2009 Legislative Session: Fifth Session, 38th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Monday, March 2, 2009

Morning Sitting

Volume 39, Number 1

[ Page 14073 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 2, 2009

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

ROUTES OF B.C.

C. Wyse: Mr. Speaker, 150 years ago the Cariboo was the economic hub of this province. Discovery of gold at Barkerville brought thousands of eager men and women hoping to strike it rich. This influx opened up the interior of the province. A river and road route from Victoria was established to supply miners. Agriculture, first introduced by the fur traders who kept animals and crops at their trading posts, supplied the miners with fresh food.

While the miners were predominantly of European ancestry, they were joined by Chinese prospectors seeking the fruits of the goldfields. The first nations peoples, already long established on the land, were not primary participants in the gold rush and received little benefit from the resulting wealth of the mining activity. For a period of time the populations of Barkerville and Quesnel Forks were so large that either of the communities could have served as the capital of B.C.

[1005]

But mineral supply is finite. The gold rush faded, miners moved on, and Chinese miners became railway workers. The first nations struggled to survive the diseases introduced by the white population. Quesnel Forks and Barkerville became ghost towns, but the ranching and agriculture that supported the mining industry remained an important part of the local economy.

Agriculture and in particular ranching brought new life to the Cariboo. The province's interior region was well suited to this industry, with rolling, prairie-like grasslands and ample supplies of water.

During the middle decade of the 20th century forestry created a second gold rush. Government policies during the 1950s ensured that trees harvested in a particular region were processed in that same area. This practice provided steady employment while giving the community a stable economic base.

The mining industry grew, again providing added riches. Mines opened and closed according to the availability of ore and the market price for metals. While the B.C. economy depended on selling its natural resources, forestry and agriculture provided economic stability for the region. Although forestry was vulnerable to the boom-and-bust cycles, individuals and businesses accepted the cyclic nature of the work in this industry, planning for the inevitable improvements that followed the periodic economic downturns.

Whether we speak of trees, ore or water, the natural resources of this province have forever belonged to all British Columbians. The wealth generated by these resources was managed by the government and passed along to all citizens. Policies developed by W.A.C. Bennett's government cemented this relationship. Communities like 100 Mile House, Williams Lake and Quesnel grew and prospered under these conditions. Communities like Anahim Lake and Hanceville thrived because the trees logged nearby were trucked to local mills.

The entire region prospered as schools were built, health care was provided and seniors were cared for close to home. In 2002 the Liberal government began to change the relationship between communities and their resources. They cancelled the appurtenancy agreement whereby trees were processed in the area in which they were harvested. In addition, the provincial government gave the trees to large forest companies, which now decided where the harvested trees would be milled.

Local residents watched as trees left town by the truckful. Residents watched their livelihoods hitch a ride on the trucks. Business owners watched their dollars disappear with the logs. Despite a period of record global economic growth in the past seven years, lumber mills closed throughout B.C. Thousands of workers lost their jobs. Hundreds of small business owners closed their doors. Untold numbers of families moved away, schools closed, and communities suffered.

But the Liberal government didn't stop there. A previous provincial Finance Minister declared that the province was simply a spectator in a game it couldn't control. The government had no plans to address the crisis created by the pine beetle infestation. As the province's forests turned blood-red, mills closed in Anahim Lake and Hanceville and, indeed, throughout the whole province. As the global economic cycle hit its low point, economic uncertainty increased.

Now, let's examine the effect on the big companies in the Cariboo. Tolko shut down four mills and gave indefinite layoffs to 750 people. Jackpine closed permanently, with a loss of 150 jobs. West Fraser closed one mill indefinitely, putting 160 employees completely out of work, while employees at other sites were forced to job-share to retain employment.

To add to this grim picture, world metal prices have plummeted, causing 175 layoffs between Mount Polley and Gibraltar mines, leaving their operations working on a day-by-day basis.

