projects — the construction of the convention centre, the overruns and the maintenance, the collapse, of B.C. Place. There's another guy who's part of the village people.

We in this House look at the accountability of this development. To get specific to the issue; how is the partnership? How has it been arranged? These questions have not been properly answered. They have not been presented to the House relative to this project. How have other Olympic partnerships been arranged? These are questions we must get to the bottom of.

Can any partner borrow money, leave governments indebted in order to purchase other acquisitions or assets? Do we know for sure, by giving this blank cheque, whether or not the partner or any partner can continue to borrow extra money and purchase acquisitions or assets? A blank cheque where taxpayers will be on the hook, and yet we have no idea what the code of conduct is within that partnership.

C. Evans: I rise to speak precisely to the narrowly focused issue of Bill 47.

But before I start talking about Bill 47, you know, if I wasn't here, which I didn't intend to be, I would have been at the 80th anniversary of my friend John Perkins in the seniors hall of the village of Nakusp, where…

Interjection.

C. Evans: You guys want to deal with him?

…most of my friends would be tonight. So I would like to open my remarks by saying happy birthday, John. I know you can't see me, since this TV doesn't play in Nakusp, but I wish I was with you.

We are here talking about Bill 47. Bill 47 was requested by a mayor who I like and respect and was brought into the House by a minister who I'd like to congratulate for having his job. I like and respect that gentleman too. The mayor of Vancouver is the only politician I know where I ever walked into a farmer's barn and in the loft was an "Elect this man" sign for the mayor of Vancouver. I don't know farmers that put up election posters for politicians, and I think it's because the mayor of Vancouver was once himself a vegetable grower in the Fraser Valley.

He's asked us to come here and to pass this bill, Bill 47. The minister who brought the bill into the House is a gentleman I respect because he got to be a minister by sitting down there and actually saying what he thought instead of what he was told to say — a rare commodity in this House.

Bill 47 is about funding for an event, the Olympics, which I think we all love — especially the Winter Olympics. I remember sitting with my family and watching Elizabeth Manley make Canada proud. So we have a bill brought in by a guy I like, asked for by a mayor I respect, about an event that I think everybody here loves, and the total event sucks.

[0150]

The debate debases what we are and what we do here. The fact that we have to have the debate at…. It is now ten minutes to two o'clock in the morning. It's an appalling insult to the people who will pay the bill. Good people asked for and bring in a piece of legislation to allow, to accommodate, to create an event — the Olympics — that we all believe in, and it is an embarrassment to be an elected politician and participate in this. How can this be? That's a massive contradiction.

I'd like to try to explain that contradiction. In fact, I think explaining that contradiction to the people at home, who I'm sure don't understand Bill 47…. I hope it is the purpose of this speech. How on earth did we get here, with the good intentions of putting on an event, to host the world, which we believe in? How did we get to this moment at ten minutes to two o'clock in the morning, trying to borrow a half a billion dollars to backstop a bunch of people who have walked from the project 90 days from its supposed conclusion?

I'm pretty old, so this event sort of has antecedents in my political memory. We, one time, hosted the world before — eh? Remember Expo 86? British Columbia — in fact, the same town, the town of Vancouver — said to the world: "Come on here." How did we organize that? We went and got a guy, Jimmy Pattison, and we paid him $1 to manage the event, to put it on, to host the world, to make us proud in the city of Vancouver.

I don't think they had to come….

Interjections.

C. Evans: It's okay. Let them rage. The people can see who they are.

I don't think they had to meet at two o'clock in the morning in 1986 in order to attempt to backstop what Mr. Pattison was doing. I think maybe this time, when we're hosting the Olympics, we did it a little different.

Instead of getting a British Columbian to work for $1, we decided to give this project to something called a hedge fund. We decided to turn the athletes village, the part of False Creek that we're going to put 850 people from the world in, into the hands of something called a hedge fund from New York. Not a British Columbian working for a dollar, answering to a Premier, coming in here and being proud of it, but to a hedge….

I kind of think the people at home at ten minutes to two in the morning might want to know why. How come? If it used to be that we could do it with a citizen of our own province working for a nominal sum just because he's proud to be a British Columbian, how come we turned it over to something they don't understand, called a hedge fund, in New York?
[ Page 13511 ]

That is the function of this debate on Bill 47. It's why, not what. How on earth did we get here? The answer to that question is that the present government, the Liberal government, aren't Social Crediters or New Democrats. They are a brand-new kind of administration in British Columbia that we've never seen before.

The people who used to govern and sit in that chair governed for us, governed this land, and believed they were responsible to the citizens at home watching, the citizens who own this land.

We've got a government who has decided that its function is to sell this land, a government who has lost its sense of pride at being British Columbian and has said to the world: "We're pretty sure that if you're from New York or Bonn, Germany or Tokyo, you can do it better than we can. We can't build our own ships. We can't run our own railroad. We can't run our own electric company." We will sell the creeks and the rivers, we'll lease the railroad for 999 years, and we'll get our ships from Germany, because we no longer believe in British Columbia.

So if we can host the Olympics, let's get something called a hedge fund, from New York, to do what Jim Pattison used to do for $1. It is an ideological mindset that none of the folks at home have ever seen before. What are we doing here at ten minutes to two in the morning attempting to backstop strangers we will never meet, who have decided to abandon us in the building of the Olympics to host the world?

[0155]

Hon. Speaker, I would like to help the folks at home. I walked in here, and I've got to admit — I'm an MLA; I'm 61 years old — that I had no idea what a hedge fund is. I would bet that the majority of the members on the opposite side who signed the contract to do the deal don't know what a hedge fund is. I'm betting that of three million people in British Columbia, 99.9 percent of you could never afford to meet these people, never mind do a deal with them.

So I looked it up: what is a hedge fund? Remember, a lot of intelligent people say that when something's going on that you don't understand, the way to figure it out is to follow the money. So who did we decide to do our contract with? We decided to do it with something called a hedge fund. That's not a bank or a credit union. That's not borrowing from your neighbour. It's some kind of an institution which is defined in the encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

It says that a hedge fund is "a private investment fund open to a limited range of investors that is permitted by regulators to undertake a wider range of activities and other investment funds. It also pays a performance fee to the investment manager. As the name implies, hedge funds often seek to offset potential losses in the principal markets they invest in by hedging their investments using a variety of methods, most notably short-selling" and to participate in "funds using short-selling and other 'hedging' methods…." This is the important part: "…other 'hedging' methods to increase rather than reduce risk, with the expectation of increasing return."

I wonder if the folks out there in British Columbia understood that instead of hiring a British Columbian to do this project, we went to New York and got a firm that is in the business of increasing risk rather than reducing it, in order to increase income. Now, hedge funds are typically only open to a limited range of professional or wealthy investors. This provides them with an exemption, in many jurisdictions, from regulations governing short-selling, derivative contracts, leverage, fee structures and the liquidity of interest in the fund.

In other words, we are here debating Bill 47, which is going to backstop a bunch of people who increased risk in order to get a better return on investment. Why? Because of the ideological mindset of the folks who have been governing British Columbia for seven years, who think that dealing with the robber barons of the world is better business than trusting our own people. That's what we're doing here at two o'clock in the morning. We're trying to figure out how to deal with the facts that we did a deal with the robber barons and they have backed out.

Now, follow the money. Bill 47 — we're here to debate Bill 47. Follow the money. What kind of a hedge fund? Which hedge fund that increases risk…? Somebody with a…. It's a great, beautiful name — Fortress Investment Group. Now, there's a George Bush title if I ever heard….

The Fortress Investment Group. We gave a contract to the Fortress Investment Group to build the athletes village. Did you debate it in here, hon. Speaker? I know I'm not supposed to ask you rhetorical questions. Did any of you members ever come in here and say: "Should we or should we not give a contract to somebody called the Fortress Investment Group in New York to build the athletes village for this event that we're all…"? I don't remember that debate. I remember secrecy. I remember people on the other side saying P3s are good because they reduce government risk.

At one minute to two we are here taking to the people of British Columbia all the risk that Fortress Investment Group was allowed to avoid by the contract that they signed in secrecy, without public exposure, with the government of British Columbia. Who is Fortress Investment Group? It's "a New York–based asset management firm which manages private equity hedge funds and real estate and railroad-related investments, with announced plans to move into casinos and horse racing." Oh, those are good guys for the athletes village — the real estate and railroad company with announced intentions to move into casinos. There are some folks who will take our risk off our hands, eh?

[0200]
[ Page 13512 ]

I don't think, had we debated that in the House before we signed the contract, there'd be a single person from either side who would have said: "Oh yeah, that's better than a British Columbia bank or a Canadian credit union or the B.C. people. Let's get a horse-racing company and see if they'll build our athletes village." And now we're debating Bill 47.

Let's follow the money to see how we got here. What could possibly be the connection of Fortress Investment Group to the people of British Columbia, to the people we represent? Well, I guess there is a connection. If you follow the money, you find a connection. The connection would be that in 2006 Fortress Investment Group bought a company called Intrawest.

Now, who's Intrawest? Let's follow the money. In 1986 Intrawest acquired Blackcomb Mountain. Ten years later Intrawest acquired Whistler Mountain to form Whistler-Blackcomb, which is the venue of the 2010 Olympics. Follow the money. We did a deal with a hedge fund, who I submit on the record are the robber barons who are essentially responsible for the speculation in the world economy that has created the crash we're experiencing right now.

We did the deal with Fortress, which it turns out owns Whistler-Blackcomb. Then, in a development that defies understanding, Fortress decides that it's too broke to continue to advance the money to build the athletes village, but it's still rich enough to own Whistler-Blackcomb.

Now, at two minutes after two, we are here debating Bill 47. What does it say? I submit that what it says is that the people of Vancouver are going to backstop the company that is hosting the Olympics. I submit on the record here, at two minutes after two, that there is not even a contract with these robber barons that guarantees that we'll hold the Olympics at Whistler-Blackcomb.

We are being asked, in the narrow confines of Bill 47, to assist the good mayor, written by the good minister, to give the right to borrow to the people of Vancouver to backstop a New York company that owns Whistler-Blackcomb and hasn't agreed yet to let us hold the Olympics there.

When I was a little boy, one day at church the minister was at the front giving a sermon about usury. I was a little boy. I didn't have the slightest idea. I went home and said to my mom: "Mom, what's usury?" She said: "It's a sin." I said: "Yeah, but what's it mean?" And she said: "Well, that's kind of like when you loan some money to your friend and charge him more than 10 percent."

I was a little boy. I believed my mom. I've thought ever since that usurers were those crooks you see on late-night movies or the bad guys you read about in the Bible. It turns out that the usurers are the Fortress Investment Co. The city of Vancouver is paying them 11 percent on the money that Fortress refuses to advance to finish the contract on the village they agreed to build.

At five minutes now after two we're all coming here to vote on the narrowly written nature of Bill 47 to give the city of Vancouver the right to borrow the money to backstop the robber barons.

I guess I think that if the people of British Columbia…. Every time we come in here, we, from our perspective — and the folks that govern from theirs — debate this idea of the public ownership and public initiatives and projects against the private.

[0205]

I've been doing this ever since they sold B.C. Rail and sold off land in the tree farms and tore apart B.C. Hydro and ordered ships from Germany. It goes on and on and on — over in Maple Ridge, trying to stop them from bisecting the farm with the German P3 road. But every time I raise it, what do the ministers get up and say?

Come on. Shout it out. You say: "You stupid socialist. We have to do this to reduce the people's risk." Every single time we raise the issue, members in the government say: "P3s are the way to reduce risk."

It is now five minutes after two, and we are here taking on half a billion, maybe $800 million worth of debt for the city of Vancouver to backstop private industries' risk. It is dishonest to say that the P3, the private process that led us to Fortress, protects the people against risk. We are here. This entire debate is the Legislature of British Columbia embracing to our bosom the risk that private industry has reneged on, paying usurious interest rates to them every day until we take it back.

From this day on there should never be another minister or Premier with the gall to stand up and say that the P3 process, the private industry process, absolves the people of risk, because the government — that government — has brought us here today to take the risk back to the people because the New York hedge firm no longer sees a profit.

Hon. Speaker, I think that it's unparliamentary to say "lie," so I'm going to say that for seven years the people who governed this province have been mistaken. And now, tonight, they will understand, because they are the people who are bringing in the bill, asking the people to take back risk.

You will understand the mistake that you were led to, and in future you will understand that the people of British Columbia can manage their own affairs, run their own railroad, build their own ships, run their own power company and create electricity from their own creeks and rivers. It is wrong to say to the people of B.C. that by privatizing contracts, we off-load risk, because we are here at your request, taking it back and giving it to the city of Vancouver.

How much? What's it going to cost them? Bill 47 — let's speak to the bill. How much is it going to cost them? Is it going to cost them $250 million — the people of Vancouver? Is it going to cost them $300 million? What is the function of Bill 47 here? Is it $500 million? Is it wrong for an MLA to stand here and say: "We're debating the thing. What's it worth?"
[ Page 13513 ]

Hon. Speaker, let them heckle. Let them shout. Let them write it down. What's it worth? How much risk are we taking back tonight and giving to the people of Vancouver? Is it a buck and a half?

Let the record show that nobody is shouting out an answer. Let the record show that they don't know. They don't know, hon. Speaker. We off-loaded the risk, and it turned out they can't make a profit, so we're taking it back.

Interjection.

C. Evans: Ah, let him go. It's two o'clock in the morning. It makes no sense. I can talk over him.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member.

C. Evans: We took a beautiful project that I want to build. You want to build it? I think everybody here wants to build it. I want to see the Canadians in the Olympics, and I want to see our neighbours and friends around the world come here and say: "This is a beautiful place. This is a beautiful society. Look what they did."

[0210]

But in secret, without coming in here and talking about it, somehow or other we decided to give a $500 million, $800 million, a billion-dollar deal to some people in New York that you never met, the ministers who are over there never met, I never met and the people of Vancouver never met. And then we said to them: "Oh, it's okay, you guys. If the rules change, we'll pay you 11 percent on your money."

I read the records. In the last five years they were making, at times, 30 percent on their investment because, of course, they're those professional and rich people that play with hedge funds. You know, if they were our class of people, we'd call them gamblers. But of course, they're professional people, so they're investors.

Then all of a sudden around the world those gamblers screw up the world economy with their speculative mortgages and their speculative stock values and by essentially gambling with money they don't have. And crash; it comes down. And all of a sudden the hedge fund doesn't have the money to keep its word.

Now, hon. Speaker, if this was happening in your life, if this was your landlord, your landlord couldn't say to you: "Oh, I can't pay the mortgage anymore, but you still have to pay me rent."

In this Legislature on this morning we are agreeing to Bill 47, which says that we will allow the city of Vancouver to backstop the debt, to borrow a sum of money which no one knows — more than a buck and a half and maybe as much as $800 million — to backstop a company that, it turns out, owns the venue on which we hope to host the world, and those people don't have to return that venue to the people of British Columbia. If this was your landlord, they'd lose the property. They could not renege on the loans without losing the property.

In this case Bill 47 says that we're going to backstop them, and they still get to own Blackcomb Whistler — that chunk of British Columbia. I submit, hon. Speaker, that every single person on that side and the Premier and all the people that work for him should understand that to ask the robber barons of the world to relieve us of risk is folly.

As of this day everybody should understand that we put our hand on the hot stove of privatization and P3s, and we've been burned, and it's over. If those folks don't figure it out in about four months' time, they won't work here anymore. The people of British Columbia know that they've been burned once, and they don't want to have it happen again. This lesson will either be learned and understood by those folks, or those folks will become irrelevant in British Columbia.

R. Austin: It is a privilege to take my place and make my views known in this important debate for Bill 47, the amendment to the Vancouver Charter. Perhaps, more appropriately, it should be called the B.C. Legislature's assistance to solve what is undoubtedly the first official Olympic overrun.

This bill will assist the city of Vancouver to be able to borrow possibly up to $450 million — we don't know; there's no cap — in order to complete the Olympic athletes village for the 2010 Olympics.

Now, in the past few months quite a few of my constituents have made comments to me and asked me questions such as: "Where are we exactly with these Olympics?" or "Boy, it seems like we are really in a mess with this one. How much are these Olympics going to cost us all?"

Those are extremely valid questions, particularly when you consider that my constituents live a minimum of 18 hours' drive from Vancouver or a two-hour plane ride that costs an average of 600 bucks return. My constituents wonder, while many are still very excited about this province holding the Winter Olympics, what exactly this is going to do for us and, perhaps more importantly, how much we are going to have to pay for this.

I think it's important to give a little clarity and context so that all of my constituents and those who are awake watching this in the middle of a Sunday morning or those who will later access Hansard to find out what Bill 47 is all about can get a good idea of what we are debating and voting on, as the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money deserves the due diligence of this House.

[0215]

We debate many things in this House, but I think that when we are considering spending millions of dollars of
[ Page 13514 ]
other people's money, they deserve to know why we're doing it and whether it is a worthwhile expenditure.

Bill 47 is necessary because of decisions that were made by the previous council that represented the city of Vancouver. Until last November, when the municipal elections took place, the city was run by a mayor, Sam Sullivan, and the civic party that backed him — the NPA, or Non-Partisan Association. Now, at this point many of my constituents may be wondering how a political party can call themselves such a thing, perhaps an oxymoron if ever I heard one, but that is a discussion for another day. Let's just say that this is the official farm team for the B.C. Liberals at the municipal level, and leave it at that.

This group decided that they would give a guarantee to the company building the Olympic village, Millennium Development, when their funders, an American hedge fund, which we've all heard about from my hon. friend here, decided to stop making payments to this important project because the developers were going over budget. We would not be here discussing Bill 47, firstly, if this was not an Olympic venue of great importance and if this former council had not, essentially, put the ratepayers of Vancouver on the hook when the project started to go sideways.

It had originally been budgeted at $750 million, but when Millennium began going over budget, Fortress said: "No more." That put this whole project in jeopardy. As a result, the former Vancouver city council met in camera and decided that they would give a completion guarantee and advance Millennium up to $100 million that they had squirreled away in a fund for future developments.

Now, all of these decisions, hon. Speaker, were made in secret behind closed doors, something that most British Columbians are expressing great concern about. I think that people are not becoming in any way anti-Olympics, but they want to see decisions made in public, and they want to know how much this is going to cost them. Bill 47 is the solution asked for by the city of Vancouver to enable them to borrow the difference between what has already been given by Fortress Investment in the city and the cost of completing this project.

I should mention at this point that the project is now estimated to cost about $875 million. I say "about" because no one really knows what the end cost is going to be, but at least the new mayor, Gregor Robertson, who has inherited this mess and the result of gross mismanagement, is trying to be as forthright as possible with his constituents by estimating this project at $875 million. Now, this is $125 million more than the original estimate. That is called an overrun. It's important to know this term, as this is just the first Olympic overrun that we will be dealing with as we get closer to the 2010 Olympics.

I might point out that many of my constituents have expressed concern to me, as they are getting mixed messages from the Premier of this province and the B.C. Liberal government. Just yesterday on CKNW the Premier stated: "No. 1, there are no cost overruns on the Olympic village. What there is, is there are some challenges in terms of one of the opportunities to finance it, but there are no cost overruns."

The Premier later called to clarify his earlier comments, and I quote again: "Sorry. What I meant to say was there are no cost overruns for the Olympics. Sorry if that came out the wrong way. I apologize for that, but you know, the Olympics are on budget, and I think that they have done a very good job." When the Premier of the province is so out of touch that he does not even know what is going on with one of his pet projects, it's no wonder that my constituents are wondering what's going on.

This whole debate around Bill 47 to allow Vancouver to borrow up to $450 million, or whatever is needed to finish the athletes village, reminds me of the circumstances that the poor taxpayers of Montreal went through with the Summer Olympics of 1976. Who can forget the mayor of the day, Jean Drapeau, saying to the citizens of that fine city when discussing the building of the main Olympic stadium, and I'm paraphrasing here: there is no more chance of this going over budget than of a man giving birth to a baby.

[0220]

Well, as we all well know, that metaphorical man gave birth to an entire baseball team, and it took the ratepayers of Montreal 30 years to pay back that debt. In this solution to Vancouver's problem which we are here debating — Bill 47 — I fear that the ratepayers of Vancouver may be in for a heck of a ride when all is said and done.

Getting back to Mayor Drapeau's comments, I think that this Bill 47 is just the beginning of an entire family of cost overruns here in British Columbia as a result of Liberal mismanagement of these various Olympic projects or, as the government likes to say, the various Olympic envelopes.

I would like to think that the legacy of these Olympics would fall into the fantasy land that the Finance Minister spoke of earlier today, or late last night:

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

This, coming from the Minister Responsible for the Olympics, just shows how out of touch he is when the figure of $875 million came from the city manager of Vancouver, Miss Penny Ballem who one assumes knows what the real situation is.

In fact, let me go further and explain how the minister thinks this overrun will not fall on the ratepayers
[ Page 13515 ]
of Vancouver. He's assuming that the condo market will rebound after the Olympics and that the sale of these condominiums will return all that the taxpayers have shelled out. It is just this kind of head-in-the-sand thinking that has put the whole world economy into the tailspin that we are witnessing.

If this is how he is handling the Olympic budget, how can we have any confidence in his managing of the province's overall finances? The minister, hon. Speaker, is like a broken washing machine: he's so stuck on spin that he can't even come clean. What Bill 47 brings to the attention of all British Columbians, not just those of my constituents, is just that.