Let's examine how the present provincial government responded to these crises. In my area the Cariboo Chilcotin Beetle Action committee, a provincial government–
[ Page 14074 ]
sponsored group, is offering a program for the nervously employed. How's that for a euphemism? While the province was developing its response to the crisis in the forest, the nervously employed became the unemployed.

Forest workers were thrown into an EI program that is not sufficiently developed to respond to the seriousness of the current economic situation. Hundreds of small businesses and independent contractors lack any benefits. They have no safety net.

[1010]

The federal government's transition funding program, meant to bridge workers to retirement, has now been closed. The application deadline was August 2008. Everyone laid off in the past seven months since the deadline can't apply for the program, and the provincial government to this point has demonstrated that they are unwilling to establish their own transition program. Retaining dollars are insufficient to address the problem. The government's response is no response, and that is unacceptable.

The provincial and federal government lack any comprehensive and concrete plan to support resource-based communities in B.C. The natural resources owned by all British Columbians are no longer providing jobs for all British Columbians. As jobs disappear and families leave their homes, will these communities, like Barkerville and Quesnel Forks, become the ghost towns of tomorrow?

J. Rustad: I thank the member for bringing forward the topic, although I have to admit that I was rather amused when I first read the statement put forward as "Routes of Tomorrow." I looked at it, and I thought: "Great. We're going to be able to talk transportation." I wanted to be able to talk about some of the great things that we've done — in his riding alone, more than 50-some-odd-million dollars invested in road upgrades, as well as some of the other great things that we're doing across the north.

Unfortunately, the member for Cariboo South seemed to mix up his homophones and came out and talked about roots. As a former teacher, which the member for Cariboo South was, I should hope that he paid a little more attention during his teaching career to making sure that those distinctions were made, as opposed to what he has done here in the House.

However, that being the case, I am looking forward to discussing particularly what seemed to be the primary thrust, which is around forestry. He did touch on a couple things in terms of heritage, and that allows me an opportunity to talk a little bit about one of my communities and boast a little bit about Fort St. James.

The speaker talked about how the gold rush opened up the Cariboo and up through that area. It was actually more than 200 years ago when the fur trade really opened up the province, and it was Fort St. James, which was the capital of the then known region called New Caledonia, that was the forerunner of B.C. That really helped to open up our province and open it up through trade. The member's focus certainly wasn't just on heritage. He touched on some other things, such as ranching and the agriculture industry.

Agriculture is one that I would love to have been able to have a great long discussion on with the member, because we're doing some great things with agriculture. In particular, in the ranching industry there is some enormous opportunity going forward if we look at doing things differently in our markets. Those are things that I'm working with the minister on and that we as a government are working with the cattlemen on.

The member also talked about water and IPPs and our natural resources and mining. All of those things have been flourishing under our government over the past seven years and languished under the NDP during the '90s.

Specifically to forestry. I find it interesting that the member linked some of the challenges that the industry is facing today to appurtenancy. You see, I was born and raised in and around the forest industry. I've spent all my life working with people in the industry, and my family has a very lengthy history associated with forestry.

Over time, back in the '50s and even earlier than that, there were hundreds of mills that dotted the landscape all over the place. We saw significant closures and amalgamation of those mills over time. Funnily enough, when appurtenancy was in place, that trend continued. It didn't seem to change anything.

The member talks about how we need to be doing things for the future in forestry. I want to tell you something. Our Forests Minister right now has laid out a great plan on forestry. He's talking about utilizing wood — trying to make sure that we use wood in our construction and building, trying to make sure that it's the core of everything we do in this province. He's talking about growing trees — trying to get higher yields off the land base, trying to be in a position where we can replace some of that volume that is being damaged by pine beetle so that we can start focusing and being known as one of the best jurisdictions for growing trees.

[1015]

He's talking about opening up export markets and the work that's being done, particularly in China and throughout Asia. We have dramatically expanded the amount of wood and wood products that are going to Asia, and it's all part of diversifying our forest products, our forest markets so that we have a vibrant future in forestry.

Also, one thing that I'm very excited about is talking about using wood in different ways, talking about using bioenergy, talking about using wood to create…. Whether it's the pellet industry, whether it's for electricity, whether it's for biofuels of various sorts — those are huge opportunities.
[ Page 14075 ]

We announced just recently that we're setting up the innovative wood centre in Prince George, at UNBC. This is a great opportunity for us to look at wood products in a different way to try to incorporate those changes.

Things change. Our forest industry is going through some challenges and changes, but it is with the vision and direction of this government that we will help to move the forest industry through this change and help to put it on its feet so that in the future we can see a robust forest industry that can meet both the needs of the communities as well as the world around us.

C. Wyse: As usual, I'm very respectful and appreciative of the comments made by my colleague. The member is quite accurate. We are now well past the time for talk.

Assuredly, the record of this government does speak for itself. The tree is no longer milled in the area where it's harvested. Consequently, the record has appeared for itself. We're not discussing the number of mills required. We're talking about where the actual mill is harvested and the jobs, in actual fact, are produced.

To avoid the creation of more ghost towns in this province, British Columbia requires a government with a vision. British Columbia requires a government that understands the situation in the Interior. British Columbians require a government with a plan to reverse the economic devastation that has affected the entire province. This plan must include several critical issues.

Resolution of first nations issues. The province requires a resolution to this longstanding issue which will provide certainty to industry and finally provide first nations participation in the economic base of the province. All industries — mining, oil and gas, forestry or agriculture — require this issue to be resolved.

Agriculture. The province requires a government that protects arable land rather than using this land as a commodity to be distributed to resolve any issue. Agriculture requires government to accept financial responsibility for its policies, as they affect the individual rancher and farmer. The B.C. government must support its farmers and ranchers. Policies such as the meat industry regulation and the gas tax have only increased the production costs for farmers and ranchers.

Forestry. Forestry requires a government that will create a community and worker stability program; undertake softwood lumber and timber reform; develop an innovative, 21st-century forest products industry; create a green plan for B.C. forestry; establish a permanent commission for forestry.

Interjection.

C. Wyse: As my colleague the Minister of Forests has entered into the debate, I'm sure he recognizes his inaction.

Finally, British Columbia's future depends on a government with this vision, which also includes the establishment of a permanent commissioner for forestry. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your time.

Keep the Engine Running

R. Thorpe: I'm rising today to make the private member's statement on behalf of the member for Burquitlam, who is unable to be in the House today due to the passing of his father on the weekend. I know all members of this House will share in the member's loss.

Small business — keeping the engine running. Small business in British Columbia is one of the economic backbones of our entire province. Small business in British Columbia leads the country in growth — triple the national average.

[1020]

Small businesses with less than 50 employees generate 46 percent of all the employment in our province. Small businesses created around 85,000 jobs in the last few years. Small business accounts for 33 percent of British Columbia's GDP, the highest in Canada.

The member for Burquitlam was going to talk about some dynamic small businesses in his riding — small businesses like Legend Power Systems, a leading energy conservation company. Legend Power Systems manufactures and markets a patented device which helps their industrial and commercial customers to assist them to save money and the environment through voltage optimization.

Basically, Legend Power's Electrical Harmonizer–AVR delivers significant energy and cost savings for users through voltage optimization. This product eliminates inefficiencies by delivering the optimum level of voltage a user needs. By delivering the optimal voltage of users the Electrical Harmonizer–AVR helps to reduce maintenance costs, electricity bills and reduces greenhouse gases by reducing the waste of energy.

Thirty-six percent of all British Columbia small businesses are owned and operated by women. It's second in Canada, a great achievement — slightly behind, by one percentage point, New Brunswick.