They want this Premier and this government to come clean. They want to know: "Look, how much are these Olympics going to cost, how are we going to pay for them, and will the benefits be worth all of this?" That's all they're asking. But instead we get secrecy, stonewalling or just sheer pigheadedness in sticking to a public number that everyone of average intelligence knows is just pure fantasy — $600 million is what the Premier has said time and time again.

Come on, Mr. Premier. Come clean with the public. Please don't treat us with contempt as if we're all halfwits. The Auditor General has already put out reports that clearly demonstrate that many of the initial budget items are already well over budget.

Once again, let me quote the Minister Responsible for the Olympics:

"Within the $600 million envelope that we have to live up to our obligations for the staging of the games, we have half of the $175 million — the provincial share for security. We also, within that $600 million, have remaining about $76 million of contingency.

"I have no reason to expect at this point that more has to be allocated for security, but we do have a $76 million contingency to deal with unforeseen costs that may arise in the remaining three years."

That's from the Minister of Finance and Minister Responsible for the Olympics.

Well, hon. Speaker, as we discussed, Bill 47, which as I've already pointed out is just the first of many overruns the taxpayers of this province will be facing….

Let me just send a quick message to the Finance Minister. The most recent reports in the Globe and Mail and Vancouver Sun have the RCMP saying that the security costs of the 2010 Olympics will be anywhere from between $400 million to a billion dollars.

Let me say that again, just in case British Columbians did not read the papers on that day. The security costs may be as much as a billion dollars. What we are seeing now — and the Finance Minister alluded to this earlier in his speech last evening — is that there are negotiations going on as we speak between the province, the federal government and the RCMP as to how those costs will be allocated.

So why don't we have these discussions in public? Let us permit the Auditor General to have some oversight over these budgets, and for goodness' sake, let's be upfront with British Columbians and come clean with what's going on.

[0225]

Here's what Auditor General John Doyle has said in a letter to the Speaker of the House:

"My office's two previous reports, issued in 2003 and 2006, conclude that British Columbia's share of the full cost of the games is considerably higher than the $600 million figure that is often been quoted. Further, in the absence of full disclosure by the province, each report highlights significant risks that could result in…higher costs to the province by the time the games are finished….

"Fundamental differences of opinion between government and my office remain unresolved…."

He goes on to say:

"I share my predecessors' view that the full cost of staging the games should include a number of items that are not included in the official budget. In addition, I share my predecessors' concern that the risks associated with some costs and revenues have not been adequately disclosed. Should these risks come to pass, the cost of staging the games could escalate considerably."

As a result, that is why we are here today.

Deputy Speaker: Member, remember to be relevant to Bill 47.

R. Austin: Certainly, hon. Speaker.

So we established that the Olympics are going to be a heck of a lot more than the government's assertion of $600 million.

The next question to ask, after dealing with all of this mismanagement, is: what does this mean for the taxpayers in general? Well, as I'm constantly told by this government, governing is all about choices. If you spend money on one thing, then obviously, it isn't there to be spent on something else.

So once we have paid for the security in the Olympic village, all the venues, and let's not forget the new roof of B.C. Place — did I mention that that is just over $350 million? — what will the total be? We don't know, as this government refused to share any bad news with the people of this province, but estimates by independent analysts think that these Olympics could be as high as $2.9 billion to $3.5 billion and counting.

Just think what we could do with this money. For my constituents, living in places like Terrace and Kitimat, it would mean that for a mere pittance of this total — just the crumbs that fall off the table — we might have had our kids in a regular five-day school week instead of a modified one — a school week that all other British Columbians enjoy, where teachers don't have to stress themselves to teach a curriculum that has ever more challenges in a shorter time.

Maybe parents don't have to figure where their children go, with extended Christmas holidays and spring breaks. Maybe they can sleep a little longer instead of having to get up so early before travelling long distances, in some cases, to get to school. If we did not have to deal
[ Page 13516 ]
with overruns such as the one we're discussing here in Bill 47, maybe we could have the appropriate number of staff in our seniors care facility.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

R. Austin: Yes, hon. Speaker?

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Take your seat, please.

Point of Order

Hon. K. Falcon: A point of order. Look, we recognize that the Speaker must give latitude to some of these discussions, but when the member opposite is speaking about issues completely unrelated to this one-page bill, Bill 47, and he's talking about schools and funding and parents, it is getting just a little bit beyond the pale. I would ask the Speaker to please remind again, as Speakers have done, the members opposite to actually speak to the one-page bill, Bill 47, that we're here to debate.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a minute, Member.

D. Routley: It's clear that the speakers have brought the comments back to relevance and, indeed, have used these metaphors in order to accurately debate the bill in question. That is the spirit of the standing order, so I think the speaker's comments have been well within the range of relevance that is required by the standing order.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

Member for Skeena, would you please keep your remarks relevant to Bill 47.

Debate Continued

R. Austin: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

If we did not have to deal with overruns such as the one we are discussing here in Bill 47, maybe we could have the appropriate number of staff in all kinds of other areas in our society.

When I visit Vancouver in the future and look at places such as B.C. Place with the new roof, when I see the eventual athletes village — and I'm sure it will be beautiful once it's built — and when I ever get to drive by the incredible speed skating facility in Richmond, these are the things I'll be reminded of — the important things that the people of Skeena have forgone in order for this government to pay for their mismanagement of these Winter Games. While we have witnessed the complete neglect of the north for the last 7½ years, we can all look at the Premier's pet projects in the Lower Mainland, where billions of dollars have been spent.

[0230]

In conclusion, let me return to the Finance Minister's comments of yesterday where he argues quite forcefully that previous Auditors General had been unfair to his government by including spending that was not part of the Olympics. An example would be the upgrade to the Sea to Sky Highway. This cost over $700 million when all was told and done, but according to this government, that was not a part of the Olympic expenditure as it was just a routine road improvement.

We are actually expected to believe that this government spent that kind of money upgrading a road to a ski resort just as a matter of fact. Well, I don't believe that my constituents are suckers for a line like that. They know, and everybody knows, that if we had not made the commitment to host the 2010 Olympics, there is no way that any government would have spent that kind of money on a road to a ski resort. So at least have the decency to come clean with all of us and admit the true costs to the Olympics and the cost to everybody.

For my part, as the member for Skeena, I have to say that I would have had other priorities such as health care, education and economic development opportunities for northwest B.C., and we should have let the private sector take on more of the risks, the risks that are now falling to the taxpayers of this great province — or at least, to the taxpayers of Vancouver.

Thank you for the opportunity to make my thoughts clear on this bill, and I look forward to hearing some of the answers to the more detailed questions that will be asked in committee stage.

G. Coons: We're here today at this special session of the Legislature to deal with the bill, Bill 47, because the city of Vancouver has requested that we move forward on this very important issue. The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged the importance of this legislation. The special request to the government asks that we in this House "protect the interests of taxpayers as we put in place a financial plan for completing the Olympic village project."

Now, the opposition intends to support Bill 47 but not without the full debate and scrutiny that is required. Bill 47, for those still up at this hour at 2:30, is a bill which allows through this legislation for the necessary financing arrangements in order to complete the athletes village project. It allows the city to borrow and lend the funds required to continue with the construction of the athletes village.

This village is one of the numerous cornerstones of the Olympic bid that was put out to taxpayers and to the public. Unlike this government, we don't believe that support comes at the price of scrutiny. MLAs are in this Legislature today, away from their constituencies,
[ Page 13517 ]
away from the inquiring minds of those in our ridings, because of a lack of scrutiny from this government.

With an election set for May 12, many voters will be watching how the Olympics are being managed. In my riding on the North Coast, whether it's in Prince Rupert, on Haida Gwaii in the Nass Valley or down on the central coast, they're sick and tired of this government and this Premier who won't come clean on the true cost of all the Olympic spending.

By the end of the day, no matter how long it takes, Bill 47 will get passed, but the provincial government is ultimately responsible for Olympic spending, and this side of the House will do what it can to make sure that there's a full debate, full accountability and scrutiny of the actions of this government. We're going to do everything we can to make sure that questions that are on the minds of my constituents and all British Columbians get answered.

The Minister of Finance earlier today…. I guess he felt obligated to add his thought to the debate, and he talked about — and this is a quote — "They're using so much misinformation. Misinformation is spreading so much fear among British Columbians." I assume that he was talking about the debate in the House, coming from this side. I guess that it's the dreaded fearmongerers coming out of the closets again.

[0235]

You know, just as a reiteration from a letter from the Minister of Transportation about two or three weeks before the Queen of the North sank, the MLA referred to the member for the North Coast, the ferry critic, as a fearmongerer, because there were concerns about safety issues and the viability of the vessels travelling in the northern waters.

But in reality, the misinformation and fear that the Minister of Finance brought up is a result of this government's actions in dealing with Olympic costs. This Premier has taken the pride and the integrity of hosting the Olympics as his own pet rock, his to hold close to his chest, to P3 it to death and to be the most secretive, the most arrogant and the most unaccountable Premier this province has ever had.

Now, Bill 47, which British Columbians are trying to understand through this one-pager…. British Columbians want and expect a government that is open, transparent and accountable. The public interest must come first. But this government continues to refuse to come clean on the full cost of the Olympics, and that's the worst kind of arrogance.

Now, the Minister of Community Development earlier today stated in his opening that the province "would move quickly to conclude the necessary due diligence so that the provincial government could make an informed decision on the matter."

That is the crux of this situation — the lack of information to make that informed decision that the minister says must occur. This bill, Bill 47, arises from the ashes of this government's unaccountability.

Now, I remember a key promise of this Premier. It's his promise of "the most open and transparent and accountable government in Canada." This was according to a brochure issued by the B.C. Liberals in the year 2000, in the new era in the public service.

Our illustrious Premier didn't stop there. He echoed that, if government followed this approach, you may not always agree with its decisions, but you would always know how those decisions were made. But here we are today, or tonight, having Bill 47 put to scrutiny due to the most secretive government we have ever seen in this province.

We're here to debate and scrutinize Bill 47, an amendment to the Vancouver Charter allowing the city to borrow an unlimited sum of money so financing arrangements are there to complete the village. As we've mentioned, it's not a complicated piece of legislation. It's a small amendment. But as British Columbians are finding out, this bill has great implications for all taxpayers and for the Olympics.

If we actually analyze the reasons for having Bill 47 placed before us today, we can see that there is a concern to all British Columbians. We had a culture of government secrecy, lack of scrutiny and extreme arrogance, both at the city level with the NPA, the farm team of the Premier, and here in Victoria with his government.

This philosophy practised by this government closed the door on citizens and treats taxpayers like they are a cash cow for the Premier's Olympic cost overruns — a philosophy that has brought us here to help the Vancouver taxpayers cope with potential financial crisis and help them out of the financial chaos they inherited.

Despite the fact and the attempt to deny this fact, the Premier must take the full responsibility for this boondoggle and for having this session to deal with the bill before us today, Bill 47. The truth is that this government knew exactly what was formulating with the Olympic village — the failures of their P3 agenda, the cover-up of their actions, the secrecy that festered within the Premier's office and the lack of due diligence that must accompany all public spending.

Now again, if we recall the Minister of Community Development's earlier statement in reference to this bill, that the province "would move quickly to conclude the necessary due diligence so that the provincial government could make an informed decision on the matter…." We are questioning: where was the due diligence with this Liberal government?

Well, back in the brochure developed by the Premier in 2000, he acknowledged that an open government policy could actually prove annoying at times. And this is another quote: "We know this transparency would not be without political embarrassments. But we believe government should not shirk from making tough deci-
[ Page 13518 ]
sions in public…. It's time to put public interest ahead of partisan interest."

[0240]

Clearly, we see a well-earned gold medal performance by the Premier for deception and secrecy. It should be noted that a letter to the privacy association at the time from the Premier, who was then the opposition leader…. He said that open government is a hallmark of free and democratic societies. This is a quote. "When government does its business behind closed doors, people will…believe that government has something to hide," he wrote in a letter to Darrell Evans of the privacy association. "Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity," stated the Premier.

Now, why do we believe that the Premier and this government must take full responsibility for this boondoggle? Well, the facts are there for all to see. They set up a series of reporting provisions to ensure that they would know. I believe that it's valuable at this point to review some of those provisions and the time line of how we got into the position to have Bill 47 placed in front of us today.

So in the middle of 2006, VANOC came to both the province and the feds asking for more money. Both governments demanded due diligence reports as a condition of considering this request. The due diligence report and the subsequent one prepared by Partnerships B.C. made a number of recommendations to increase the flow of knowledge between the city, VANOC and the partners in the two levels of government — the provincial government and the federal government.

The pathway of information starts heading right to the Premier's office. VANOC then created an Olympic village advisory committee to oversee the completion of both the Olympic village in Vancouver and in Whistler. As we know, the city's project manager, Jody Andrews, who this past week resigned, met weekly with VANOC's project manager and provided monthly written reports to VANOC. VANOC's finance committee, according to its public minutes, received regular reports on both of the venues.

This is where it gets interesting, hon. Speaker — and for those out there still awake at 2:35. The co-chair of VANOC's finance committee, who reviewed and painstakingly went over these reports, is Ken Dobell, who still reports to the Premier and to the CEO of the B.C. Olympic secretariat, who reports to the minister responsible for the Olympics.

Again we all remember Ken Dobell — the Premier's former deputy minister, the Premier's friend and insider and his right-hand man. Again, who recently pled guilty to one count of violating the provincial Lobbyists Registration Act.

But now, also in the chain of events leading to why we're here today for Bill 47, we have city manager Judy Rogers who was and is a member of the finance committee getting these reports. In May and June of 2007 the city manager, Ms. Rogers, reported to council that the Millennium group, the developer of the village, was in anticipatory default. What this really means, hon. Speaker and those watching out there, was that Millennium, the P3 partner, was running out of money. The well was running dry. No bucks; it sucks. That's why Bill 47 is before us today.

Now, the city — and the Liberal-backed NPA; the Premier's farm team — had an obligation to share this information with VANOC, and VANOC, in turn, through its finance committee, shared information with the province, the Premier and the minister responsible.

So let there be no one out there doubting what happened. This government had to have known what was going on right from the very start, at least 18 months ago. But, believe it or not, they refused to release or share that information with the people of British Columbia, especially when the problem was escalating.

In April of 2008 the city's auditors reported publicly on the financial risk to the projects and to the city taxpayers. Then Millennium, the P3 partner, ran out of money. Fortress, the financier, a New York hedge fund in financial trouble, intensified its demands, and there followed a range of commitments by the city of Vancouver to underwrite both the developer and the financier in order to complete the development on time.

We're here today because obviously that did not work. Taxpayers were left out to dry without their knowledge of hundreds of millions in overruns and carrying charges, and the final bill for taxpayers in Vancouver still isn't known.

[0245]

Here we are today with Bill 47 in front of us, providing the means to allow the city of Vancouver to borrow as much as it wants to complete the Olympic village. And the Premier still insists that this isn't a blank cheque. He's mistaken on that. This bill, Bill 47, has no dollar figure attached to it. The Premier needs to come clean on the Olympics, and Bill 47 must drive the debate about all the Olympic costs.

British Columbians expect oversight and accountability for all Olympic spending. They do not want an Olympic-sized blank cheque for this Premier's personal projects while B.C. remains number one in Canada for child poverty for the fifth straight year and homelessness runs rampant in every community in our fair province. We're the best place on earth for child poverty and homelessness.

Now, as mentioned earlier, the Millennium group, the developer of the village, was in anticipatory default. The P3 partner was running out of money. This is why Bill 47 is before us today, this one-pager that we've been debating for well over ten to 12 hours. I would be remiss if I did not comment on this government's love affair with P3s. This is another reason that we find ourselves in this House, the people's House, discussing and debating Bill 47.
[ Page 13519 ]

Recently the Minister of Transportation, when talking about the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the delay due to financial problems of the chosen P3 consortium, said emphatically: "The bottom line for the province of B.C. on P3s is that we can't be happier. They've been exceptional for us."

What is happening within this government and their P3 push…. P3s are being aggressively pursued throughout British Columbia in spite of a lack of evidence that they are a superior option. They are less cost-effective, less timely and less transparent than traditional government procurement. Time and again P3 projects across the country have failed to shelter taxpayers from cost overruns. Taxpayers in Maple Ridge; Brampton, Ontario; and Penticton truly know it. We all know it from the UBCM in Penticton, where we saw the convention centre way behind schedule and costs rising substantially.

Interjection.

G. Coons: I would hope that the members on the other side would take the opportunity to rise and debate Bill 47.

Interjection.

G. Coons: Hon. Speaker, the Minister of Community Development referenced Vancouver city councillors….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member, it's inappropriate.

Hon. K. Falcon: I withdraw.

G. Coons: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Thank you, Minister.

The Minister of Community Development, in reference to Vancouver city councillors, stated earlier: "Council members are accountable directly to their electors." This is why we're here in this House, looking at and debating Bill 47 — so that we can be accountable to those who elected us to scrutinize, to hold this government accountable for their actions.

Coming from rural B.C., the old Liberal heartland, my constituents shake their heads and question what is happening with Olympic funding, with P3 projects, and why the secrecy. There is a larger picture before the House today, and I'd like to comment on this larger picture that must be portrayed for those up at this hour, close to 3:00 a.m. My constituents on the islands of Haida Gwaii, the central coast and around Prince Rupert have real concerns about the larger picture and the billions of dollars of secret amounts being spent by this Premier on the Olympics.

I have this concern with this bigger picture, because in Prince Rupert there will be up to 3,000 people with no doctor. It's estimated that once the Green Clinic closes and shuts its doors forever next month, it will leave 2,000 to 3,000 people without a family doctor. Stewart residents wonder why $365 million will go to renovate B.C. Place when they are told that their community will have no doctor in the next month or so.

First nations communities suffer dismal conditions as far as housing, poverty, suicide rates…. They look forward to the larger picture, where they are treated in a way that was promised in this government in the new relationship. All they have seen is the same old, same old Liberal treatment.

[0250]

Parents, students and teachers are seeing and feeling the impacts of 177 schools closing. A recent report in Prince Rupert: "School Closures Scarring City Students, Say Teachers." It points to deteriorating conditions following school closures.

I'm talking about the larger picture because the Minister of Community Development talked about the larger picture. He wanted to talk and comment on the larger picture before the House today. I believe that if the minister who brought forward the bill wanted to talk about the larger picture before the House today, we have the right and the opportunity to push forward for our constituents and to do our due diligence and look at the conditions.

We look at the dysfunctional, chaotic, stressful conditions that are happening in districts where schools have been closed. That needs to be accounted for by this government.

I have a vision, as does the Minister of Community Development. The minister said: "The athletes village is just the beginning of that vision." The minister's vision also encompassed "employing over 1,500 workers every single day with family-supporting jobs." Not quite the same as: "I had a dream."

I also have a vision, a vision similar to the minister's. My vision is that we must drive towards putting the 20,000-plus forest workers in this province back to work. We have to strive to ensure that we have a sustainable forest industry, not just a round table. My vision, as I look forward to Port Clements, which recently, with the Western Forest Products shutdowns, lost 100 jobs in its community, affecting 50 households…. It's devastated the community.

The mayor, who had a management position with Western Forest Products, may have to leave his job as mayor. He is one that deserves answers on Olympic spending and this government's priorities.

The Finance Minister talked about the Auditor General's comments. "The other thing that the member for Surrey-Whalley talked about was a guarantee." He wanted to clarify the Auditor General's financial costs
[ Page 13520 ]
that may result from the Olympic and Paralympic Games. What he said was: "What the province of British Columbia has agreed to is to guarantee that the IOC would not have to take responsibility for any costs. But that doesn't mean the province automatically picks up all those costs."

Now, I'm not too sure about British Columbians, but who should they believe? Should they believe B.C.'s independent auditor, who I will refer to in a minute, who serves the people of British Columbia and their elected representatives by conducting independent audits and advising how well government is managing its responsibilities and resources? Or should British Columbians believe the minister that follows the whims and directions of his master, the Premier?

Since 2003 this government has dismissed legitimate concerns raised by three consecutive Auditors General. The main points of disagreement between the government and the Auditor General have been with respect to the definition of what is considered an Olympic cost and to what extent the province is responsible, too, for any additional Olympic costs incurred by other parties.

All three Auditors General have claimed that the province is not including other Olympic costs to taxpayers in the $600 million figure, including municipality costs, medical costs, Sea to Sky, the convention centre. The first two reports also agree that the province has additional risk because it is sole guarantor of the games.

The Minister of Finance got up, thought it was important to clarify things about the Auditor General. I'd like to comment on the 2006 Auditor General report. That was in September.

[0255]

The Auditor General back then said: "Our review of VANOC's venue capital cost estimates, however, indicates there are risks that may result in additional costs to the province." These potential additional costs are set out and explained in his report. "Going forward, we feel there are some key points the province should consider further": ensuring effective management and oversight, ensuring effective marketing and hedging, enhancing accountability and transparency, and considering possible unfunded games costs.

Those costs — that are not included in the $600 million — would include the VANOC secretariat, at $41 million; cultural legacies, at $20 million; the Callaghan Valley Road, at $20 million; the B.C.-Canada house, $6 million; the pavilion in Beijing, $11 million; the paralympic centre in Kimberley, $4 million; Own the Podium 2010, $10 million; social legacies, $10 million; Canada line stop at athletes village, $8 million; Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, at least $833.2 million; Sea to Sky Highway upgrade, $790 million.

We're looking at billions of dollars as far as costs that are not included that the Auditor General thought would be appropriate to include. He also continued to say:

"There are a number of legal routes through which, in our opinion, responsibility for games costs could be shifted to the province. The province has guaranteed to the IOC that it will cover any financial shortfall of VANOC. This cost would arise if VANOC is not successful in meeting its revenue or expense targets or does not build in sufficient contingencies to cover items it cannot control, such as inflation, exchange rates, the state of the economy," etc.

Now, we also have the December 2008 letter from the Auditor General, John Doyle. He says — and I'd like to quote this:

"Specifically, I share my predecessor's view that the full cost of staging the games should include a number of items that are not included in the official budget. In addition, I share my predecessors' concern that the risks associated with some costs and revenues have not been adequately disclosed. Should these risks come to pass, the cost of staging the games could escalate considerably."

"I'm not issuing a full report. I do not consider it necessary to detail yet again ground that has already been covered. But I have one recommendation that expands its definition of games-related costs to include all items that are reasonably attributable to hosting the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games, and report publicly on these costs and the risks associated with them."

This whole process in front of us today and the bill before us — Bill 47 — falls right on the lap of the Premier. His secrecy, his lack of accountability, his personal push for his pet projects have put us in this position. He must come clean on all the Olympic costs.

Openness is a better policy than secrecy. Now's the time for Mr. Clean to show his books to British Columbians and break the news of how much the games are actually going to cost all of us.

In conclusion, I'd like to just end with a quote from three years ago. This is Vaughn Palmer, The Vancouver Sun, February 2006. This is a quote:

"The Liberals bought the whole package: games, venues, highway, convention centre, transit line, all of it.

"For those keeping a running tab, the convention centre expansion is already 24 percent over the original budget, the transit line is 27 percent higher, and the venues have jumped 23 percent.

"With opening day still four years away, does anyone think we've heard the last of this? And the bronze medal for gullibility goes to…."

That's where it ends.

So, I value the opportunity to discuss Bill 47. I hope this drives this government to be accountable, to open up the books and to put out the true cost of all Olympic venues and the costs.

[0300]

D. Routley: We're here today — actually, this morning…. It's 3 a.m. Sunday morning, but on Hansard I suppose it's still Saturday afternoon, given the fact that the government wanted to ram through this bill in one day. That one day will stretch into Sunday, 3 a.m. now. I hope people are still up watching.

We're here to discuss Bill 47, the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, which might be more accurately described as the "cover the Olympic overrun act (No. 1)" or "save the Premier's flagging Olympic credibility act."
[ Page 13521 ]

The stated justification of the act is in order to save the taxpayers of Vancouver money that they would otherwise pay through usury interest rates to Fortress, the hedge fund which financed the Olympic village in the first place. Other justifications were given by the House Leader on introduction of the bill and by the minister.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

We were reminded of the workers, lest we forget those thousand-plus workers who would be put out of work if we didn't approve this bill. It's funny that there wasn't an emergency debate over the time that we lost the 20,000 forest workers in this province or even this past week, when we lost mill after mill on Vancouver Island. But here we are in an unusual weekend sitting with urgency. What about the fall sitting? That would have been an opportunity to discuss Olympic costs and the financing structures that were in place.

When did the Premier know about this? That's a question that I'm asked all the time by my constituents — on the street, in the coffee shops, by those who come into my office seeking help for the troubles they're having. When did he know? When will the Premier take his place in this debate and explain this to us? I'd like to know what he's afraid of.

Former Leader of the Opposition Dave Barrett cried out, "Not a dime without debate," and now, through this bill, we find out that in fact, this province is potentially on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in overruns. In fact, the original cost of the Vancouver Olympic village was pegged at $750 million. The whole reason we're here is that Fortress saw a $125 million overrun, and now it's pegged at $875 million.

This is hard to accept when we heard the Premier just a few days ago, on January 16, saying on CKNW: "(1) There are not cost overruns on the Olympic village."

I wonder why Fortress decided to pull their financing. It seems an unusual thing for a Premier to do in the face of that much information. "What there is," he said, "is there are some challenges in terms of one of the opportunities to finance it. There are not cost overruns. It's going to be a great, sustainable neighbourhood in the city of Vancouver."

The Premier later called back to clarify his remarks. "Sorry. What I was saying was there were no cost overruns for the Olympics." Yeah, that's it. I think that's what he meant. "Sorry if that came out the wrong way. I apologize for that, but you know, the Olympics is in on budget, and I think they've done a very good job. They've contributed, I think, almost $30 million to the Olympic village. I'm not fully cognizant of all the details of what's going on at the Olympic village, but there have been no cost overruns for the Olympics."

It's hard to believe that the Premier, responsible ultimately for the Olympics, that put this province on the hook for any overruns from the Olympics could make such a comment. So here we are writing a blank cheque to save the Premier's flagging credibility. We're asked to suspend the rules to save another bungled triple-P.

The Premier reacts quickly to erase headlines that threaten his pet projects while he dawdles and does nothing elsewhere. After the removal of lands from TFL 46, the CRD asked for simple adjustments to allow it to control the development of those lands, and this government did nothing. There was no response. This was a similar request to Bill 47. It was a request in order to manage its affairs to see a change in legislation, and it wasn't granted. But in this case, we see fit to have emergency debate.

[0305]

We want the Premier to come clean about these issues. Bill 47 fails to do that. In its simplicity, it whitewashes over all of these issues. We've seen debate stifled. We've had six days of debate since May, including this Saturday-Sunday debate.

This government can't see that people are beginning to laugh at them. They don't see that the people are crying over their own losses. They don't hear that, and it's not reflected in Bill 47, because arrogance clouds their vision. They believe that pet projects like this project and others in the Lower Mainland related to the Olympics, like the convention centre are pet projects, bumper sticker sloganism.

They've promised transparency, and yet what we see are overruns and secrecy. It was only through the revealed secret information that the people of Vancouver found out about the original $100 million loan, and all of this information was available to the Premier. There were at least nine meetings of VANOC which brought forward the possibility of a default, and yet no action was taken.

So here we find ourselves debating Bill 47 through the night Saturday and Sunday, when so much opportunity was wasted. So much time was wasted, when this problem could have been dealt with. And at $87,000 per day, over a million dollars has gone through the cash register of the Vancouver city coffers, since the Premier admits that he knew of these problems.

My constituents ask: how much? They ask: "How much are we in for with these Olympics?" They ask when the Premier will come clean with the numbers. Bill 47 fails to do that. A debate over the weekend fails to offer us the question period opportunities to ask those questions and have them answered, if indeed any questions were answered in question period.

Again we see debate stifled by members who stand up and try to restrict the opposition's ability to debate this bill and the Olympic overruns. I invite any of the members opposite to stand up and join the debate. If they want to defend the position of the Finance Minister, spoken here and spoken everywhere in this province
[ Page 13522 ]
over previous months, that the Olympics are going to cost $600 million, in the face of a hail of statements from the Auditor General to the contrary, I'd invite them to stand up and do that.

They've promised accountability, and yet our constituents see bulkheads placed between them and the accountability of their government — a lack of accountability versus the accountability measures that Bill 47 removes from the people of Vancouver. It becomes necessary to dispense of these because of the failure of the financing arrangement for the Olympic village, and the failure is directly related to the overrun.

The province, as the Auditor General has pointed out, is ultimately responsible. Again, my constituents — who struggle with issues of forest workers having lost jobs, of poverty, of education services they can't get — ask: how much? Bill 47 doesn't give them any answer, nor does a government that refuses to stand and join the debate.

This is all made necessary by the bungling of the party across the aisle, which has instituted financing arrangements that are failing, that do not provide an accountable measure of the true costs of the Olympics that can be measured by the constituents we represent. Bill 47 fails again to give them the answers they need.

An Hon. Member: Why are you going to vote for it, then?

D. Routley: We're asked why we would vote for it. Because this government has put us in a box, along with this financing deal, with only one way out to save the taxpayers of Vancouver exorbitant usury interest rates. Surely it would be better….

[0310]

Interjection.

D. Routley: The member across the way says that it's the current mayor. Clearly, it was the former mayor, Sam Sullivan, and the NPA-dominated council, the farm team of the Liberal Party. They made it necessary for us to stand here and dispense with those rights of scrutiny of the people of Vancouver as the only option to save so many tens of thousands of dollars per day in interest payments.

It's so unfortunate that Bill 47 or some other legislative construct couldn't have been brought forward months ago, when the Premier first learned of the possible default or, indeed, even a few weeks ago, when it first became clear that the default was possible, that Fortress was pulling their financing and that we would be asked to come back to this House to debate just such legislation.

The right of the public to a referendum on this issue is necessarily being removed because when this government first heard the words "anticipatory default," they failed to act. This bill is directly a result of that failure to act. They failed to act because they didn't want to risk the fact that the bungled project might be rejected in a referendum and that our own responsibility as a province might be engaged and that the broader responsibility of the taxpayers of the whole province would be revealed.

They failed to take the earliest opportunity to come back to the House when they knew they would be asked by Vancouver city council and even the opposition to do so. That cost the taxpayers of Vancouver over a million dollars — that failure to come back prudently when they knew what was happening and to come back during the week when we could have a schedule which would include question periods that could hold this government accountable for these overruns. That was a failure.

Interjections.

D. Routley: Yet, even in this setting — in an emergency debate that runs through Saturday night and into this morning, now 3:12 in the morning — they still heckle and stand and try to stifle debate. This is unfortunate for the people of B.C., and this is what they have for a responsible government.

They ask me on the streets of my community: "When did this Premier know?" They ask me, "How much are we in for?" and I can't answer them, except to quote the Auditor General.

Hon. K. Falcon: Name two people that asked you that.

Deputy Speaker: Members, will you please allow the speaker to have the floor.

Continue, please.

D. Routley: They ask me when they will hear from their Premier on this issue. They ask me when he will stand in this Legislature and state clearly to them what the true costs of the Olympics are, rather than ignoring that hail of statements from three successive Auditors General which clearly tell him and the whole province that his figures are grotesquely wrong. My constituents want me to ask: "How much?" But there are no answers coming back.

They won't tolerate debate. They won't succumb to scrutiny. Just think of the fall session — a few days. A calendar that they set in stone and that they cracked.

The triple-Ps, the public-private partnerships, were supposed to disperse risk from the public. Now, through Bill 47 and through the statements of the Auditor General, we see that they have done exactly the opposite. They have concentrated the risk in the hands of the public without the possibility for the public to engage in a debate through their opposition members or through their city council and know exactly how much money they're committing to.
[ Page 13523 ]

That is an absolute failure. The former Finance Minister, in her comments around the RAV line, another project made necessary by the Olympics but not included in any costing, said that perhaps it was not the best model. She said that there was very little control for the funder, questioning public-private partnerships as an adequate model for these large projects.

[0315]

Yet this government doesn't listen because they're so deeply committed to the fallacy that the Olympics will cost this ridiculous figure, $600 million, when everyone — three successive Auditors General, numerous accountants throughout this country and columnists who have studied the books of the Olympics — tells them it's absolutely not true.

We are here debating Bill 47 because there has been too much secrecy around these deals. There has been too much secrecy veiling the true proportion of the liability to the people of Vancouver and to the people of British Columbia. The original announcement of the overrun and the $100 million loan that the people of Vancouver didn't know about was greeted with absolute shock, and people in rural B.C. who have felt abandoned through the failure to act to save their forest industry, the failure to respond to so many issues, including the educational small school closures, are innumerable.

It's a long list, and I'm sure I'd be ruled out of order for reading through it. But they know that that original $100 million surprise was just a peek under the sheets. We're here because this government refuses to listen, and the results of their not listening have invariably been tragic. They have ignored warnings about these financing arrangements — everything from these financing arrangements to deregulating the forest industry. One cost hundreds of millions of dollars potentially; the other cost dozens of lives.

This is the result a government achieves when they fail to listen to warnings, prudent warnings. They fail to act in the public interest. We're here on Saturday night, Sunday morning now — 3:17. We're here because of two weeks of inaction since it became obvious the city would make this request.

We're told they needed time to draft a bill. Well, they had the time, and $1 million later their urgency to avoid scrutiny brings us here. The Premier says he only became aware of the default a few weeks ago. My constituents doubt that. There is a great deal of cynicism in this province about this Premier and about this government and about these commitments around the Olympics, and it's so unfortunate that something that should have been so positive has diminished to something that has become so negative and has created such a degree of cynicism amongst people who are struggling.

New Democrat MLAs have been in this chamber all day and all night long, starting at noon Saturday and going to Sunday morning, demanding answers to the questions that British Columbians have about the cost overruns. We're trying to get anyone on the government side to be accountable and come clean about the true costs, but this arrogant government refuses to answer a single question.

What contempt for the taxpayers of B.C. That is clearly the case — a case of contempt for the taxpayer. It is clearly untrue that the Premier didn't know until just a few weeks ago, when in at least nine VANOC meetings the prospect of anticipatory default was brought forward. Clearly, the Premier knew or at least should have known.

Even in the light of this crisis, our Premier continues to quote Gabriel Yiu, in an outright counterfactual insult to the wisdom of British Columbians, an outright counterfactual insult to the wisdom of the people I represent and those members represent, who stand in our offices with their struggles and ask us: "How much? How much is being spent on the Olympics?"

Yet Bill 47 and none of the previous sessions and none of the statements by the ministers and certainly no one standing in debate from the government side have provided us those answers. We ask again: how much? What are the numbers?

[0320]

Very slim, this bill. Very slim. No numbers, even on the degree of borrowing power. It's a blank cheque. But this is a government that's used to getting its own way, and when people get their own way and feel unchallenged and feel entitled, they become arrogant.

Despite all of that, the Premier and the Minister Responsible for the Olympics, the Finance Minister, continue to insist that everything's okay and that the games are on budget. They defy this hail of statements from our Auditors General — three in a row — who have told them they're wrong. They know better. They insist the total will be $600 million or less. B.C. asks: how can this be?

It's not surprising that they defy the Auditors General when you consider how they responded to the Auditor General's report on the removal of the lands from TFL 46 — with an outright attack on the Auditor General. So why should we expect them to respect the opinions of the Auditors General when it comes to the costs of the Olympics or the security of the financing arrangements?

Because of secrecy and because we haven't been told the truth, we find ourselves here debating Bill 47. Fortress pulled out because of a $125 million overrun, yet even tonight/this morning the members on the other side defy that and continue to claim that the project is on budget. This is Orwellian.

If the people feel that they cannot believe the most basic things they're being told by their government, this is the breeding ground of the kinds of cynicism that becomes the worst toxin in our civil society. If people
[ Page 13524 ]
don't believe their responsible government is telling them the truth, there's something very wrong, and there's something very wrong in B.C. right now. There's something very wrong.

They ask: when did their Premier know? And their Premier won't join the debate to explain himself. This is a situation that the province faces at a time of economic crisis, that imperils us to the tune of billions, yet the Premier won't join the debate. In fact, he and his government stifled the debate by calling us here on the weekend. They stifled the debate through the narrowness of this bill, which fails to address their real concerns.

We asked the Premier and the B.C. Liberal government to come clean. My constituents asked: "How much? What are the numbers? How much are we on the hook for?" No one's answering — silence — because you know what? I would wager that they don't know. And if they do know, they're certainly afraid to tell us, with an election only 114 days away.

Their triple-Ps, public-private partnerships, and their off-balance-sheet accounting are Enron-reminiscent. This is why our financing system has failed — because of secrecy, because of a manipulation of what should be a credible structure. But they have brought discredit to it by not sharing information with the people, by failing to fully disclose the liability the people face.

This bill only compounds that, because this bill only serves a single purpose: to erase one headline. Members on the government side, the people you represent expect more of you. They expect more of their responsible government, and they will answer you for that in 114 days.

[0325]

Look at the track record — the convention centre, half a billion dollars over budget. And then we see this, Bill 47, essentially confirming that the athletes village is $125 million over budget. Yet we still have these ridiculous claims — on time and on budget. Yeah. No one believes you. I can't imagine how you believe yourselves.

Mr. Dobell, the overseer of so many of these projects, the Premier's buddy. His record of billion-dollar overruns and cover-ups while the province struggles with poverty and job loss. Bill 47 doesn't bring him to account, doesn't bring the Premier to account, doesn't explain a thing to the people we represent.

Think of the Montreal Olympics — 30 years to pay off that debt and a permanent stain on the memory of those Olympics. In fact, it's made them a joke, hasn't it? Something that people are proud of was made a joke by exactly this kind of covering up of overruns. If that government were responsible, they would stand in front of the people and tell us truly the cost and let us grapple with that reality along with them and do the best we can with it. But they're afraid to be honest with the people about the true costs.

Will the legacy of the 2010 Olympics be another credit card ad? Vancouver, 20 years after the Olympics, with B.C. still writing cheques to pay the debt? Will that be what the ad sounds like? Or will it be something that we can be proud of, that we shared in the burden of, knowing what that burden was?

It appears that the former is true — that in fact it will read more like the credit card ad. "B.C. — 20 years after the Olympics and still paying." That's why our constituents, mine and yours, ask us again and again and again: "What are the costs? How much? Somebody tell us. Didn't we elect a government that's responsible to us? Can't we ask them the question of how much, or are they not able to tell us? Are they afraid to tell us, or can they not tell us? Either way, how does that represent a responsible government?"

It's all about believability and credibility. If people believe their government, if their government maintains its credibility, it may weather such a storm. But with this unfortunate display of secrecy and hidden figures and secret deals, the people fail to have their questions answered and their call for a responsible government.

When the Leader of the Opposition came to Ladysmith and Cowichan last week to visit seniors, those seniors were losing their homes — Cowichan Lodge and Lodge on 4th, which is in peril. Those seniors built this province, and they ask simple questions. They ask: why did the Premier take his eye off the ball? Why did he not take care of the fundamentals, the education of their grandchildren, their own care? Why did he fail to do that? Why did he take care of his own pet projects at their expense?

The term is Legacies Now, but what about "legacies later"? The legacy later will be debt and lost opportunity. It will be legacies left to us that we have dishonoured through arrogance, through a lack of consideration, through a failure to disclose and through a fear of scrutiny, which pretty much characterizes the B.C. Liberal government.

[0330]

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes speaking on the bill, because I think that we have listened to many, many lengthy, long speeches talking about almost everything but the actual bill that we're here to discuss. I heard the last speaker talking about how he needs questions answered. You see, the NDP are puzzled, as they so easily are, and they need questions answered, and they're concerned that they're not getting the questions answered. So I thought I would help the members opposite a little bit, because I think that this might help.

You know, it is confusing, I must say, as a member of government, to find ourselves here listening to the NDP filibuster a bill that they are going to actually be voting for. It's rather a remarkable situation. I mean here we have a situation where the Leader of the Opposition writes a letter. She says that it's urgent. It must get done.
[ Page 13525 ]
We must act on this quickly — all the urgency in the world. The Premier does that. The government responds to that. We come in here to deal with it, and what do the NDP do? They're going to filibuster it, and then they'll vote for it at the end. It's a strange thing, but nevertheless, that's the way they want to do it.

So what I'd like to remind the members of is a few things. First of all, they talk about the Olympics being over budget, and they go on. This is their new favourite line, you see. They have to try and find a way. They're not happy unless they've got bad news, so they're trying to find a way. What do we have?

We've got a $600 million venue budget. This is an Olympics where, for the first time in as long as anyone can remember, all of the venues are completed on schedule, on budget, a year ahead of the actual Olympics.

Then what do the NDP do? They say "Well, though, you forgot about the Auditor General, because the Auditor General said that the Sea to Sky should be included as an Olympic expense." Okay, I'll tell you what. Let's include it as an Olympic expense. I'm happy to call it an Olympic expense, because you know what? If the NDP, in their fevered imaginations, believe that the whole Sea to Sky Highway was built for a two-week event, that's okay, even though we announced it before the actual announcement of British Columbia getting the Sea to Sky games. I'm actually okay with that.

Let's call the Sea to Sky an Olympic project. But you know what? It's a $600 million project that's being delivered ahead of schedule and on budget, and if they want to call it Olympic, go ahead.

Then there's the other one the Auditor General referred to: the Canada line. Okay, we have an honest disagreement. The Auditor General says we should count the Canada line as an Olympic cost. Okay. Well, that's a fascinating suggestion. The fact is that not a single athlete will be using the Canada line. The Olympic station won't even be open for the athletes. But I'll give it to the NDP again. Let's call it an Olympic cost. I'm happy to say that. So we'll call it an Olympic cost. But once again, it's a project being delivered ahead of schedule and on budget. I'm quite happy to have it called Olympic. But you know, I don't know why we stop there.

Why don't we call the Kicking Horse Canyon an Olympic? There will be visitors coming across the Kicking Horse from the rest of Canada. I guarantee you that a bunch of them will be coming to the Olympics. Let's call the Kicking Horse an Olympic. Why not? Let's call it an Olympic project. And what about the William Bennett Bridge?

By the way, the Kicking Horse Canyon, you might remind yourselves — a P3 — was delivered 18 months ahead of schedule and under budget. The NDP won't talk about that. Oh, gosh, no. They can't talk about that, because, see, that's a success. In the NDP world we can only talk about bad things, and if there are no bad things, we've got to invent them — the fevered imaginations of the socialists at work again, trying to find the failure where none exists.