There's a small business operator in the Burquitlam area. Mariana Fiddler is a resilient entrepreneur who owns a small pub and liquor store in the member's riding of Burquitlam. Her business, Rhino's Pub and Grill, has been a terrific place for families and friends to gather since 1978 and has everything from live bands to pools to special Canucks promotions and Monday night football promotions. Moreover, the facility operates a cozy atmosphere for everyone and specializes in great, quality food, including a great selection of appetizers, burgers and pizzas — and, I'm sure, an array of refreshing beverages.
[ Page 14076 ]

The challenges that entrepreneurs face today are being met head-on, and Mariana is one of those who is taking a positive outlook as she changes and adapts her business to meet the needs of today's customer and today's marketplace.

You know, one of the things that we addressed through the Premier's ten-point action plan in October was to lower small business tax rates to the second-lowest in Canada — from 4½ percent when we formed government to 2½ percent today, a 44 percent reduction. Small businesses will save significant amounts of money over the next three years. In fact, on a yearly net income of $80,000 on sales of $500,000, that yields $1,600 back into the pockets of small business.

Small businesses are increasing in Burnaby and in the member's riding of Burquitlam. There are two growing technology businesses. The first is Snap Technologies, a locally operated Web and design firm, which started in a founding partner's basement in 2001 and has spread to be an 11-person team in the bustling offices in Burnaby.

The second is Binary Stream Software. This company, founded in 1999, is an established producer of products for Microsoft Dynamics GP. It's part of the Microsoft community and is a gold-certified partner and member of Microsoft's President's Club. These two firms demonstrate that there is continued growth in the tech sector, providing local jobs, international products.

The growth in small business isn't just in the technology sector. There are restaurants like Simba's, florists like Petal Pushers and even recycling companies. Each of these businesses is leading the way in Burnaby, working to establish that industry standards are not only met but exceeded and holding to their own local establishment and roots.

Our government has worked very, very closely with small business and established the Small Business Roundtable, which has met throughout the province of British Columbia. The Small Business Roundtable hears from small business, listens to small business and acts on small businesses. Coquitlam recently joined BizPal on February 20, an on-line permanent licensing service that helps entrepreneurs start up faster. Using BizPal allows business owners to save seven hours in searching for permits and licences required for startup.

Every month businesses are joining the Burnaby Board of Trade. I know they find the network opportunities and the learning experiences to be a great benefit, and it helps connect the businesses to other businesses.

One area, also, that the member for Burquitlam has spent a lot of time on and worked tirelessly on is on behalf of the Korean business community. The member has worked with the BIA, has worked very closely with municipal governments — Coquitlam and Burnaby — to improve the business environment in these local environments.

[1025]

His keen interest in small business in this community also has led the member to become a member of both the Canada Korea Business Association and Korean Businessmen's Cooperative Association.

Small business is successful in Burnaby, in the riding of Burquitlam and in British Columbia. Yes, small business is the engine that keeps British Columbia moving forward.

C. Evans: I rise to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, you'll remember that a couple of weeks ago my grandchildren and their parents came, and you were kind enough to let me make an introduction. Their other grandparents are here today, Carol English and Nick Abetkoff. They're from Grand Forks and parents of Simone English, my daughter-in-law. They're here to check out their property, see what they own here and what belongs to them.

Hon. Speaker, where you live, you eat potatoes that Nick grows, so you owe your girth, perhaps, to….

Interjections.

C. Evans: I meant to say "your good health," hon. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That's better, Member.

C. Evans: And if anybody here is interested in investing in the potato-growing business in the Grand Forks area, there are some folks here who would be pleased to chat with you. Would you make them welcome.

Debate Continued

L. Krog: Firstly, as this is the opportunity to do it, I wish to express on behalf of the members of the opposition our sincere condolences to the member for Burquitlam. It's a pretty tough thing to lose a father.

I'm afraid the member for Nelson-Creston, though, has sort of stolen my thunder. I was going to suggest the member's statement I heard was more of an advertorial than I've heard in this chamber for a long time for small businesses, naming them in particular, but after the introduction by the member for Nelson-Creston I think my legs have been cut out from beneath me this morning.