But let's also call the William Bennett Bridge. Why not call that an Olympic expense? I move we call the William Bennett Bridge an Olympic expense. Why not? There will be people coming over the William Bennett Bridge to the Olympics. And by God, it was built 108 days ahead of schedule and on budget — another very successful P3.

So what do the NDP do? They say: "Well, now we have a project in Vancouver." It's not a provincial government project. It's a city of Vancouver project. In fact, it has very little to do with the Olympics. It's actually a massive real estate development that Vancouver's been planning for a long time.

[0335]

You know, they keep talking about the NPA council. What about Larry Campbell's Vision council? Their fingerprints are all over this. Where is the NDP talking about that? I am kind of confused. They have selective memory about these.

So now they talk about that project, and you know what they say? They start talking about it as a P3 project. You know, I got news for the NDP. That's actually the antithesis of a P3 project — a project where the city assumes the schedule risk, assumes the construction risk, assumes the market risk. That's actually not a P3, NDP. Sorry, a P3 is where you transfer those risks, and might I give you a number of P3 examples? Because, again…. And I want this on the record because the NDP keep talking about the failure of P3s.

So Mr. Speaker, let me just make it clear — 20 projects representing $10 billion of value that have been undertaken as P3s, characterized by two things: every single one of them delivered either on or ahead of schedule, or on or under budget. That is the record of P3s in British Columbia. So I felt it was important…. The members opposite were talking about how they needed these answers. Well, they just got their answers: 20 projects, $10 billion of capital, every single one of those P3 projects on schedule, on budget.

They talk about a project that isn't even the province's project. It's the city's project. The city enters into a deal that a lot of people would say: "What the heck kind of deal was that?" No question about it. And there's lots of finger-pointing you can do on councils and previous councils, but the issue here now is that they have come to the province, and they've asked for help and for support to help them deal with what is without question a very difficult deal that they've entered into. It doesn't make a lot of sense to a lot of people.

The province and the Premier are responding to that, and we thought that the opposition was going to respond to that. At least that's what it sounded like when the Leader of the Opposition's letter was read into
[ Page 13526 ]
Hansard. She talked about urgency. She talked about getting this done quickly, and that's exactly what we're doing, and yet I have sat here, as have so many members of this House, and listened to hours and hours of absolute drivel that is not even referencing this one-page bill that we are actually here to discuss.

So I appreciate the forbearance of the Speaker to allow myself the opportunity to just put at least a few minutes of actual facts on the table, and I would hope that the members opposite might find it in themselves to stop filibustering a bill that they are actually going to be supporting.

R. Fleming: I appreciate the opportunity to follow on the government's, I think, third speaker in this entire debate. I appreciate the Minister of Transportation inventing a straw dog and putting on the record once again this government's interest in attacking the Auditor General. He threw all kinds of projects in there that the Auditor General has never included in his reports. I should say three Auditors General, in their disagreement with this government about how it fails to disclose systematically to B.C. taxpayers the true and total cost of the Olympics….

I would have liked to have heard some answers. Instead of talking about the Kicking Horse Pass, I would have liked to hear that member address the Auditor General's longstanding disagreement with this government about, for example, the $170 million of, according to this government, unrelated Olympic costs that include things like the $47 million for the Winter Games Secretariat. That's not included or disclosed as an Olympic cost. The Auditor General says it should be, and I think common sense would suggest that. It's in the name, for heaven's sake, of that organization. Or the $21 million that this government has spent on pavilions in Turin and Beijing.

Those aren't considered Olympic Games costs, and the minister didn't care to comment on that, nor the $15 million from the Crown corporations that are flowing money into the revenue of these games — $15 million from B.C. Hydro, $15 million from B.C. Lotteries Corp., $6 million from ICBC. So there's $170 million worth of costs and incidentals like that that the Minister of Transportation didn't bother to address. He invented a straw dog, and he brought in all kinds of projects in his very brief remarks….

[0340]

B. Ralston: Very focused on the bill, though.

R. Fleming: It's true. He did focus very strictly on Bill 47 and was instructive to all members on that matter.

So let me begin my remarks on Bill 47 and join my colleagues, at least on this side of the House, in providing some scrutiny in speaking to a bill that has given this Legislature a very rare and unique opportunity, indeed, to provide oversight on infrastructure cost overruns related to the Olympic Games.

Bill 47, in disclosing the difficulties that the city of Vancouver faces with financing their shared Olympic commitments, is shedding light on B.C. Liberal overspending and hidden deals on a whole host of other projects the province is bound up with. I think we owe a debt of gratitude and thanks to the new mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson, and his council, for taking a very different approach in this regard from his NPA predecessors and the B.C. Liberals.

Vancouver is now facing up to and disclosing to their taxpayers the full details of a troubled project that involves significant public funds. With the passage of this bill, the hard work, in fact, for the city of Vancouver will move to another phase, a phase where they will have to manage the incredible risks that still lie ahead for the Olympic village project.

Now, that is a very, very different approach from the one that this government has taken on disclosing the complex agreements and the hidden commitments of all kinds that they have made in other Olympic-related projects.

Under new leadership the city of Vancouver has very clearly said to their taxpayers that they will provide full and open disclosure about the obligations and about the difficulties that the city faces. Within days, in fact, of forming a new administration, the mayor and council provided information to the public about the Olympic village project for the first time. Information about Millennium Development, information about the financier Fortress Investment has been available on the website and to the public, to the citizens of Vancouver, for a matter of days now.

The previous government kept these matters hidden. They met in camera. They failed to disclose. They told inquiring taxpayers to mind their own business, and that was the attitude that that NPA government took.

Does it sound familiar? It's the attitude we hear from this government. It was a refreshing approach, and it's in stark contrast to this government. Vancouver, at least, is living up to the principles of open and accountable government. They're not just promising it, but they're delivering it.

It's 2009, and British Columbians have been waiting since about 2002 for this government to come clean about projects they committed provincial taxpayers to, and they're growing tired of it. So tired, in fact, that maybe instead of waiting until long after the 2010 games have come and gone and have been paid for, instead of waiting to find out what the true cost to taxpayers are provincially for the winter games, maybe voters will just wait until May 12 of this year to send a message in that regard.

The Olympic village is illustrative of public-private partnerships and those kinds of agreements gone wrong.
[ Page 13527 ]
This is a government that believes in P3 procurement as a matter of ideological faith. I think the important question behind Bill 47 is: how do agreements that promise something for free, which is what the Olympic village was, become a source of tremendous risk and cost overrun to taxpayers?

The dynamic at the Olympic village project is not just in play in Vancouver; it is in play in B.C. Liberal infrastructure and venue agreement projects across British Columbia. A big part of the answer to the question of how this deal went wrong rests with this government's ongoing, totally noncredible charade that the total cost of the 2010 Winter Games is $600 million. Now, very, very few people buy into this charade — fewer and fewer every day. Perhaps not even a majority of government members believe it any more, from the looks on some of their faces.

Certainly, British Columbians don't believe it. The Auditor General has never believed it. Three of them have not. In fact, the last three have suggested that the true cost of hosting the Olympics is somewhere north of $2.5 billion, and that was before we gathered here on this weekend to discuss the Olympic village debacle that has been exposed.

[0345]

The fact that nobody believes this charade seems to have absolutely no effect on the Premier. He won't listen at the best of times, but he is so heavily invested in this myth — the $600 million charade — that he can't change now. The chance of him doing that before an election: never.

Now, it's interesting, because I mentioned that fewer and fewer people subscribe to and buy the Liberals' $600 million charade on the Olympics. Maybe that's why this very week a former leading member of the B.C. Liberals — one very familiar to those members there, who sat on those benches — has had the following insights about this government's lack of forthrightness with taxpayers: "I think there comes a time in politics when you have to come clean and say, 'Hey, listen, I know no one believes me now,' and you have to be highly attuned to when people actually start laughing at you." Who said that, Mr. Speaker? That was Christy Clark this week, speaking to exactly this issue.

What the government's $600 million Olympic charade made imperative was to take major cost commitments and items in the VANOC bid book and make them disappear. That's how we got to this Olympic village mess. So the athletes village, which is essential to staging the games and housing a great number of the estimated 7,000 Olympic athletes who will be here in a year's time, became a small, tiny grant line item instead of an integral and realistically costed, properly risk-managed venue.

"The condos and the waterfront development will pay for themselves," went the logic. "They'll maybe even make a profit," was the suggestion by the Premier, and the idea was that what goes up 20 percent a year in real estate can never come down. That's how the Olympic village became "free."

Where's that free venue now? It's here in front of us in the form of Bill 47. It's a risk pegged by city officials at $875 million, and it could go much higher — perhaps as much as $1.2 billion for a 1,100-unit housing and commercial development. We know it could go much higher, because Bill 47 places no cap or ceiling on what the city may have to borrow or mortgage to get hold of a project that is dying in the jaws of a failing developer and a hedge fund financier — a financier which, thanks to the previous NPA councillors, September 2007, is charging a triple-A credit-rated city interest rates not dissimilar to a credit card.

The important part to acknowledge in Bill 47 is that, indeed, the city is between a rock and a hard place, and legislators on both sides will no doubt weigh that when they cast their votes on this bill. The city is obligated to meet the deadlines imposed upon them by the 2010 Olympics. The new mayor and council are not running from their responsibilities, but they're throwing their energy into trying to rescue what they can from a very bad situation. I think we have to appreciate that that is indeed the situation.

The very definition of a bad situation is illustrated in many of the factors of the Olympic village agreement. A bad situation is when you have to pour more money into what may be the most expensive per-square-foot development in B.C. history — $800 a square foot for this project now. A bad situation is when you are obligated by Olympic time lines to slog on and keep to deadlines to finish a project when the value of the asset this time next year may be worth 25 percent less than it is today. That is what the real estate forecasts suggest.

But the hand that's been dealt to this new council means that they're going to have to decide on a strategy that reduces their considerable exposure to the greatest degree that they can. Now perhaps it's going to be a long-term buy-and-hold strategy. Perhaps that's their best option, but at 11 percent interest from Fortress Investment, that's simply not plausible. Something will have to give. You cannot pursue a buy-and-hold strategy at credit card interest rates like that.

[0350]

Let's put this in context. If this were simply about a city redeveloping a brownfield site without an Olympic venue time line imposed upon it, the city would have an array of options at its disposal to limit its exposure. It could take a lower-risk, more patient approach to the development. It could respond differently if the developer that they partnered with got into trouble, which this one has. If the city were not bound by time lines, it would possess much greater negotiating strength.

Now if the troubles that the Olympic village finds itself in sound familiar, that's because it's similar in its
[ Page 13528 ]
dynamic to this government's trade and convention centre expansion project. That project was also a prisoner of Olympic time lines, and like the Olympic village, the convention centre was found by the Auditor General to be a project rife with mismanagement, poor cost containment, no risk mitigation and failure to properly disclose escalating costs.

Remember, the convention centre went to Treasury Board six times on its way to doubling the original budget of $450 million to $900 million, where it stands today. The Auditor also found improper governance, as well, and there are elements to suggest that that is a factor in the Olympic village fiasco.

Actually, though, a better comparison of the shocking cost revelations of the Olympic village is another, more recently announced provincial project. I'm speaking of the B.C. Place upgrade.

In the VANOC bid book, B.C. Place is budgeted for a $2.5 million upgrade. Last week that figure grew to $365 million. Now there's not going to be any Bill 47-style debate about $365 million of provincial tax dollars that were announced respectfully to the B.C. taxpayers in a PavCo press release issued on a Friday before the weekend. That was the government's way of disclosing and breaking the news about $365 million of unanticipated expenses, much of which are related to hosting the Olympics.

The B.C. Place upgrade is important to Bill 47 for this reason. It shares exactly the same business model as the Olympic village. It was a project that was again supposed to be free. The major difference today is that the city of Vancouver…. As I mentioned, the difference between the behaviour of the province and the city of Vancouver is that the city is actually coming clean with their taxpayers, and they're saying: "Guess what. It's not going to be free any more. There are real costs, and there are real risks to the city."

Every time costs go up on provincial projects, the Premier and the Finance cling even harder to the idea that the budget is $600 million in its entirety for staging the games. That risks eroding public confidence in the games themselves. When the B.C. Liberals say over and over again that $175 million is enough for security for the games, when everybody knows how laughable that is…. And in my definition of "everybody," I include police chiefs, security experts and senior federal defence personnel.

They've suggested time and time again for years now that a more realistic security budget will be between $400 million and even as high as $1 billion. This government has not disclosed or updated that figure in years. Do you think they will before the May election? Not a chance.

What's really disturbing about this government's not-so-subtle attacks on the Auditor General is that the Auditor has made it clear time and time again — he has said clearly to government — that he needs more information. He needs more disclosure to him to be able to adequately investigate spending and report to the taxpayers. He's been frustrated in his activities to do his job as an independent officer and report to the people of British Columbia.

Now I'm going to set aside the $600 million charade of the government's Olympic budget for a moment. Let's consider this. Since late September 2008 to December, the global financial crisis saw the elimination of $47 trillion of wealth. We've seen the collapse of commodity markets, we've seen massive bailouts of financial institutions in most industrialized countries, and we've seen real estate devaluations, mortgage foreclosures and insolvencies not seen in decades — and maybe not since prior to the Second World War.

[0355]

Yet after all that has gone on in the world, according to the government's press release: "The B.C. Place upgrades will still be paid by the sale or lease of lands around B.C. Place. Approximately 1.4 million square feet of residential and commercial space will raise revenues in excess of $100 million." This is from a press release released last week by the government.

In other words, they are suggesting that the business model that has failed for the Olympic village is still valid and will be pursued to make the B.C. Place upgrades free to taxpayers. In other words, everything's fine. The B.C. Liberals are saying that condos will still pay for everything. They're bullish on real estate even as Vancouver's housing developers slash prices and try and reduce inventory and as economists talk about steep housing price cuts.

Bill 47, requested by the city of Vancouver, is at least honest in the face of facts. I wish we could say the same thing about this government. You know, it's not every Saturday that we're in here potentially approving billions of dollars of new debt for taxpayers. I know government members have expressed anger that opposition members have sought fulsome debate on this bill.

They keep saying that it's a one-page bill. It's a one-page bill, yes, that took the Attorney General five days to write, so that either says something about the Attorney General or the complexity of the bill. It's a one-page bill that has implications for billions of dollars, and this government wants to treat it lightly.

When they get into trouble like on B.C. Place upgrades to the tune of $365 million, they put it out in a press release on a Friday and hope nobody will notice. When they get into a disagreement with the Auditor General, they let it run for years. They pick a fight with the province's top accountant, the independent accountant that works for the people of B.C. through this Legislature.

I'm actually surprised that the Minister of Community Development took a mere four minutes to introduce the bill, considering the valuation of this legislation. He
[ Page 13529 ]
took no instruction from the Vancouver experience to talk about his own government's situation and risk on a number of projects. He made no remarks, and he made no reservations of the open-ended borrowing and indebtedness that could face the city of Vancouver. As a former mayor, I thought he might have done so.

Similarly, the Finance Minister's contribution to this debate was once again to attack the province's top accountant and repeat his arguments against the taxpayers' independent watchdog, the Auditor General of B.C. He also attacked the opposition for even daring to show that there are connections that this government has to the planning, to the support and to the influence that his government has actually had on the Olympic village agreement.

I've heard some heckling over there about various councillors in the city of Vancouver, and it's staggering when you look at the connections between this government, its planning, its directives, its connections through VANOC. One minute they talk about a partnership on the Olympic village. The other minute they point the finger of blame and say: "It has nothing to do with us." So that side, that government, is going to have to get its story straight, because they've introduced this legislation.

I don't think it's lost on anyone — the fact that Ken Dobell and Judy Rogers not only hired each other and worked on this project in the planning and oversight stages, but they regularly reported to this government. So when members have asked questions about who knew what when to that side, particularly the Premier, that's completely pertinent to this debate. It's completely relevant, because we're not out of the glue yet on this project going forward. The Olympic village deal was between the Premier and his old political party, Sam Sullivan.

The Leader of the Opposition said at the outset of this debate that passage of this bill cannot and should not end debate about Olympic costs. From this experience, I think we must leave this chamber with a plan to ensure ongoing oversight and accountability for Olympic spending.

[0400]

Provinces and the Canadian government are asking taxpayers to support stimulus packages. They're asking taxpayers in the upcoming budget to support extraordinary infrastructure spending. I don't think you can ask taxpayers for more when you haven't told them what they're going to pay for to date, not if you want to be credible about it, and that's exactly what this government intends to do in February.

They want to ask the taxpayers to take another leap of faith when they haven't been honest and forthright with them about what they've committed to date, billions of dollars in cost overruns and risk exposures to stage the Olympics. But other pieces of infrastructure…. We can't serve the interests of taxpayers by working in secret. That's the lesson of the Olympic village. Secrecy doesn't make for good agreements. Hiding information, continuing to cling to absurd budgetary charades and basing business plans on speculation and wishful thinking is a recipe for financial disaster.

With that, I thank you and take my place in this debate.

A. Dix: It's really an honour to enter into this debate at four in the morning at the halfway point of the second reading debate to, I think, address issues of real concern to our constituents in Vancouver, in Vancouver-Kingsway, and across British Columbia.

Over the last days and weeks, I've had the occasion to receive many letters from constituents, property taxpayers, taxpayers in the city of Vancouver, who are to their dismay encountering a debt for which they are responsible and which they knew nothing about, a situation that has developed over a period of time, a situation that this government knew or ought to have known about, a situation that their supporters in the city of Vancouver knew about and designed, and those constituents — and the reason I'm up in this debate and the reason I believe they should be accountable in this debate — are sick at the thought that this could happen in their politics and their city. It is a serious situation.

Now, a number of residents of Vancouver have written to me of different political persuasions across the political spectrum, people who see themselves as conservatives, people who see themselves, if they may describe themselves, as even Marxists.

A constituent of mine who was a prominent candidate in a previous election, Charles Boylan, called me yesterday and said that he was opposed to this project from the beginning when they cut social housing in this project. They cut the level of social housing. He was concerned about this project from the beginning, and he wanted me to make sure that his voice was heard.

I received other letters, and I'll just read one, a portion of one, into the record because we've had some letters written today. It's a very moving, personal letter. It's addressed, "Hi," and then it says my first name, my Christian name.

If you're a taxpayer in the city of Vancouver, this was likely not a great week for you. It's not very comforting to know that your city councillors approved a development deal for the 2010 athletes village that could leave everyone in the city on the hook for a bill that might be as big as several hundred million dollars, nor is it very reassuring to know that because of the escalating cost, the city's credit rating is now at risk as the Standard & Poor's has put the city on credit watch.

I've received many comments from the deal's supporters that such a thing just wasn't possible, and now it appears it could be a reality. However, if you don't live in Vancouver and are not destined to become "an owner" at the athletes village, this news still wasn't good. The bungling at city hall meant increased scrutiny on the rest of the bills for 2010, including a security budget that has grown from $175 million to somewhere north of $900 mil-
[ Page 13530 ]
lion. We can only hope that when the government reconvenes the Legislature next week, to deal with Vancouver's request to increase its capacity to borrow big bucks, they will take the opportunity to finally come clean about what the real costs for the Olympics will be.

Thanks for listening,

Christy Clark

The Christy Clark Show

[0405]

Across the political spectrum, people are expressing concern about the situation. People are also expressing concern across the political spectrum, beyond partisanship, about the fact that their Olympic Games, an Olympic Games that should be a source of pride to them, are going to cost way more than the government suggests they are.

What do we have beyond that? The Auditor General…. And it is, I think, interesting to note in this debate on Bill 47, when we've had calls about this very important issue….

Another member from somewhere else in the political spectrum said it pretty clearly in 1974. He said: "Not a dime without debate." Well, this debate is about 4.65 billion dimes. That's what it's about. It is a march of dimes. It is a huge debate, and they are complaining because we are raising issues. They are complaining about the debate. They wanted to limit the debate so that they wouldn't have to face questions in question period.

This should be an occasion where that principle of protecting the interests of taxpayers should be paramount. We should be hearing from members on that side of the House. And what has the focus of the interventions from that side of the House been?

Essentially, much of their attack, much of their comment, has been attacks not even on the opposition but on the Auditor General. How dare he? How dare he suggest that there are issues around Olympic projects? How dare he suggest that we're dramatically underestimating the cost?

Christy Clark, people across the political spectrum, the Auditor General — they all become persona non grata, their voices not counting in the debate, the second they ask a question about the Premier's commitment of $600 million for the Olympics, which seems completely out of touch, completely out of touch, with the reality of the situation.

As a citizen of Vancouver, as a taxpayer of Vancouver, representing citizens of Vancouver and taxpayers of Vancouver, this is not a very happy day. There really is, and this bill indicates it, only one way out.

You know, it was fascinating. We should juxtapose the speeches — the thoughtful, I would say brilliant, speech by the member for Nelson-Creston beside the speech of the Minister of Transportation. What did the Minister of Transportation say? When it's a complete and utter fiasco and failure, my answer: don't call it a P3 anymore. We'll just change the name. Oh, that's not a P3. That's not a P3.

The P3, the project that we're talking about in Bill 47, the P3 that we're talking about that's dealt with in this amendment to section 190.1 of the Vancouver Charter…. That amendment is about that project, and their answer when they fail, when the projects fail, is to say: "Oh well, it looks like a P3, and it walks like a P3, and it talks like a P3. But since it's a failure, we'll call it something else." That's the level of debate.

To summarize the government's message in this debate — because they've had lots of comment about ours…. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation — they don't think much of three successive Auditors General. One wonders if Liberal members were on those committees that selected those people. So they're against their colleagues' selection.

[0410]

Three successive Auditors General have said this isn't the case. What the Premier is saying isn't the case, so we have…. Their contribution to this debate on Bill 47 is to say: "Those Auditors General — they're wrong, and they seem to be bad people." Why? Because they actually have taken a pocket calculator to the Premier's $600 million promise. That's what they said — the Minister of Finance — in this debate on Bill 47, on the clauses that we're dealing with this in debate.

What it makes me think — and I hope this question comes up tomorrow in committee stage — is that maybe the Auditor General is the one who should be playing a role of oversight. This radical suggestion came from someone else who seems to like the Auditor General — Peter Ladner. Peter Ladner is probably someone else not that happy with the Millennium project right now. Probably someone else suggested they play a role.

Perhaps at the committee stage the government will explain why they chose not to have the Auditor General play a role to oversee what's going on in this debate — to ensure that the public has adequate information, to ensure that it's something more than a blank cheque. Maybe they'll think of that at the time.

Let's go down the list. We've got Christy Clark — doesn't know what she's talking about anymore. Three successive Auditors General — they don't know what they're talking about anymore. My constituents — they don't know what they're talking about anymore. That's the list of people.

But what we're seeing in this project, this P3 failure…. Remember the logic of the Minister of Transportation: "If it's a failure, it's no longer a P3." He would get full-time work in Britain. That's what would happen.

The thing is that at this moment here what we're doing…. One of the key elements of the debates around P3s…. Remember, this is at the heart of what the government's all about. They don't recall the pride which all British Columbians felt when the 2008 Champion Award from the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships was awarded to our Premier.
[ Page 13531 ]

He is a champion of this. He is a champion of the very mechanisms that have put my constituents and his constituents on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. This is what he's about.

We were there in 2006, when he spoke just down the street from here to the UBCM. What did he say? He said that all the projects over $20 million — all of them — should be P3s. That's what he said. They should all be like the project we're dealing with here in Bill 47, the P3 which shall not speak its name. That's what he said in 2006.

How long did that brilliant policy last? They can't get the projects off the ground. The 2005 promise on Surrey Memorial Hospital will still be a promise in 2009. Heck, I think he'll recycle it for 2013. Oh, an opposition leader can make any promise he feels like, and he may be making more in 2013. But I think what we're seeing is a closing of the parentheses on this moment in B.C. history.

What's this bill about, fundamentally? What are the clauses of this bill about, fundamentally, as you read through them? It's the reason, with great reluctance, that we have to go down this road, because our constituents are horrified about what happened with the Olympic village. They're asking themselves how a New York hedge fund had so much power and could make so many decisions about our games. They were never given a choice about that, and they're asking these questions.

What is this about? What it's about, fundamentally, is something that's true in the case of every P3. It's not just me that says it.

[0415]

Think of a report by two academics who are not opponents of P3s, who talk about their problems. Think of this when you think of the Premier saying that every project over $20 million should be a P3: the high cost of inducing a private partner to take on risk — check; the high cost of negotiating and/or policing deals when priorities are so different for each partner; a company seeking profits and a government that wants the results without appearing to spend much money; high financing costs, as private partners often pay higher interest rates.

Well, what are we talking about? We know this to be true: financing costs for P3s are higher. What are we debating? What has the Premier…? The Premier — who is some sort of international champion of P3s, who is coming to this House and allowing the city of Vancouver to borrow money to take back this debt because it's too expensive in the private sector — didn't protect them from the risk, didn't protect them from the costs.

My constituents and his constituents — all of our constituents in Vancouver — they're the ones on the hook for this fiasco. They are on the hook for this fiasco that we've seen from the Premier, but this, hopefully, is a closing of the parentheses. The Premier has abandoned the $20 million. They just did it quietly a month or so ago. "We can't do anything with these P3s. We can't get any projects off the ground. There's an election coming up."

So $50 million became the threshold — two and a half times. The Premier's mistakes don't get corrected that way very often, though. No big press release on that. It's like the P3 that failed. It's very much like that. No medals. No runs. No hits. No errors. Well, lots of errors, actually.

We, hon. Speaker, are going to, in the end, support this legislation. We're going to do it because we understand that it's real people and real priorities in Vancouver that matter, that it would be shameful for Vancouver taxpayers' money, which should be going to important services in Vancouver…. It would be shameful for those dollars to go excessively to a New York hedge fund.

But this opening to get out of this debacle — this P3 debacle that Bill 47 attempts to at least partly close, to allow the city of Vancouver to jump through and maybe seek a little bit of relief for taxpayers — was available in the spring session of last year. It was available in the fall session of last year — four days, four long days. That's what we had: four days since May. This is day five, but five is too many. It won't be six because this Saturday will last forever. It's the Saturday that never ends. It never ends.

So why do we say that? Why do we say they should have known or they did know? Why do we say that? And the Minister of Transportation…. He's the Minister of Transportation, and he spoke as if there was an accident in the middle of the street, and he was some sort of witness to that accident. "Oh, gosh, there was trouble in Vancouver. Oh, and I think it's all their fault, really." A minister who usually is quite quick to ascribe blame, it must be said. "It's all their fault." He threw in Larry Campbell's name. "I think he's a Liberal senator who is not a cabinet minister in this House. He's a senator. So it's everybody's fault," he said. "It's Larry Campbell's fault."

Well, the Premier's party — and it is his party — took power in Vancouver. We're talking specifically about this proposal that's dealt with here in this amendment to the Vancouver Charter that will come into force with royal assent whenever that happens in the next few days. This amendment happened on a project that was signed, sealed and delivered by the NPA. And who rebuilt the NPA? It was called the new NPA then — 1986.

Interjection.

A. Dix: A young, fresh populace.

It is about this project. So let's take us through the relationship between provincial officials and this project, just so that we understand. We'll just go through it, because I think it's important to understand that that's
[ Page 13532 ]
about accountability. It's the project specifically dealt with in this very specific piece of legislation. It actually occurs within the development area dealt with in section 1. That's where the project occurs.

[0420]

January 2006. VANOC seeks additional funding from the B.C. and federal governments. What happens? They required due-diligence reports.

May 2006. Due-diligence reports make recommendation regarding stronger reporting of venue construction costs and cost containment to senior levels of government. They knew or ought to have known. Their players were on these boards. Their appointees were on these boards.

Interjection.

A. Dix: Oh, I'm happy to try and convince the member across the way. Come on over.

April 2007. Partnerships B.C. reports on capital planning budgets for all Olympic venues. Report details enhanced reporting relationships between VANOC, the city of Vancouver and the province of B.C. regarding all venue projects, including the Vancouver Olympic village.

I just want to remind everyone of another highlight of the Minister of Transportation's speech, which is very on point here, very on point, when he said: "Really, the Olympic village doesn't have much to do. It's a tiny piece of this project — just a tiny piece. It's a tiny piece of this project." It has everything to do with this project. This is the Olympic village project, but he says that it's really a larger real estate development, and the Olympic village…. It's just a tiny piece. This Olympic Games thing…. It's just two weeks.

Interjection.

A. Dix: I think he's on the wrong end of the telescope. Absolutely.

The VANOC finance committee, co-chaired by Ken Dobell, who's reporting to the Premier, and Annette Antoniak, reporting to the Minister Responsible for the Olympics, now the Minister of Finance…. The report detailed expanding risks is made to the VANOC finance committee. There you go.

September 2007. Completion guarantee for the full $750 million loan approved by the city. May 2008. City manager reports Millennium in anticipatory default. There were monthly reports. There were monthly reports. This is an Olympic venue — anticipatory default.

We were sitting in this Legislature in 2008, and they did nothing. They make it sound like they've never heard of it, that it happened on some other planet or in some other province. Maybe it was the government of Manitoba's fault. They're NDP.

October 2008. They authorize a hundred million dollars to pay construction costs, as Millennium is out of money. I think that when the words "out of money" come in with a P3, that's when, according to the Minister of Transportation, a P3 ceases to be a P3. It's an extra "p." It's a P4.

An Hon. Member: For "penniless."

A. Dix: Penniless — exactly.

Now, we've had this situation since a new council was elected in Vancouver. Partly as a result of disgust across the city of Vancouver, not just in my constituency but in the member for Vancouver-Hastings' and my colleague from Vancouver-Fairview's, my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard's, in all our ridings and, yes, in the riding of the member for Vancouver-Quilchena, yes in the riding of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey — all of our ridings in Vancouver.... Yes, in the Attorney General's riding of Vancouver-Fraserview, indeed.

Disgust across the city led to a landslide election victory and new hope for the people of Vancouver. That's what happened, and it was partly as the result of the disgust with this deal. People in Vancouver are outraged, and they want accountability put in place. They want us to speak for them, and that's why members of the opposition, led by our leader, the next Premier of British Columbia, have been raising issues in this debate, because it's important to remember what we could do with the money that we will not be able to use when this P3 became a P-nothing. What it could mean….

When I walk the four blocks from my home to my office in Vancouver-Kingsway, I walk past the houses of people who may have to deal with this on their property taxes. I walk past many people who weren't there three years ago, who are without houses, who should have hope for the expenditure of money to solve and to provide housing for people who need homes in our city.

[0425]

There would have been, by the way, had the NPA council not come in, more of those homes in this package, in this deal, in this project. That's what they're looking for.

It's why we're voting in favour of this bill, because the taxpayers of Vancouver have many goals now. We have a great city, but we have work to do. We have work to do in terms of addressing issues of homelessness.

This fiasco…. Well, it shows the emptiness of the P3 model. It shows the lack of accountability by this government, who seem to think urgency only matters when it applies to ramming things through this House. Those things matter, those political issues matter, but what matters most to us — it's why we're supporting this bill — are all of those people in Vancouver who need the support of government, who need high-quality services, who need a response to homelessness. They matter.

I think that's why, as we enter into a new phase of this debate, members on this side will continue to be vigilant.
[ Page 13533 ]
We in British Columbia deserve better than this. These are our Olympic Games; these are our projects. We deserve to be told the truth about how much they cost, not spun some sort of line. We deserve to be told the truth about why the accountability of this project failed and not be told a lie.

We deserve to be able to ask questions of this government in question period, which has used its time in this debate simply to attack the Auditor General. Senior cabinet ministers — and all they have to say is to attack the Auditor General. One of them talked about a curling rink and the other about the Kicking Horse Pass. That's what they talked about.

We deserve better. That's why we want a question period, and that's why we had this effort by the government to ram this debate through, to limit second reading debate. Well, I'm proud of members of the opposition who have stood and spoken for the people of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia. It's their tax dollars at stake. It's their hopes, it's their dreams, and it's their Olympics.

These Olympic Games do not belong to the Premier; they do not belong to his friends. They belong to all the people of British Columbia, and I think that should be the principle going forward — that as taxpayers they should have a right to the information that they have over there. And one of the only ways they can get it is in question period. It's one of the only ways they can get it, because a taxpayer….

Can you imagine sending a letter to the Premier as a taxpayer in Vancouver-Kingsway living on Euclid: "Please tell me how much the Olympic Games are going to cost." You'd get a response: "Oh, you know, it's $600 million. And the Auditor General, don't listen to him." That's the response we've had this week. That's been their debate; that's been their response.

We've spoken about our constituents in every part of this province. We've talked about their hopes and dreams. We've talked about accountability. We've talked about the need to avoid this ever happening again. We've talked about the P3 model and how it failed in this case and what taxpayers should say about that and learn from that. We've done the people's business.

I'm proud of members of the opposition. We're going to support this bill because we believe, we support the aspirations of people of British Columbia, and we are going to continue to put pressure on this government to come clean. Come clean with the facts; come clean with the truth. Tell us what these Olympic Games are going to cost. We're going to do it. I can't wait.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

How long is it until the session on February 10? It's days away. I can't wait, and I really can't wait till the start of this election campaign when we start down the road of defeating this unaccountable government and bring back accountable, responsible government to British Columbia.

[0430]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hon. Members, I want to thank you, and I would like to close debate on Bill 47.

I've now sat in these chambers for the last 14 hours and listened to the members of the opposition speak at length about a wide range of issues. Unfortunately, I think, for the citizens of our great province who have also listened to this debate — I'm sure — I can't imagine that they would have heard probably more than one hour at the most of debate that truly reflected Bill 47. I'm also shocked at the blatant disrespect that some members of the opposition have shown to both the present and past mayors and councils of the city of Vancouver as well as to the residents of the city of Vancouver.

I've listened to the Speaker. I've listened to speaker after speaker imply that we are here today because of something our government has done. I want to make sure that the people of British Columbia know the true reason we're here today.

The essential point that I made when I led the debate on this bill was that this bill is a response to an urgent request by the city of Vancouver for legislative tools that would enable the city to negotiate the best possible deal for its taxpayers with respect to the development of the athletes village. The city of Vancouver and the province agree that what is in Bill 47 provides the city with the essential tools it needs, but no more than it needs.

I heard the Leader of the Opposition state that they would be supporting Bill 47. I think that's commendable and the right decision. What I have failed to understand is how the opposition can say they are supportive of this bill and then speak for 14 hours about issues that had little or no relevance to the bill we are here to debate.

I don't understand what benefit the opposition believes they have put forward during this debate, and I encourage the members opposite to read their own comments and be honest with themselves about whether they feel their comments were productive in relation to Bill 47. I would find it difficult to believe they could answer honestly to themselves that they contributed positively to the debate.

I also want to return to some of the other comments I made when I introduced the bill, and this will deal with a number of accusations or comments that were put forward by — and I qualify my statement — some members.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The negotiations with respect to the financing of the athletes village are now, and have always been, the responsibility of the city of Vancouver. The province is
[ Page 13534 ]
not involved in those negotiations and has never been involved in those negotiations. The city is accountable for those deals, and it is governed by a legislative framework that provides the appropriate accountability mechanisms for it to be accountable to its taxpayers.

Certainly, some hon. members have suggested that the government should have been much more deeply involved in these negotiations. When you look at the record of the city of Vancouver in creating what is widely acknowledged to be one of the most livable cities on earth, and when you put this in the context of our approach to local government — which is that local governments are accountable to their citizens — I think it is fair to say that we accept, and the city of Vancouver accepts, that they are responsible for this project and that they are committed to deliver this project on time.

Though we have heard a great deal from the hon. members today, the essential point is that we are giving the city of Vancouver what it needs to negotiate the best deal for its taxpayers that will enable it to deliver the athletes village on time, and it will enable it to keep the 1,500 people working on the site employed. That is what this bill is all about.

What I find most interesting is that many of the comments…. We're here to represent the people of our constituencies in this province, but we're here to give them the information on the bills that are before us. I must say, unfortunately, I didn't see that. I heard a great deal of talking, and I honestly believe — I do honestly believe — that the members opposite think they were doing their job. I honestly believe they weren't, and I think that's fair to say.

[0435]

I heard they were concerned that when I introduced the bill, I didn't spend enough time talking about the bill. I guess, unlike members of the opposition, I haven't run into a single person in my talks about politics that says: "You know, what I really wished would happen is that I could hear the members of the Legislature talk at greater length about nothing." I heard a lot of that, and that is unfortunate.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that after 14 hours of debate at second reading, which I believe is probably the second-longest amount of time the opposition has spent debating at second reading in the session — and I think I can confirm that, but I will check…. I still, and for reasons beyond my understanding, fail to understand where this 14 hours of debate has allowed, from what I've heard, the people of British Columbia any better understanding from what the opposition has put forward.

It's unfortunate, particularly with regard to the fact that we're about to vote on this bill. And with all that I've heard — unless you heard the Leader of the Opposition earlier say they were going to support this bill — you would be hard-pressed from the comments we heard to realize that they are going to support it.

With that, I will move second reading.

[0440]

Second reading of Bill 47 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move that the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill 47, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, read a second time and ordered to proceed to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

[0445]

Committee of the Whole House

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 47; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 4:47 a.m.

On section 1.

B. Ralston: Dealing first with some questions about the language chosen and the location of the amendment within the Vancouver Charter. It's placed in part 3 of the charter, which deals with the council and its general powers. More specifically, the amendment has been placed after section 190 of the charter, which is entitled "Council may acquire property."

Can the minister explain why the amendment was introduced into part 3 of the charter?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Possibly just before I begin to answer the questions, I'd like to introduce my staff. Joining me, I have Dale Wall, Nicola Marotz, Talitha Soldera and Meagan Gergley, for the information of the members.

The member has asked why it would be in part 3. There was discussion. We looked at it. It was felt it would best fit because of similar, I guess, issues that are dealt with just after section 190 in the act, and legislative counsel, in looking at it, felt that was where it would appropriately fit.

B. Ralston: Well, my question, then, to the minister arising out of that…. It suggests to me that the scope of the amendments is broader than what's described as the urgent and extraordinary need to provide the city with the authority to borrow money in this particular circumstance.

Would the minister not agree that the scope of the amendment by that placement of it in the charter is
[ Page 13535 ]
in fact broader and gives the city broader powers than the powers required to simply deal with this particular situation?

[0450]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, I wouldn't agree. The placement of the section does not change the scope.

B. Ralston: Well, the council has thus far advanced a payment guarantee, using the authority ostensibly granted to it by the charter, of $190 million. I'm looking at the notes to the consolidated financial statements of the city of Vancouver on page 21. In addition to that, the city provided a completion guarantee, which it's agreed may cost or run…. Some estimates are as high as half a billion dollars.

It would seem that in the absence of this amendment, the city at least purported to have the authority to place the interests of the city at some financial risk to that dollar amount. That was all done without a referendum. So I'm wondering: is the position of the minister that this amendment is required to retroactively approve the actions of the council, or not?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, this is not retroactive. The actual existing agreements that they entered into were under existing powers provided to them under the charter as it exists, and the amendments are for the forward negotiations and contracts that they're looking to enter into.

B. Ralston: As part of the consideration in drafting this bill — which I understand took a number of days to do, notwithstanding the fact that, as we've heard repeatedly in the second reading debate, it's a very brief bill; but obviously it took some days to draft this bill — was part of that process a consideration or not as to whether the city had the legal authority to carry out the commitments that it has made up to date, absent this amendment?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Vancouver actually did not have any concerns or worries. They actually worked on this and, under the charter, had the existing authority to do what they have done for the contracts that they did enter into already.

B. Ralston: But I don't think…. With respect to the minister, that's not my question. As part of the due diligence that the minister and the ministry engaged in as part of the preparation of this bill, were the minister and the ministry satisfied that the city of Vancouver had the lawful authority to enter into the financial obligations that it did?

It seems to me, and any member of the public who's looking at this, that there was no referendum provision — indeed, this was never put to a referendum — and yet the city has incurred a liability of the dollar value of the entire project, which in some estimates is up potentially as high as $850 million.

[0455]

If the purpose of a referendum is to enable some democratic scrutiny of that kind of decision, it seems nonetheless that the city has placed itself in that position without a referendum, without that kind of scrutiny.

So I'm wondering, as part of the process of due diligence, whether the minister was satisfied that, in fact, the city of Vancouver had the lawful authority to enter into those arrangements.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Thank you to the member for the question. We had no reason to dispute the Vancouver law department's view of their existing authority.

B. Ralston: Well, again with respect, that didn't answer the question. What due diligence did the minister and the ministry undertake beyond accepting the word of the Vancouver law department? Was there any scrutiny of legal opinions? Was there any discussion in drafting legislation? Was there any consideration of retroactivity in order to make legal arrangements that might have dubious legal validity?

Obviously, if you're dealing with these kinds of entities such as Fortress or Millennium where there's a real tension, the possibility of litigation, all those angles would presumably be considered. I would think it important if, as the minister has said, the goal of the province is to assist the city and assist the taxpayers of Vancouver…. Surely as part of that effort, these kinds of inquiries would be undertaken and the minister would be able to, here in the Legislature, report on them.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Vancouver's counsel, including external counsel, were confident about existing authority for the current agreements that they were in. They were not confident for financing new agreements on a go-forward basis. We discussed the full range of legal and legislative issues with them on what was needed.

B. Ralston: When did the minister first become aware that amendments to the charter to assist the city of Vancouver might be necessary?

When did that discussion begin?

[0500]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It would have been roughly ten days ago, not Tuesday past but the one before — Tuesday or Wednesday.

B. Ralston: I take it from that that the minister is confirming that this concern wasn't passed on to him in
[ Page 13536 ]
mid-December, at about the time that we are told these discussions between the mayor and the Premier were initiated. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: When I became aware of it was the question you asked, and I've answered. It would have been roughly ten days ago, not Tuesday past but the one before — or Wednesday.

B. Ralston: The minister has said that the ministry, on his behalf, was satisfied with the legal opinion offered by the city of Vancouver and by external counsel.

Did the minister have his staff review those opinions prior to accepting them, or was the representation of the city simply accepted without any further examination or discussion by the ministry or the minister?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Our staff did review, as well as had extensive discussions with Vancouver.