I'm not going to advertise any small businesses in particular this morning. But I am going to say that the remarks made by the stand-in for the member for Burquitlam this morning are quite accurate. Small business plays an absolutely crucial role in our economy.
[ Page 14077 ]
However, it isn't just about taxation when it comes to promoting small business. In these tough times what small businesses are interested in is revenue.

My experience — certainly running a law office, my experience dealing with members of the small business community — is that taxation's always an issue. Everybody wants less taxation. But the truth is that what people really want is to have a tax problem, not a revenue problem, and revenue is what it's all about today. Those small businesses in British Columbia that are struggling to make it into the new economy are the ones that deserve our support.

It is one thing to talk about shoring up older industries that have no future, and one has to choose very carefully what one is talking about if that's the choice. But certainly, there are obvious areas for growth and development, particularly around technology and energy generation, around clean technology, taking advantage of our opportunities both as a fairly well-educated society, a society with many universities, a climate that attracts people to live here, the best and the brightest.

There's no finer place in the world to live than in British Columbia and, indeed, I would suggest with some small prejudice, no finer place to live than Vancouver Island. I would certainly suggest — the only thing I'll come close to saying as an advertorial — that the central Island, with Vancouver Island University, is a wonderful place for small business to locate and prosper.

But when I speak about my constituency in the context of small business, I have to speak about the farmers out in Cedar. I've got to speak about the folks who are impacted by the meat regulations. I've got to speak about all those people who have a sincere commitment to improving the environment, to sustaining British Columbia's environment, who are very concerned about the impact of meat regs on the environment, on small farmers, on landholders, on those people who we're encouraging over and over again with the 100-mile diet.

The very people who can provide food close to home are being punished by a regulation that is essentially a response to an American demand. It is a concession of Canadian sovereignty, of British Columbia sovereignty, that has a real impact on small business.

[1030]

Thousands of people across British Columbia who are producers and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands more, indeed, who are consumers are saying: "No. This just doesn't make any sense." If you support small business, if you support the businesses that produce goods and deliver services close to home — which is all good for the environment, which is good for local economy — then for heaven's sake don't place roadblocks in front of their opportunity to succeed. More importantly, through what is clearly now a recession both statistically and acknowledged by politicians, don't put more roadblocks in their way. Give them the opportunity to survive.

Trade is a wonderful thing. The concept of trade is that you trade what you've got a surplus of to buy what somebody else has a surplus of. It works for both of you because perhaps you don't have the resources, the skills or whatever. But we know we have the skills and resources to produce food here on Vancouver Island. We know that.

What we're asking of this government is that if you want to talk about keeping the engine running, then ensure that it runs well close to home. Save the planet. Reduce the carbon footprint. Do what's sensible. Don't bring in a regulation to address a problem that, frankly, didn't exist. It never did exist.

The issues were from large packinghouses, from exports, and had nothing to do with the folks out in Cedar, in my constituency, who have worked hard and have been producing high-quality food for decades — indeed, several generations in many cases.

I say to the government this morning that if you really want to keep the engine running…. It's a great title. You know, it has a certain appeal, particularly to those of us who were born in the '50s and are conscious of the automobile — keep the old engine running….

R. Thorpe: I want to thank the member for his comments and for his support and endorsement of our climate action plan. I, too, support the 100-mile diet. But the one thing that the member did say: it's all about revenue…. Well, that's part of the equation. The other part of the equation is costs.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

The member talks about having his own small business. He knows that it's not all just about revenue. It's also about cost containment. I see the member shaking his head in support of that statement.

We on this side of the House and the member for Burquitlam would have said that is why the Small Business Roundtable was formed. It was a commitment in 2005 of the Premier. It has been formed. It works; it travels. It's made up of members of small business from every part, every region of British Columbia. They meet on a regular basis. They travel throughout the province. They hear what small business is saying. They make those recommendations forward in an annual report that is usually tabled in October during Small Business Month in British Columbia.

I might add that British Columbia is, I believe, the only province that has moved from recognizing small business for a week in October to the entire month of October because it is so important.