B. Ralston: In section 242 of the Vancouver Charter, there are certain exceptions to requiring a referendum. Reading from section 242(1): "Except as otherwise provided in this or any other Act, the Council shall not contract any debt, the full payment of which is not provided for in the estimates adopted for the current year, unless a by-law authorizing it has been passed with the assent of the electors."

Subsection (2) goes on to enumerate a series of exceptions, (a) through (d). Can the minister advise, with the assistance of his officials, which exception to the referendum requirement did the arrangement of the payment guarantee of up to $190 million and the completion agreement — which potentially had a liability of the full value of the project, taking it up to the full $850 million…? Which of these exceptions to the referendum requirement did those actions of the city fall into?

[0505]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The questions that the member has referred to for section 242. Neither the $100 million protective advance nor the $190 million financial guarantee was a loan, so section 242 would not have applied. They did not incur debt.

B. Ralston: Just so that I understand that, and maybe someone who chose to read this or refer to this at a later date understands that. The obligation, the payment guarantee of $190 million, including the funds that were advanced — the mayor of Vancouver refers to that; I believe he has a term, "protective advances" — is through the funding of protective advances to the contractors working on the site.

So in the view of the minister, those don't constitute debts incurred on behalf of the city. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, there was no borrowing incurred for this, so the $100 million protective advance that you've just spoken to was not a loan. They had their own money to deal with that.

B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister then can clarify — I have part of the Vancouver Charter here: what definition of "debt" is he referring to in the charter, and where is that found in the Vancouver Charter?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Debt is not a specifically defined term in the Vancouver Charter.

B. Ralston: Well, I suppose for the purposes of this exercise and for the city of Vancouver, that may be convenient.

Is it the view of the minister and the ministry that funds advanced — as in the mayor of Vancouver in his letter, which has been tabled and forms part of the debate on this bill — or protective advances to the contractors working on the site were not obligations for which the city expected to be repaid and, therefore, were debts owing to the city?

[0510]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, to the member, for the question: there was no borrowing involved in this. The city used its own money to deal with the issue of the protective advance as well as the financial guarantee.

B. Ralston: In the notes to the consolidated financial statements of the city of Vancouver — the annual financial report of 2007…. On page 21 there's a note. It says: "As the city's guarantees are in addition to those provided by Millennium, the exposure of the city is primarily dependent on the extent to which marketing of the market project is successful prior to the due date of the loan. In the case of default, it is expected that the city will assume the completion of the market project and become responsible for repaying the loan."

That language would seem to me to imply an obligation, a debt owing. Would the minister not agree that that language would fall, by any rational construction, within the ambit of the term "debt"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Over to the member asking the questions: the city has strongly felt that it had the existing authority to enter into the existing agreements. That is how that was dealt with. Circumstances have changed. We're dealing with something different under Bill 47.

B. Ralston: Well, with respect, that's really not an answer to the question. If that's the best we're going to get, I suppose we'll have to deal with that.

The very purpose, the very essence, of this very narrowly constructed, very narrowly focused bill —
[ Page 13537 ]
we've heard that repeatedly from the minister — is to relieve the city of the obligation to go to referendum in order to incur debt. It seems to me, in looking at this, by any rational construction of the arrangements that we have here, that the city already incurred that debt without going to referendum.

[0515]

Now, the minister can choose to just brush that aside, but the purpose of this very narrowly constructed bill is to relieve the city of that referendum obligation.

If the city has already acted without going to referendum, and the minister accepts that the actions of the city were lawful, why are we here? Why was the legislation necessary? I think that's a very important question that the minister should be able to answer: why are we here? Why are we here if the city undertook those actions, incurred that debt, that liability, without going to referendum already?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: It's unfortunate if you think we choose to brush aside. We don't do that, and hopefully, you will listen to the answer. What we have is that on the first two agreements that you have put forward and spoken about — on the $100 million protective advance and the $190 million financial guarantee — the city had the financial wherewithal to deal with those without going to incur debt. Circumstances have changed. That is what puts us here today in the Legislature to deal with Bill 47.

B. Ralston: Well, let me go back to the notes to the consolidated financial statements, the city of Vancouver annual financial report:

"In order to facilitate the completion of the market project in time for the 2010 Winter Games, the city, as landlord under the ground lease portion of the agreement, has provided security to the market project lender for complete construction financing — the 'loan' — that is in addition to the security provided by Millennium. The city has provided a completion guarantee which obligates it to complete the market project in time for 2010 Winter Games, should Millennium be unable to complete, and has subordinated the balance of the purchase price — approximately $170 million — and has provided a payment guarantee of up to $190 million, plus interests and expenses, should Millennium be unable to fulfil its obligations to the market project lender. The city's obligations and rights associated with this security extend until the loan is repaid."

So what's clear is that there's an obligation on the part of Millennium to the lender, and the city has stepped in through these arrangements to support and backstop those arrangements. In other words, by any reasonable construction, the city has incurred a financial obligation. It owes the debt if Millennium is unable to perform; it owes the money.

[0520]

My question remains the same then: would the minister not agree that the city of Vancouver appeared to have undertaken this obligation pursuant to…? I'm not sure what power in the Vancouver Charter, but it appears to have undertaken this obligation without having gone to referendum.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The view of the law department is that 242 does not apply. There was no contracting of debt. Certainly, the city does not need to seek elector assent to spend cash that they have without incurring the debt.

B. Ralston: Well, that's why I asked the question about what definition of debt was being relied upon, and the minister's answer, as I recall, is that the Vancouver Charter doesn't specifically define debt. But it's clear here in these financial statements, and I'm going to read again from the city of Vancouver annual financial report 2007, page 21:

"As the city's guarantees are in addition to those provided by Millennium, the exposure of the city is primarily dependent on the extent to which the marketing of the market project is successful prior to the due date of the loan. In the case of a default, it is expected that the city will assume the completion of the market project and become responsible for repaying the loan."

So regardless of whether the city goes to a third-party lender itself and borrows money and then owes it to that third-party lender or assumes an obligation in the event of default of Millennium — it would seem to me it really is a distinction without a difference — the city becomes liable to pay that debt to a party external to the city.

It would seem to me that the taking on of that obligation is the taking on of a debt and by any rational construction ought to be caught. I don't see it in those exceptions in section 242, so I'm wondering what the response of the minister was because, as we know, this is a very narrowly focused bill, and the sole purpose of the bill appears to be to relieve the city of the referendum obligation when incurring debt.

If the city has already done that and the minister is telling the House that the city of Vancouver believes they had the legal authority to do that, then I'm wondering why we're here and why this very narrowly focused legislation for this specific purpose was necessary.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I will reiterate that for the issues that he refers to originally — on the protective advance or the financial guarantee — the city was not in a position of contracting debt for that. I think what he is referring to and reading from the financial statements is really a contingent liability, which is not debt. If debt would be on the face of the…. It would be on the face of statements, not just in the notes.

The Chair: Member, before we go on, I wonder if you can just help me clarify what you are discussing. The recent line of question appears to be on section 2 rather than section 1. I wonder: are you finished with section 1?

[0525]
[ Page 13538 ]

B. Ralston: Oh no, not at all. I've got a number of questions on section 1. If I strayed into section 2, I apologize. Section 1 is entitled "Financing in relation to Southeast False Creek development," so I had understood that my questions were within the ambit of the amendment that's contained in section 1, if that's of any assistance to the Chair. I hope it is. I'd understood that my questions were captured by the subheading of this particular amendment, 190.1. Does that assist the Chair?

The Chair: Thank you.

B. Ralston: In section 1 the development area is described as an area, and there are some geographic boundaries that are mentioned: an "area of the city bounded on the north by False Creek, on the south by the southerly boundary of 1st Avenue, on the east by the easterly boundary of Ontario…and that boundary's northerly production to False Creek, and on the west by the westerly boundary of Columbia Street and that boundary's northerly production to False Creek." The explanatory note for section 1 refers to: "…undertake borrowing and other financing arrangements in relation to the described Southeast False Creek development project."

What I understand is that the area that's described in section 1 corresponds to the smaller area covered by the athletes village, part of the development for which the city has issued a completion guarantee. The Southeast False Creek development project is bigger, and it encompasses a broader geographic area. I think that's the thing that the Minister of Transportation was talking about in his very eloquent remarks on this very narrowly focused bill.

I appreciate that the explanatory note is not part of the bill per se, but it does appear to be confusing and suggests some confusion on the part of the drafter. So could that be clarified, please?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The legislation applies only to the 17-acre site of the athletes village as defined as the development area and does not form part of the larger designated Southeast False Creek official development plan, covering about 80 acres.

B. Ralston: So I take it from that concession from the minister that the explanatory note is misleading and inaccurate. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Actually, the explanatory note fits well with the legislation. It speaks to the relation to the described Southeast False Creek development project.

B. Ralston: Well, I'm afraid the minister's answer mystifies me. As I understand it, the southeast False Creek development project is a broader, basically a larger piece of land, and in that Southeast False Creek development there is a specific area that's going to be and designated to be the athletes village development. The geographic boundaries that are described in subsection (1) in the definition of "development area" describes the area referred to the athletes village development.

[0530]

Is the intention of the minister that this bill would apply to the whole of the Southeast False Creek development project or specifically to the athletes village alone?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The athletes village is a component of the Southeast False Creek official development plan. This — what we are referring to in Bill 47 — as laid out in the development area, is strictly relating to the athletes village, not the broader development plan area.

B. Ralston: Well, I'll take it from that explanation that the note to section 1, then, is not terribly helpful.

I suppose I raise this because…. The lawyers there will be able to assist the minister on this, I hope. It's been some time since I read Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, but as I recall, sometimes one of the aids to construction of statute by a court, should there be litigation, is some of the explanatory notes in the legislation that may shed some light on the drafter's intention.

So it seems to me that this is potentially material. It may seem slightly obtuse to the non-lawyers, but at least that's how I recall some of the aids to construction of statutes that are referred to in cases. My suggestion would be that the minister make it very clear here in the House that the explanatory note is erroneous and that it shouldn't be used should this matter ever have to be interpreted by a court.

Given the fact that there is a hedge fund involved, given that there is high-stakes negotiation and given that there's a massive debt, one can well imagine the possibility, certainly, that there may be litigation. Since this is the narrowly focused legislation that's purporting to assist the city of Vancouver, I would hope and think that the minister would want to make it very clear what powers are being conferred upon the city of Vancouver in this particular circumstance.

[0535]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The legislation is clear about the powers it confers, and the explanatory note is accurate.

B. Ralston: "The explanatory note is accurate." Did I hear that correctly? Well, then let me continue.

The development project is defined here in the next paragraph, and there's "includes the acquisition, disposition, development, use or construction of property in the development area and of personal property related to any of these."

The "development project" words, those two words, are the same words that are described in the explana-
[ Page 13539 ]
tory note that describes the Southeast False Creek development project. I see some potential confusion there. Apparently the minister doesn't, and he's content to leave it.

Would the minister not concede that the repetition of that language in this section may lead to confusion and should be clarified here in the Legislature just in case, in the event that this matter does at some point wind up in court and is subject to a judicial interpretation?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No.

B. Ralston: Well, I'd ask the minister, then, if he would consider explaining his answer. I appreciate that brevity is sometimes the soul of wit, but I think we might benefit from a slightly more fulsome explanation from the minister as to what reasons he has for giving that answer.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: When you look at the legislation under "development project," as you read it, it really relates and says clearly that it is the property in the development area, and the development area is defined above that. So hopefully that clarifies it somewhat for the member.

B. Ralston: Well, I suppose I'm concerned by…. The language includes those powers to deal with property in the development area, but it doesn't confine them to the development area — at least, as I read it.

I mean, I appreciate that this is a very narrowly drawn piece of legislation, but it doesn't seem — at least, on my reading of it — to exclude those powers beyond the development area, as it's written. The reference in the note to the development project, which refers to the broader Southeast False Creek development project, I would suggest with the greatest respect to the minister and his learned staff, may lead to some confusion. So I'd appreciate the minister's comment on that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Hopefully, we can reach an understanding on this. The development project does not refer to the broader 80 acres. It is referring to the property in the development area, and the development area is defined as the 17 acres of the athletes village.

I am not trying to sidestep your question. That is about as clear as I can make it. Hopefully, that has answered your question.

[0540]

B. Ralston: Well, the choice of language here is the "development project includes," and then it talks about the acquisition, disposition, development and use of property in the development area. So it includes those potential uses of property in the development area, but it would seem to me it doesn't confine itself in that by using that choice of word. The word "include" doesn't exclude land in the broader development project, which would seem to be by that use in subsection (1) a potential interpretation.

I appreciate the haste with which this might have been put together. I know there were only several days, apparently, to draft this legislation. I'm concerned about that choice of language and what it may mean for subsequent interpretations of this. Given the amount of financing that may be resting on this legislation, I think we have an obligation here to scrutinize it thoroughly and to make very sure that this legislation is sound.

I'm concerned by that choice of word. Generally, my recollection of my time studying statutory interpretation was that words are deemed to have been chosen by the Legislature for a specific purpose, and meaning is attributed to them. Its intention is ascribed to the Legislature in its choice of words. The choice of "includes" here seems to me to be ambiguous, and I'd appreciate the comment of the minister on that.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To the member: we are satisfied that the development project definition is clear. The issue really is "includes" — I think it's what the member is looking at — and that refers to activities such as acquisition, disposition, etc. It is not expanding the scope of the land covered.

B. Ralston: I want to turn now to questions on subsection (2). There may be other colleagues who have further questions on subsection (1), but I'll leave that to them in the fullness of time to ask those questions. Subsection (2) lists the activities that the city may engage in with respect to the financing, and there are a number of powers that are granted should this legislation, as it most certainly will, pass.

I'm interested in asking some questions about this subsection (2). Given that this subsection….

[0545]

Interjections.

B. Ralston: I'm pleased to acknowledge the support of my colleagues, but it is somewhat distracting when I'm engaged in this discussion of a very narrowly focused bill that requires some concentration.

But given that the legislation provides to the city this range of powers, I return to my previous question. Did the city and the previous council have the legal authority to enter into all the arrangements made regarding the finance of the athletes village development, given that this amendment would appear to confer on the city some additional powers that it would appear not to have had up until the drafting and, one supposes, the passage of this amendment?
[ Page 13540 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: As I spoke about earlier in one of the member's earlier questions and possibly even before I follow through with my answer, I do want to thank the member for his clear focus here, as he stated, on this legislation. The city did not have to incur debt or borrow to deal with either the protective advance or the financial guarantee. They had the financial wherewithal to be able to do that.

Circumstances have changed, which has led us here today on behalf of the city of Vancouver's request. But if the city had the financial wherewithal today to deal with the changing circumstances that they face, we would not have to deal with this bill. Unfortunately they do not, and that is why we are here today debating this bill.

B. Ralston: Well, the reason I ask this question is that section 242 of the Vancouver Charter to which this proposed section, 190.1, will be added confers a number of powers that are not presently in the charter. In particular, if I look at 2(a), it says "incur liabilities," which is, I would suggest….

I appreciate the advice that there's no specific definition of "debt," but liabilities would appear to encompass, in my reading of it, contingent liabilities. It's not specified that it's not contingent liabilities, and the language then goes on: "…including by contracting debts by borrowing or otherwise under section 236 (1)."

I would suggest that this proposed subsection, or 190.1, is giving powers to the city on the basis of what the minister has said it already has.

[0550]

So I'm wondering why it's necessary to reconfer those powers on the city if it has those powers to incur contingent liability, as the minister has said, without this amendment. This would therefore seem to me to make section (2)(a) redundant.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: What (2)(a) does is clarify the legislation to ensure that there is certainty in moving forward, to deal with the circumstances that they are facing now. This is the certainty that the city needs in its discussions with prospective lenders. So hopefully it clarifies that and lays it out.

Interjection.

The Chair: Member.

B. Ralston: I apologize. I'm just so eager to get at this narrowly focused bill once again. With respect, I don't think that really answers the question that I asked. But I suspect that by mere repetition of the question, I won't get a better answer.

So in this section (a), it refers to section 236(1). In the Vancouver Charter section 236 it refers to a limit of borrowing power, and it sets out specific limits on the borrowing power of the city. The way in which that's calculated is the — I'm reading from section 236 — "aggregate of the debt so contracted shall not at any time be increased so as to exceed twenty per centum of the total assessed value of such real property calculated upon the average assessment for the two years prior to the year in which the bylaw is passed…."

[0555]

Now, we've had some very recent discussion about assessments here in the Legislature, so obviously I'm sure that would be factored into that.

What I take this to mean — and perhaps the minister can just confirm this — is that Vancouver may normally carry debt up to a maximum of 20 percent of the assessed value — or I should say liabilities, since the language is liabilities in the section. Is that correct — that Vancouver may normally carry debt up to a maximum of 20 percent of the total assessed value of the property in the city?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That is correct, yes.

B. Ralston: I'm advised — and looking at the financial report of the consolidated financial statements — that Vancouver's long-term debt as of December 31, 2007, was $514.5 million. Can the minister advise, since the specific reference to section 236 is in this proposed subsection, what percentage of Vancouver's assessed land values this represents?

Obviously, there's an issue, given the recent amendments to the Assessment Act, but I would accept — or think — that probably an average of the last two years would be acceptable. Can the minister assist on that point?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The reference in (a) where it refers to section 236(1) really is dealing with, when you read 236(1), the point that says: "Council may pass by-laws for contracting debts…." That is what we're referring to in that.

The member's question as far as what is really the capacity or the future capacity for the city of Vancouver…. We do not have that number, but I'm sure the city of Vancouver would be better positioned to give you that.

[0600]

B. Ralston: I suppose that's a bit regrettable, because if additional authority is being granted to the city to borrow, yet there's a statutory limit that's set out in section 236(1), one would want to know whether the city is close to butting up against the upper limit and whether the work that we're doing here in this very narrowly focused bill would require another statute to come back and pass an amendment to section 236(1) giving the city authority to do that.

Now, I've been given some advice by those people who help me in this process, and perhaps I can run it
[ Page 13541 ]
by the minister and his staff. Maybe we can confirm my understanding of it just so that we're clear for the record. The figure I'm given is that Vancouver's total assessments are about $158 billion. That's the April-or-so 2008 value. The 2007 value was about $135 million. An average of those is $146.5 million, and 20 percent of that would be $29.3 billion. Is that understanding correct?

It would appear to follow the formula here, in which case it would suggest that there's ample room here. I would expect that that would have been a step the minister and his staff would want to have taken as part of their due diligence in bringing this bill before the Legislature to ensure that Vancouver did indeed have the capacity under that section to borrow, because the section is described as the limit of borrowing power.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

So whether you do it this way or whether you go to referendum and then pass the bylaw, there is an upper limit that's placed in the legislation, here in section 236. So what I'd appreciate — just so that we're clear, for the sake of due diligence, that the advice that I've been given is accurate….

As I know some members on the other side are wont to point out, occasionally the very excellent standard of research that we're provided with might miss a beat, so I wanted to be sure in this bill that that understanding is accurate and that we wouldn't be passing something that would require us to come back in another special session to correct a mistake that we should have dealt with here.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are satisfied that the city has sufficient borrowing room. To answer your question, I believe your calculations or the method you're using is correct. But as well, we don't believe that the number that that would put out at the end of the day as to what could be incurred based on the assessed value is an acceptable level of debt for the city of Vancouver. I will note that that section was put in, in 1953.

B. Ralston: Well, that might be a project for the minister to pursue at some other time, but it wouldn't appear to be, then, something that will stand in the way of the city of Vancouver in setting out to correct the problems left by the previous council that they're attempting to remedy.

Since we are talking about borrowing powers, in section 238 of the charter it talks about when debt is repayable. Since subsection (2)(a) refers to incurring liabilities, including by contracting debts by borrowing, it would appear that this question properly arises.

The section says when debt is repayable. This specific provision refers to debentures. They "shall be issued within five years after the passing of the by-law, and the whole debt shall be made payable within fifty years at most from the day on which the by-law takes effect."

Will this requirement be waived by the exceptions created by this bill?

[0605]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: No, section 238 will apply. Nothing in the bill will negate that application of section 238.

B. Ralston: In section 239(2) it talks about the issue of securities to cover debt. Since this arises out of the proposed section 190.1(2)(a) — incurring liabilities, including by contracting debts by borrowing — this would appear to arise. As I read the section, it states that a special bylaw must be made to specifically pay the annual interest and principal payments on a debt.

Again, would this requirement be waived for debt incurred as a consequence of this bill?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: All rules in part 5 that would normally apply to a bylaw under 236 continue to apply, except for the elector assent portion.

B. Ralston: The minister refers to the electoral assent portion, section 242, which is the subject of my next proposed question. I just wanted to clarify section 242(2), and I'm referring here back to section 190.1(2)(a): "incur liabilities, including by contracting debts…." Subsection (2) in this section sets out the exceptions to the referendum requirement. We've referred to this earlier in our discussions.

[0610]

I'm looking at subsection (2)(e). I'd appreciate the assistance of the minister in clearing up a potential confusion. These are powers that are specifically exempted from the requirement to go to referendum. It says: "Borrowing under any agreement made pursuant to section 192…."

Section 192 reads:

"The Council shall have power to make the city a party (a) to any agreement to which under the terms of any Act of the Dominion or the Province it is contemplated that municipalities may be parties and which the Council deems will be for the benefit of the city, including an agreement to borrow money in any case where the Act of the Dominion or Province authorizes or provides for the lending of money to municipalities."

So that's the explanation of section 192.

But the reference in this section says:

"…for the purpose of the development or redevelopment of the False Creek Area or for creating housing (for the purposes of this section, the "False Creek area" shall generally be all that area of land and land covered by…Cambie Street and Connaught Bridge on the east" — I don't believe the Connaught Bridge; in its old form it obviously doesn't exist anymore — "the south side of Sixth Avenue on the south, Burrard Street and Burrard Bridge…and the Harbour Headline on the north side of False Creek on the north)."

That is an even broader area than the area referred to in the Southeast False Creek development project.
[ Page 13542 ]

I'm wondering, in the sense that it certainly encompasses the area that's referred to, why this wouldn't be sufficiently broadly drawn and give the council the powers that it needed to have in order to engage in the financial discussions that it proposes to do.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Section 242(2)(e) is specific to an area — Southwest False Creek. This was entered into, has and is dealing with the southwest False Creek, which is…. The amendment was added in 1974. This relates to the borrowing under an agreement under section 192(a), and the agreement is with the Dominion or the province.

B. Ralston: Just for those of us who are not entirely familiar with every street in the Vancouver map, perhaps would this have been to facilitate the development of what's now commonly called Granville Island? Is that what's referred to? I thought, upon initially reading it, that it described the same area that we're talking about in this particular very narrowly focused piece of legislation.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The area that we have just referred to is immediately east of Granville Island.

[0615]

B. Ralston: Now, again returning to proposed subsection (2). It does confer a broad range of financial powers upon the city for the purposes of this development area. Is the minister satisfied that…? Are these the product of negotiations with the city, in the sense that the protective advances the mayor refers to and the completion guarantee, all of these possibilities, are included within the ambit of the powers that are described and that any other financial arrangements that the city contemplates are captured by all of these proposed powers?

I suppose that since we're here for this purpose, I think one would want to be assured that the powers that are being given to the city are comprehensive and meet their request and that the province is satisfied that the Legislature has the lawful authority to confer those powers upon the city.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to reiterate…. You mentioned the issue of the protective advances, as well as the financial guarantee. Again, I want to point out that the city had the financial wherewithal to deal with that without going into debt or borrowing.

As to the question of subsection (2) under 191, yes, this will meet the needs of the city of Vancouver. This was developed in cooperation and consultation with the city of Vancouver staff.

B. Ralston: I appreciate that the minister has stressed in his very brief opening remarks and has referred to those in both opening and closing as being sufficient to deal with the subject. But given that there has been, I would take it, fairly intense discussion between the city and the province — and I appreciate the province is not negotiating with either the developer or the hedge fund — has the province been apprised of the options open to the city of Vancouver as part of the process of developing this legislation?

[0620]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We do know that Vancouver is in negotiations at this point. What we do know is that we as the Crown or as the government are not in those negotiations, but what we have strived to do, in working in cooperation with the city of Vancouver, is ensure that we have provided the tools they need in Bill 47 to proceed with those negotiations and enter into the best deal they can on behalf of their taxpayers.

B. Ralston: I'm going to conclude — and the minister can respond if he chooses, if I'm wrong — that the province is aware, as a part of the process of developing these options without…. I understand that the province is not negotiating with either the hedge fund or the developer and that it's the city's responsibility, but as part of the process of developing this piece of legislation, the province is aware of the options open to the city of Vancouver. I just wanted to confirm that.

It would seem that the menu that's being proposed in section 2 would strive to cover off every possibility that may arise in the course of negotiations to make sure that every option that the city chose or would care to contemplate as a potential solution was available and that they had the powers to carry those out by the process of these amendments.

Once again, I understand that the minister and the Crown provincial are not negotiating, but I do want to establish that the provincial government and the minister are aware of the range of options open to the city.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are aware of the types of options that could be available to the city of Vancouver, but what we have wanted to do here is make sure that the tools are available to pursue whatever options they need to on behalf of their taxpayers.

B. Ralston: As part of that discussion — presumably at the deputy minister level or certainly at the senior official level, with advice to the minister — is the minister, on behalf of the province, aware of the potential costs of options that are available to the taxpayers of Vancouver?

[0625]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We are not aware of the specifics, but certainly, I think those questions, or that ques-
[ Page 13543 ]
tion particularly, would be better asked of the city of Vancouver. We are not at the negotiations or involved in those, so the specifics would not be before us.

B. Ralston: One option that certainly is available as legislation…. I don't believe it's been used, but I'm wondering whether this was considered. Was designation under the Significant Projects Streamlining Act…? Has the minister considered the application of that statute to this particular development project?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The answer to the member's question is no, we have not.

B. Ralston: As part of the general discussion with the city, has the province considered as a contingency how it might step in and alleviate some of the city's risks? Certainly, I appreciate the view that the minister has taken, and I appreciate the interpretation that the province gives to the relationship between the city of Vancouver as a host city and VANOC.

But as the minister is aware and as had been discussed earlier in the debate, the Auditor General is of the view that the province would not necessarily, in his view, be able to rely on the strict legal liability but might incur a broader liability that might require those steps on behalf of the province were there a potential risk — not only the city's reputational risk but the reputational risk of the province.

Has the province considered at this stage engaging in that kind of support to the city, and could the minister advise the House on that?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The city of Vancouver has not requested funding from the province to complete the athletes village. They have requested the flexibility and certainty provided by these legislative amendments.

L. Krog: Delighted to be able to rise and ask a few questions of the minister. I know he's excited to be here responding to the important issues raised by this bill. Can the minister explain to the House: what is the process that the city of Vancouver will go through in incurring debt? For instance, will it use the Municipal Finance Authority to issue debentures in relation to this project?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Vancouver does not borrow through the MFA, the Municipal Finance Authority, as other municipalities in the province of British Columbia do.

L. Krog: I'm sorry, Minister. I didn't quite catch that last remark.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Vancouver does not borrow through the Municipal Finance Authority as other municipalities in British Columbia do.

L. Krog: Is that a statutory restriction, or is it a matter of practice? Are the taxpayers of Vancouver in a position where they could get the best interest rate through the Municipal Finance Authority?

[0630]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: By statute, they are not required to borrow through the MFA, and by choice, they don't.

L. Krog: The whole purpose of us being here is around interest. The city of Vancouver, as I understand it, is paying 11 percent essentially because of the complex nature of this arrangement.

The whole purpose of this bill is to try and alleviate payment of interest at a very high rate, presumably so that the city of Vancouver can obtain borrowing from other sources to complete this project, which is a necessary part of the Olympics, with a much lower rate of interest.

So my question to the minister is: what is the current interest rate that they'd be able to get through the Municipal Finance Authority?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Nothing precludes the city of Vancouver from entering into discussions with the MFA to seek the best possible deal they can get for their taxpayer, or to enter into discussions with any other lenders. So hopefully that answers that. They are not precluded from speaking or dealing with the MFA. That would be discussions between the city of Vancouver and the MFA, if that's who they chose to speak to — or any other lender as well.

I'm sure that interest is going to be based on the amount of money required and so on. There will be a number of factors that come into that, just as any lending institution would look at.

L. Krog: I am sure that the government of British Columbia has…. One of its main purposes in this legislation is to try and alleviate as much of the taxation burden for the citizens of Vancouver and potentially the province — but that's another line of questions — and alleviate as much risk as possible to reduce the amount of money that they will be spending on interest, which from the sounds of it has presently been going to foreign lenders, benefiting foreign lenders as well.

My question to the minister: has the minister not, either through his own ministry or the province itself, engaged in conversations with the city of Vancouver to try and determine what the best possible way is and what the cheapest possible way is of borrowing the moneys necessary to complete this project?

[0635]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to go back to something I said in one of my earlier answers to the previous
[ Page 13544 ]
member. We are not at the table in these negotiations. What we have committed to do, in working with the city of Vancouver upon their urgent request, is put in place the tools they need for council to have the flexibility to decide what the best business approach is that they would like to pursue.

We are not at the table in those negotiations. We have worked with the city of Vancouver to put forward Bill 47, in the sense that it will give them the flexibility they deem that they need. Certainly, the mayor stated that he wants to make sure the city can pursue the best deal for taxpayers that minimizes financial risk, and this bill will allow that.

L. Krog: Well, the obvious question to the minister then is: if you're not at the table — and we're talking hundreds of millions of dollars of debt for the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver — are you not at the table by choice, are you not at the table because the city hasn't asked for your assistance, or are you not at the table because the province of British Columbia has no interest in this?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Very clearly and precisely, the answer is that the city has not asked for our participation.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the government through this minister or the Minister of Finance, looking at borrowing costs, has suggested to the city of Vancouver that it might be best if the province borrowed the money at its lending rate — which is obviously far better — and in fact help finance this project, which is an integral part of this whole Olympic scheme.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Well, notwithstanding what we've heard for the previous 14 or 15 hours, this is — and I want to be clear — a Vancouver project. They have the financial wherewithal to deal on this issue, enter negotiations as they see fit, and that is how we see this. We have delivered on what they have asked our assistance on, and the urgency of that assistance is contained in Bill 47.

L. Krog: I'm informed that there's an article in the Times Colonist that indicated that the MFA had issued $400 million in debt at an interest rate of 5.1 percent. They were very pleased with getting that. However, that's 148 basis points above what the government of Canada can borrow at, which means that the government of Canada borrows at 3.62 percent.

My question to the minister is: at what interest rate can the government of British Columbia borrow money?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I fail to see how that's relevant to this legislation.

L. Krog: Well, we are here to pass legislation that enables the city of Vancouver to borrow money for this specific project, which is an integral part of the Olympic Games. No place to sleep, no athletes come, no games — a fairly simple concept, nothing dramatic about that.

[0640]

A $500 million loan by the city at 5.1 percent interest repaid over ten years would require weekly payments of $1.2 million — $62.4 million annually. By the end the city will have paid $138.3 million in interest. If $500 million was borrowed at 3.62 percent over ten years, the payments would be $1.14 million — $59.3 million annually — and by the end the city will have paid only $96 million in interest.

That means that if the government of Canada were able to lend the money to the city, the city would save $3.1 million annually, or $31 million by the time the loan was paid off, and presumably somewhat lower than the province. If the province did it…. Perhaps not quite as good a rate as Canada.

My question to this minister is: if we're here to provide assistance…. And that's what this bill is to do. This is to provide assistance that isn't available otherwise — to provide assistance to the city of Vancouver by a statutory change. We're talking about the taxpayers, and we're talking about a substantial number of the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia, probably half a million arguably, in the city of Vancouver.

My question is: why are we taking this rather tepid step instead of stepping up to the plate and ensuring that the citizens of Vancouver don't end up paying more interest than is necessary in order to finance an integral part of what is essentially a provincial project.

This is the Premier's baby. We can talk about the bid by the city of Vancouver and the city of Whistler, but this is the Premier's baby. So I want to know, on behalf of the taxpayers: why isn't the province stepping up to the plate and ensuring that the citizens of British Columbia, the citizens of Vancouver and the taxpayers pay as little interest as possible in order to accomplish this end?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We were not asked to provide financial assistance for this project. Rather, we were asked by the city of Vancouver to provide the tools that Vancouver needs to put in place a sustainable financial arrangement that works for Vancouver.

I do want to reiterate and make sure that the member is clear, and clear for the public that are watching — I'm sure so attentively tuned to their screens. This is not a provincial project. As much as we have heard members across the way try and imply that, again, this is not a provincial project.

It's also been referred to numerous times by members of the opposition as the Premier's pet project. I'm sure that the mayor and council of Vancouver and pos-
[ Page 13545 ]
sibly the residents would take offence to that. This is a Vancouver project that they committed to deliver.

[0645]

L. Krog: Well, with great respect to the minister's response, the province — even based on what the Minister of Finance says — is putting $600 million into the Olympic project. So I would think that constitutes a fairly substantial stake in that project, and to suggest to this House that it is somehow not a provincial project and that this is strictly a city of Vancouver project doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to this member nor indeed, I suspect, to the taxpayers who are attentively watching the screen tonight.

The provisions of this act contain nothing to limit the amount of liability that the city may incur in relation to the athletes village project. That's my reading of this. I see nothing in here that says that the citizens of Vancouver who would normally otherwise be able to vote on this and know what liability they're taking on…. There's nothing in here to restrict liability. My question is quite simply: why is there no provision to limit the level of liability the city may incur?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: At this point, to identify a borrowing limit would be unworkable at this stage. There's no financing arrangement that has been finalized, so such a limitation could defeat the purpose and really hamstring the city in achieving the best possible deal on behalf of their taxpayers.

L. Krog: I believe I just heard the minister say that we are giving the city of Vancouver, which is entirely a creation of this Legislature…. Let's everyone understand. The only reason the city of Vancouver exists is because this Legislature passed an act, the Vancouver Charter, that allows it to exist, just as every municipality in this province exists only because this Legislature passed an enabling statute.

So what the minister is telling me, unless I'm mistaken, is that we are giving a completely blank cheque to the city of Vancouver to raise whatever amount of money it wants to in relation to the athletes village project — that there's no upper limit.

I'm not going to be convinced by anything the minister might say that the reason we're here is because of one letter from the city of Vancouver, dated January 13, addressed to the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. I think we're going to have to accept and believe that there have been ongoing negotiation and discussions at the senior levels of the ministry, of the provincial government, and the city of Vancouver staff.

Somebody must have some idea somewhere of what the reasonable upper limit of this project is. Is it $800 million? Is it a billion dollars? Is it $1.2 billion? Is it $1.3 billion? If this were being treated and dealt with in the ordinary and proper and legal and statutory way that it's designed to be dealt with, they'd have a right to go out and vote on it. They'd have a say. They would have a direct say.

They had a say in voting on the Olympics. Surely they're entitled to a say in the ordinary course of events to setting the limit of expenditure, borrowing, whatever. But this bill contains no such limit.

So my question is: has the government received any assurances whatsoever, as it has a moral and legal obligation to protect the citizens of Vancouver and the taxpayers of Vancouver…? Has it received any indication of what the upper limit is that the citizens of Vancouver may face as a result of the passage of this bill?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to touch on something that the member raised. He talked about "under ordinary circumstances." I think it's fair to say the reason we're here yesterday and now here Sunday morning is that this is not ordinary circumstances we find ourselves in, in trying to assist the city of Vancouver.

[0650]

You say that we are issuing a blank cheque. This legislation is not a blank cheque. It's limited to the specific area in the project, but it provides Vancouver with the financing tools it needs.

It will have to go to the markets to raise the money it needs. The markets will look at what their ability to pay is, what assets are available to them in securing this loan. So no, this is anything but a blank cheque, and I think the member wholeheartedly understands how lending institutions operate.

S. Simpson: I just want to step back to a couple of questions that went on previously about how or where the city may borrow the money from. As I know, there's been some discussion here when we talked a little bit about the Municipal Finance Authority, which, as the minister says, the city of Vancouver doesn't use.

But what we do know, of course, is that in terms of preferential rates, of borrowing rates, the province of British Columbia — certainly at this point, I think — probably has a better capacity to borrow than the city of Vancouver does.

I could be corrected on the details around this, but I believe back last spring we adopted a piece of an act around the Transportation Investment Act, I believe, and it related mostly to the Port Mann. It was the creation of an entity, a Crown or a public entity.

Part of their role, I believe, was to assist with the private operators, the P3 partners — to work with the P3 partners — to be able to get the best interest rates possible to borrow money. Now, that money was being borrowed by the private operators essentially, or they were incurring the debt, and then the P3 partnerships were put in place. So it wasn't a question of the province necessarily saying we're taking the debt on there.
[ Page 13546 ]

I guess the sense of the question I'm getting to is, well, the obligation certainly needs to rest with the city of Vancouver for debt because the province isn't incurring debt here, and fair enough. So it has to rest with the city.

But is there an opportunity — and as the minister says, this is not a standard situation; it is a unique situation, and there is a degree of crisis here that we've intervened in through this piece of legislation — for the province to make a determination about whether we have the capacity to borrow at a better rate on behalf of the city?

They would incur the liability and the responsibility for that debt, not the province, but we as the province could get them a better rate to minimize the impact. Has that been looked at, at all by the province?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I believe I've answered this to one of the previous members who asked the question. Vancouver has not asked for financial assistance in this. What they did request was the tools to allow them to enter into financial negotiations to get the best deal. So we've had no requests from the city of Vancouver to entertain what the member has put forward here.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that, and I did hear the comment from the minister that the city has not made that request of the province. There may be any number of reasons for that. I imagine the first one is that they were looking to get this done so that they sort of had a place to start in terms of being able to talk about borrowing money in any way, shape or form, because without a referendum they were in no place to have this discussion until they got some enabling, until they got the amendments that Bill 47 affords them.

[0655]

I appreciate that the province at this point has chosen not to be proactive in this discussion with the city around this question. But I've heard the Premier in comments, or at least I've read media comments of the Premier, where he's referenced his discussions with the mayor of Vancouver and said that the province was looking to be as supportive as it could be of the city to make this successful, acknowledging that that didn't include taking on the debt of the city — that the city was going to carry its own debt, and so be it — but helping the city to be successful in its initiatives.

The question I have is: though the city hasn't looked at that, is this an option for the province to consider or to make the offer to the city to look at as a way to minimize the interest-carrying charges of the city? If they're going to have to go out and take on the better part of half a billion dollars, I'm sure any offer the province could make to the city that would reduce their interest charges would probably be something the city would at least want to entertain or discuss. They may choose not to do it for other reasons that I don't understand, but it seems like one of the options that they might not mind having on the table.

If the province could take half a percent or a percent off the book, that might look pretty good when you're talking about half a billion dollars. So I just wonder whether that's something that the minister, as the minister responsible for local government, would entertain or be prepared to discuss.

Again, I want to be clear that in no way am I suggesting the province take any of the debt responsibility but just look at a way to afford a lower interest rate because of the province's borrowing capacity.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just a quick response to the thought that the member put forward — that we haven't been proactive on this. I thought I'd heard for approximately 14 hours that we may have been too proactive and are here early on a Saturday and a Sunday rather than waiting until Monday.

I do think we've been proactive on this file, working with the city of Vancouver. But it wouldn't be appropriate to speculate at this time. In the letter of January 12 from Mayor Gregor Robertson, he points out that we are in the middle of urgent and delicate negotiations, so I'm certainly not prepared to speculate on what the member is speaking to here as far as borrowing.

S. Simpson: That's obviously a decision for the provincial government and the minister to make as to where they choose to pursue or not pursue this. I guess the observation I would make is that we did a little bit of calculation, looking at a $500 million loan and looking at what I believe that the city of Victoria borrowed through the MFA a short time ago at an interest rate of about 5.1 percent. They borrowed a package of money.

If the city of Vancouver was getting that kind of interest rate and we compared that against what the federal government borrows at — which is about 3.62 percent or something like that — just as a rule of thumb, on a loan repaid over ten years the city of Vancouver, if they were able to do that, would probably save themselves roughly $31 million through the difference in those kinds of interest rates. So $31 million is a pretty real amount of money, and I would encourage the minister to at least have some discussion with his colleagues about whether that kind of at least preliminary discussion or exploratory discussions with the city of Vancouver might be in order.

[0700]

We know the city is, based on what we've heard from city officials…. We know they're both looking at the $458 million, or roughly something like that, for what's outstanding on the project.

They also, of course, are probably having to look at some money to get out of potential penalties, to get out of the 11 percent interest rates with Fortress — whatever that might be. Who knows? That'll be a matter of negotiation, presumably, between the city and Fortress.
[ Page 13547 ]

I guess what I would encourage is that the province see whether there's a way that they can support or assist, maybe, on reducing those interest charges through our capacity as the province to do some borrowing around that.

I believe that my colleague from Nanaimo may have asked this. I was out of the room for a few minutes, and if he has asked the question, my apologies for repeating. The question I have relates to…. People in Vancouver, I know, are very keenly interested in this. Maybe we'll hear that it's up to the city to decide how to relay this information.

Has the province considered or assessed what kinds of charges or what the cost might be to taxpayers for the city to have to borrow the kind of money it's talking about? I suspect the province must have some idea in broad terms of what the city needs to do to deal with its obligations here in terms of the amount.

Has the province assessed or come up with a range of what this cost might look like to taxpayers in British Columbia on their tax bills?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Earlier on you started off talking about some issues there as to what we can consider an assistance. Certainly, our assistance to the city of Vancouver through this Legislature is through this bill that's before us presently. I do want to thank the member for his advice on the other, but what we have before us right now is….

Your question really relates back…. I want to reiterate. This is truly a Vancouver project. We are not at the table with those negotiations. I do want to ensure…. Particularly relating to the mayor's letter talking about the very, I would say, delicate times they're in right now…. I don't want to jeopardize that. But they are, and I'm sure all of us would agree, doing everything they can to ensure that they protect and minimize the risk to their taxpayers. I'm confident that they will achieve a deal that is satisfactory on behalf of the taxpayers they represent.

L. Krog: Judy Rogers had recommended to the former Vancouver city council that the city provide a completion guarantee to Fortress in order to facilitate the financing. That completion guarantee obliges the city to complete the Millennium Water project in the event that the developer is unable to complete it.

That recommendation is contained in a report dated June 22, 2007. It was presented to the council at an in-camera meeting on June 26, 2007. The former council at that time voted in favour of issuing the completion guarantee and a $193 million loan guarantee to project lender Fortress.

[0705]

Ms. Rogers said in her report: "Under terms of the Vancouver athletes village agreement between the city and VANOC, the city has accepted the construction, market and financial risks associated with delivering the village on time." But the completion guarantee obliges the city to complete not just an athletes village but the specific market project proposed by Millennium.

In presenting this situation to council, Rogers, I suggest, ignores the increased risk to the Vancouver taxpayers of guaranteeing the completion of a specific project that was dependent and is dependent upon significant market returns — in other words, the condo sales. The city of Vancouver's financial statements are silent on the city's commitments and exposure in relation to the project after a completion guarantee is signed.

Ms. Rogers said:

"The guarantees recommended are less than the construction financing being provided by Fortress and would only come into play if there was a dramatic downturn in the Vancouver real estate market that jeopardized the marketing strategy of Millennium. While these risks should not be discounted, the city should continue to support Millennium, because the option of forcing a default increases the city's risk rather than diminishing it."

Now, that's in her report. So my question is, referencing this section: does the authority conferred under this section give the city the authority to enter into the completion guarantee?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: The completion guarantee that was entered into was done so under the existing authority that Vancouver had. This legislation is not about past action but on a go-forward basis.

L. Krog: My real question is: is the minister satisfied, in fact, that the city did have lawful authority without the passage of this section?

[0710]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To answer your question, we have…. Vancouver's council, including their external counsel, were confident about the existing authority to enter the current contracts. What we're dealing with, though, is a go-forward basis, and that is where they were not confident that they could do that under the existing provisions, and that's why we're dealing with Bill 47.

L. Krog: It strikes me, when you look over the history of this project, that Ms. Rogers seems to have been pushing the arrangements between the city and Millennium that have exposed the city to rather dramatic risk.

We have a city that owns a piece of land, prime real estate in one of the most desirable, livable cities on the entire planet, and yet somehow we're in a situation now where they have entered into arrangements that potentially put the taxpayers at risk for hundreds of millions of dollars and require them to do what we look generally to the private sector to do, and that is to complete construction projects of condos.

Can the minister perhaps outline to the House or explain: was Ms. Rogers working on behalf of the city?
[ Page 13548 ]
Was she receiving some direction from Mr. Dobell in setting up these arrangements? Was the Premier's office involved at all in ensuring that the city of Vancouver carried through to complete this project, which, I come back to, is an integral part of the Olympic scheme?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would request as to what section we are referring to here, so that I may look at that section of the bill.

L. Krog: Well, for the assistance of the minister, this whole section deals with financing this particular project. What I want to know, in terms of arriving at this bill with these sections…. What does the minister know, or what did the government know, about the arrangements with the city and Millennium? Did they have involvement in ensuring that this project proceeded on the basis that it did, and if so, why?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To your question. We began this initiative, myself and my ministry, from when we received the urgent request from the city of Vancouver. Myself or members of my staff were not involved in the negotiations per se, trying…. Hopefully, I'm answering your question, Member. But to be clear, the urgent request was sent to us. We acted as quickly as possible, and that's what puts us in the Legislature today.

L. Krog: It strikes me that the completion guarantee may well have been to protect the interests of VANOC rather than the Vancouver taxpayers. That's what it looks like. In order to make this scheme go forward, in order to allow the Olympics to be a success, VANOC had to have this project completed. VANOC needed the city to do this. VANOC's interests were being protected. And the city of Vancouver, the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, are on the hook. That's what it looks like to me.

My question is: was the completion guarantee intended to protect the interests of VANOC or the interests of the taxpayers of Vancouver?

[0715]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: That is not a question I can answer related to this legislation.

L. Krog: Well, I'm sure that will come as a great disappointment to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, who are no doubt interested in the results of the debate that we're engaging in here this morning.

I've asked, on various occasions this morning, of the minister, around the potential costs of this project. With the greatest respect to the minister, he and this government and this Legislature have a responsibility to the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver. There are no ifs, ands or buts about that. The buck stops somewhere, and I suggest it stops here.

That being the case, can the minister this morning stand up in this House and tell the citizens of Vancouver how much they're going to be on the hook for, for the Olympic village project?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: With all due respect to the member, what you're asking is to say what are the exact costs, and we should know that. I want to reiterate for the member, as well as for the viewing public, that this is not a provincial project. This is the city of Vancouver's project.

As well, I do want to reiterate comments from the mayor of Vancouver in a statement that says: "We are in the middle of urgent and delicate negotiations." All of that will have to come together before, I'm sure, a final number will be available.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the minister, it's rather like giving scissors to a small child. The previous council, the city of Vancouver, got the taxpayers of Vancouver into this mess. We are now here having a special sitting of the Legislature in order to help clean up that NPA — Non-Partisan Association, founded by the Premier of this province arguably; that new civic party — mess. That's why we're here. That's why we've been here all night, to clean up a mess of a council.

I think it's pretty incumbent upon this minister and this government…. When they're turning over to the city council, the city of Vancouver, the authority to borrow, without limit — without a limit — any amount of money they have to in order to complete the cleanup of this fiasco, I think it's incumbent upon this minister to tell this House and to tell the people of British Columbia, and most particularly the taxpayers of the city of Vancouver, including the constituents of the Premier, what they're going to be on the hook for.

[0720]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I guess I would start with somewhat of a surprise that the member appears to be calling the council of the city of Vancouver a small child. I'm sure they'll take that very well, Member, but I will let you answer to them for that.

As well, you're asking some questions. I do want to point out that I believe it was the member for Vancouver-Hastings that pointed out that the Vancouver city manager gave your caucus a briefing on this very issue, which was said in one of the comments. We didn't receive that briefing, but we can check on that — okay?

But you asked the question: what will the taxpayer be on the hook for? The information about this difficult situation faced by the city is not a secret. It is posted on their website. Vancouver's goal and indeed our goal — I believe all of our goals — is that the cost to the taxpayer and the risk is minimized to the fullest extent.

We have worked hard to deliver a piece of legislation that delivers the tools that the city of Vancouver has
[ Page 13549 ]
requested and needs to try and meet that requirement. I believe they're a very responsible level of government and will do everything they can to act in the best interests of their taxpayer.

S. Simpson: Just to correct the minister, if he was under the impression…. I know the comment that the minister is referring to. The briefing I was referring to was observing the briefing that Ms. Ballem gave to council, which was at the time…. I think it was the Monday when she briefed council on the state of affairs. So it was an observation of a public briefing that she gave to council at that time. There was no other briefing.

Would the minister agree that the primary situation that created the problem we're in was, in fact, the signing of the completion agreement and the resulting circumstances after the signing of the completion agreement by the city in 2007? Is that what got us? Or what was the catalyst to get us to the place where we're at, where the city had to come forward and talk to the province?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: First, I want to thank the member for his clarification on that point on the briefing.

As to your question — very difficult. It would be speculation on my part. This is really…. The city has been dealing with this to this point. It would be purely speculative to comment as to the question you put forward to me. I don't think it would do either of us any good for speculation versus a direct answer. I just can't comment on that.

S. Simpson: I wouldn't want the minister to speculate about this. Is what the minister saying, then, is that when the city came forward…?

[0725]

Presumably, as I understand, they may have been very preliminary discussions between the mayor and the Premier, and then at some point not long after that it ended up on the desk of the minister to deal with.

Nowhere in here did the minister's staff or other officials within the provincial government make some determination or request information from the city as to how this situation occurred? Was there no — I might make the case — due diligence done there to come to some idea of how they got there, the city got to where it got to and what the circumstances were that put the city in the place that it was in? None of that was done before this move to this point?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, we did receive the information, the same information the public received on the briefing as of Monday that was put forward by the council. As far as the agreements, we were not party to those agreements or involved in the discussions of the city that they have made to date.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that the government was not party to those discussions. I believe that that agreement was part of an in-camera meeting of council. I think that they came to the conclusion of that, if I remember the news reports correctly.

What I'm trying to determine here is what the circumstances were that created the situation that required us to be here to deal with the Vancouver Charter Amendment Act. It would seem, and it's not unusual certainly around legislation, that you try to determine the reason why you got to the place you got that required the legislation.

It's not unreasonable, I would think, that you want to have a little bit more than the city asked for it. That's a good reason to open the discussion — that the city asked for it — without doubt, but it would seem to me that it would also make sense for the province to want to have some idea about how this all occurred. So that's the reason for asking whether that was one of the considerations.

Maybe I'll ask a slightly different question. Rather than being sort of specific about the completion agreement, because there certainly may be much more to it or something different is the issue….

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

Have the staff, the Ministry of Community Development staff, the Premier's office or others in the government, made any effort to determine what the circumstances were that put the city in the place where it all of a sudden is having to come forward and ask the province for authority to borrow at least a half a billion dollars, by the sounds of things, if news reports are correct — a significant amount of money — without the due process that every local government is obliged to follow around referendum and around approval from their taxpayers?

The province, with Bill 47, is going out on a limb here and saying to the city: "We're going to let you borrow more money than most municipalities would under normal circumstances without going through the due process of talking to your taxpayers before you do it, at least this one time."

[0730]

Didn't the minister have the sense or didn't the government have some sense that, in fact, you should satisfy yourselves as to how this situation came about before you create a circumstance where you approve that and you come forward with this legislation? Maybe it's the completion agreement. Maybe it's totally different circumstances that create that.

Was there no due diligence on the part of the province and on the part of the ministry to determine why the city got itself in this circumstance, other than the letter from the mayor?
[ Page 13550 ]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Just to one of the comments the member had spoken about. I believe he indicated that this legislation may actually allow Vancouver to borrow more money than they would normally be allowed. I want to make sure we're all aware that that is not what this legislation does. This does not increase that amount. They still are bound by what the lenders will look at as far as what their ability is to repay. So the legislation does not do that.

The circumstances that you refer to and have asked about are clearly on the public record and have been for some time. I've answered that previously. But I do want to encourage the member that if you could bring your questions back directly to the legislation that we're debating, I am more than happy to try and address and answer the questions as they relate specifically to the legislation before us.

S. Simpson: The point I made about borrowing was the ability to borrow without referendum. Clearly, this is going to allow the city of Vancouver to borrow money that they would not be able to borrow without going to referendum here. I accept that we're not going to get the answers to these questions, or the answers aren't available, and so be it.

Looking at the bill, if we look under section 1(2)(c), it says: "grant security by way of mortgage or other charge on, or security interest in, property that is within the development area or that is identified by resolution of the Council as property associated with the development project."

Could the minister tell us what would constitute property associated with the development area?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: In response to the question, this would entail…. There may be property that is not directly on the site but would be an integral part of that development, such as the green energy system. That is what this section is referring to.

[0735]

S. Simpson: Now, it says that this would be as "identified by resolution of the Council." So would it be totally at the discretion of the council to deem that a property was associated with the development project, and if they deemed it by resolution to be associated regardless of any other conditions, would that constitute being associated?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: To answer, council's authority is constrained by the word "associated," and it has to be in relation to this project.

S. Simpson: I guess the sense of what constitutes associated…. Again, that's pretty broad, it seems to me, particularly when it says it will be "identified by resolution of the Council."

What might those limitations be? If the council decides, then they craft up a resolution that links any particular property? Or what kinds of parameters might there be? I mean, there are obvious properties that would be associated that you could clearly identify. But are there properties that the minister might envision that might be of somewhat more vague a linkage, and is that, then, a matter of interpretation for the council?

Should the council decide to do that and make those decisions and pass such a resolution? Then if people in the city of Vancouver otherwise weren't sure that they liked the fact that the city was going past the development itself — because there will be people who will have some anxiety about this, I'm sure; I could think about our friends, the folks in places like the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, just as an example, who might have anxiety about this — at what point do they come forward and start saying that the city has gone past its limits, that they're engaging properties that are outside of the purview of this?

Who interprets that, and how does that get interpreted if the council is passing resolutions, maybe appropriately or not, when somebody wants to question what's associated and what those limits are?

[0740]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: We're speaking about 190.1(2)(c), which is really dealing with the granting of security. It's designed to allow the city get the best possible interest rate and is strictly held to city-owned property as well on that.

Now, you did ask the question that council has the authority to determine this. If they determined a piece of property was associated, as it is worded in this legislation, a member of their electorate, of the city, would have the option either politically — they have to be accountable to their taxpayers — or legally to challenge that.

So we believe that the word "associated" will, hopefully — and I believe will, as we have laid it out here — deal with the question you have raised for the taxpayers of Vancouver.

S. Simpson: In (2)(d): "take security by way of mortgage or other charge on, or security interest in, any property." So is that determined by…? Is it any property; that's quite literally any property at all? It has nothing to do with any relationship to the site at all?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Yes, it does mean any property. This is not granting security but taking security. So it does mean that.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that. But the reason I asked that, I guess, is because…. As we head down to (f), where it says you can "assign or otherwise dispose of a right or interest, or security, taken under paragraph (d) or (e)…." On one hand, you can say that you can deal
[ Page 13551 ]
with any property, and then you could turn around then and essentially….

My sense of this, and maybe I'll just step back, is that these particular clauses provide very broad latitude for the city of Vancouver to look at properties or assets in much any way that they deem necessary in order to get the deal or package up the deal that they need to do on this land. So it provides a broad latitude.

So maybe, whether it be taking or granting of securities, it provides a very broad latitude, particularly if the city, through council resolution, gets to deem what is an associated property. Of course, as the minister says, somebody could litigate that if they wanted to, or protest it — come to a council meeting and do what you do at council meetings. But that doesn't stop the city from passing the resolution and moving forward until the court or somebody else tells them they can't.

So would the minister agree, that essentially — providing the council is willing to adopt resolutions — the council has very broad latitude to engage pretty much any properties it wants, to be able to exercise its options under this act, to put the package together? If that's not the case, maybe the minister could clarify what options aren't available, in his mind.

[0745]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to make sure that we all in this House fully can differentiate the issue of granting the securities or taking the securities. I appreciate the question. I believe I've answered the issue of granting the securities, so the issue really is the taking.

The taking of security is, as you said, any property. That is to secure the interest for the taxpayer of the city of Vancouver. That would be, as the city negotiated, whether they were the lender, per se. They would want to take security in order to ensure that the risk was minimized to the taxpayer of the city of Vancouver.

S. Simpson: I have one last question here, and then I think my colleague has a couple, and I'm just going to bounce back. It's just a definition here. When we look under subsection (1), "development project" — I'm just looking for a definition — it says: "includes the acquisition, disposition, development, use or construction of property in the development area and of personal property related to any of these." What is the definition for this of "personal property"?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Personal property includes property that is not real property. Real property means things like land and buildings and the rights and interests in them. Personal property is movable property. In a development project like the Southeast False Creek project, that may mean items needed to complete the units — for example, construction materials, fixtures, appliances for those units, and so on.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister a few questions. Given that the province and the city of Vancouver have a long relationship and have been partners since the inception of this Olympic village partnership, and also that the time to completion guarantees will probably, when all is said and done and this deal is looked at outside of these chambers…. The cost of completion guarantees seems to be the source of where this deal ran into major problems. It was a major cost driver. It, in essence, distorted the financing arrangement for the project.

[0750]

I'm curious and would like to get the minister's comments on why, in this very brief bill, there is no —none whatsoever, any — disclosure requirements included in these amendments. I guess the question, really, for the minister is around disclosure and reporting requirements and the lack of them in this bill.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: There is nothing in this bill that precludes the disclosure requirements under the Vancouver Charter. Now, those would all still be applicable under this, whether it be the issue of open meetings, closed meetings — those types of things. Hopefully, I'm addressing the member's question. I believe — and correct me if I'm wrong — he was wondering if this bill would negate their need to live up to those requirements under the charter now. It doesn't do that.

R. Fleming: Actually, my question was: given the extraordinary nature of this bill and this amendment, why hasn't the minister seen fit to include requirements for reporting and disclosure to the province and jointly to the city of Vancouver?

In particular, I'm thinking of information — that its veracity is completely independent, that there be an independent audit function included in that…. Because I think that throughout this debate we've seen the need for credible disclosure.

In fact, there has been regular disclosure of information, if you want to call it that, by the province and by the city. That hasn't been the issue here. It's that the regular reporting and disclosure that has been done to date on the Olympic village project has been of the nature that everything is okay. Clearly, we see now that it's not, because we're having this emergency debate and taking these extraordinary measures.

The question, again, for the minister is: why did he not contemplate and include in the legislation a requirement for an independent assurance and reporting requirements for disclosure to all interested parties in this project?

[0755]

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Your question that you raise, really, is already covered under the Vancouver Charter. Local
[ Page 13552 ]
government, including Vancouver…. They must hire an accounting firm as auditors. That's under Section 230 of the act. Those auditors have duties to examine the books and transactions and must report out and investigate under section 231 if necessary.

The other one that I'm sure won't come as a surprise — I think the members may have even spoken about this previously — is that Mayor Robertson from the city of Vancouver has committed to full openness and transparency, and we fully support that as well.

R. Fleming: Well, I thank the minister for part of his response. I definitely appreciate, as does he, the commitment by Mayor Robertson to meet that standard. But, as the minister knows, governments come and go. This debt, this project, is going to be around for some time. Governments will change. Voluntary assurances by somebody who is trying to do the very best right now are great for the situation we're in and for as long as that individual and that council are in office, but we've had an opportunity here with this legislation to, in fact, have requirements included that would call for veracity and independence and regular reporting, and it hasn't been done.

So the question again to the minister was: why wasn't this considered? Why wasn't it put into legislation — reporting that would be for all parties, including the province, which is not in the charter?

By the way, the function that he described is an internal audit function. I think what we're talking about here for the credibility of the city and for the assurance of both Vancouver and B.C. taxpayers is to have that as an external and independent audit function, which is currently not there under the charter requirement.

I again would put that question to the minister. Why hasn't it been done in this legislation? There's a tremendous amount of anxiety. We're talking about a lot of zeros here and the figure of money that could potentially be put on the balance sheet of the city. It is missing in this bill, and it's a glaring omission.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I do want to correct the member. He said that this was an internal audit that I referred to. No, it is not. It is an external audit under sections 230 and 231 that I quoted in the act. As well, I believe if you see…. The member for Surrey-Whalley, I believe it was, earlier was quoting from those external audit papers as well. We believe that that oversight is there. I have gone into discussion or, I guess, some depth as to explaining it. We believe that is the oversight as well. They are accountable to their taxpayers, and I think we've seen that.

[0800]

R. Fleming: Well, there are some cities in Canada that have their own independent Office of the Auditor General, much like this Legislature. Vancouver is not one of them. I think we're talking about a management audit in what you're quoting me in the section of the charter. The private sector firms that are hired to do that function do report out to the mayor and council, but they do not report out independently of the management letter that they present to the mayor and council.

I wanted to ask the minister the question again about the provincial responsibility and the opportunity that appears to have been missed here to work out something that would have been satisfactory for both the city of Vancouver and the province to provide oversight, because we need to have oversight on this project, not just when we come in here on an emergency basis to amend the charter; we need it on an ongoing basis.

There have been a lot of concerns raised in this debate about the potential here for borrowing without limit. You know, there is no sunset clause in this bill, but I think this side of the House is reasonably comfortable that because it's a project-specific amendment that, in fact, that is a sunset clause.

But I wanted to ask the minister again: what assurances should the extension of the borrowing authority to the city have, additional to what is there now? What requirements would he see fit to include for transparency and fuller disclosure to both sets of taxpayers that are put at risk with the Olympic village?

Hon. B. Lekstrom: Again, I do want to point out — I believe you talked about a managerial audit or referred to it — that section 230 is a financial audit under the Vancouver Charter, so we do want to do that.

We believe that there is the proper oversight that is there. The other one, of course…. And certainly, recognizing what you said earlier, councils do come and go. We have worked very closely with the city of Vancouver, their council, their staff, and there was no request to further what you're talking about here. So we believe that that oversight is there.

You also had mentioned, and I want to reiterate, that this is not a provincial project. This is the city of Vancouver's project.

R. Fleming: I know we've had different discussions, but I know there has been discussion around that council table about precisely the questions I'm asking and in the campaign by both parties prior to the election of the new mayor and council. So it is something that is in the public realm that has been discussed around city hall and Vancouver. This isn't coming out of the blue.

[0805]

I want to ask the minister again, though: given that these amendments are essentially removing the requirement to have the assent of the electors for the city to take on this level of debt — given that that is removed — shouldn't there be some trade-offs, some additional requirements for transparency for reporting, for addi-
[ Page 13553 ]
tional levels of assurances that are provided to both sets of taxpayers in this matter?

And again, I would ask the minister if he could share with the committee here why he found it apparently unnecessary to engage in dialogue about a trade-off like that and to put in requirements in this bill for transparency and accountability.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I believe the member has asked the question two, possibly three, times. I have done my best to provide you with the answer, and I don't think anything will change.

So if you have other questions relating to the bill, I'd gladly give you answers to that.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. B. Lekstrom: I would move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:08 a.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and Third Reading of Bills

VANCOUVER CHARTER
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009

Bill 47, Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the Lieutenant-Governor will be here in the precinct within the next ten minutes, so we will just recess until such time as he gets here.

The House recessed from 8:09 a.m. to 8:27 a.m.

Royal Assent to Bills

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his seat on the throne.

Clerk of the House:

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue the fourth session of the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that date and time. And in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned.

The House adjourned at 8:30 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175