That is also why our government has moved and accelerated its plans to reduce the small business tax rate by 44 percent. That is why we now have the lowest personal tax rates in British Columbia. As we all know, that impacts
[ Page 14078 ]
significantly on small business operators. We've also worked to reduce red tape by some 47 percent.

There are a number of things that we've done. But is the job complete? The job is never complete, and I think that is one thing that all members in this House can actually agree on. We have to meet the ever-changing needs of small business in British Columbia, in every region in the province. That is a commitment of our government, and one the member for Burquitlam wanted me to make sure was said in this House today.

You know, we should celebrate the success of 380,000 small businesses in British Columbia. We should celebrate that we have a growth rate in small business triple the national average. We should celebrate that there are over a million people in British Columbia working in the small business sector. We should celebrate that 36 percent of the women in British Columbia work in small business, the second-highest percentage in Canada. We should celebrate, to the member's point, about high-tech.

[1035]

Did you know that in 2007 there were 8,225 small businesses in the high-tech sector? It's a promising beachhead, if you will, as we continue to move forward with some of the best and brightest young folks and entrepreneurs in the entire world located here in British Columbia. They're here in British Columbia because of the competitive situation our government has developed to work with and support small business throughout British Columbia.

resources

R. Austin: Previous governments have built this province on the rational exploitation of our vast natural resources and low-cost hydroelectricity from our magnificent rivers.

The objective has been to create the maximum wealth from use of our vast natural resources and distribute this wealth to the owners of these resources — British Columbians. It is to get the most wealth into the hands of British Columbians, firstly through the maximization of living-wage jobs in our province — not in the U.S. or Korea or Japan — as well as through the financing and delivering of high-quality public services.

The best way to do this is to sensibly exploit these resources and add value to the fullest extent here in British Columbia. By moving up the value chain, we create wealth that is put into the hands of British Columbians, support communities, finance excellent public services and add to the quality of life of our citizens.

The lowest-value use of our natural resource is their removal and sale in their raw state. This is acceptable as a last alternative only, and government's job, as the stewards of these resources charged with managing them to create wealth for British Columbians, is to seek ways to add value so that we do not become solely hewers of wood and drawers of water.

If there are industries to which our resources give a decisive competitive advantage in value-added processing, these should be sought to see if careful business exchanges can be made to create value-added processing of our resources and support growing profitable industries paying living wages to British Columbians.

For many years we were doing well towards this important end. But many such exchanges were made, linking resources to industries, to British Columbia jobs, to communities and to the creation of wealth for British Columbians. Unable to simply take the resources and sell them raw, these resources enter the input chain of industry at some of the lowest costs in the world, giving clear competitive advantages to processing industries and securing the jobs in communities which flowed from these exchanges.

These arrangements had great mutual benefit both to investors and to British Columbians, but this government saw no value in such sensible and successful exchanges. For some reason which defies business sense, they have allowed the investors to keep the preferential terms to which they rent or extract our resources and yet abandon the obligations to use these resources for the very industries for which they were exchanged.

Now the resource renters are allowed to sell raw our own resources at huge profits and drive the price of the inputs for our industries from the lowest in the world to the highest. This eliminates the very competitive advantage which was created by the original exchange and sends these profits overseas to the non-resident renters of our resources. Thus, the renter's benefit goes way up, and the owner's benefit goes way down.

For some reason, this government has delinked our resources from our industries, our jobs and our communities and has delinked the wealth of our resource from our province. This government has made what were successful exchanges into gifts — gifts of our resources, our economic heritage and our economic base. This government has reversed years and years of successful development, destroyed vast amounts of wealth and raced us down the value chain.

There are many examples in wood and water. In the forests we have allowed the companies to remove any benefit to the immediate region by allowing not some, not a defined percentage, but in northwest B.C. all of our trees to be exported as raw logs. Whether these are shipped to China to have value added or shipped to supermills far away from northwest B.C., the end result has been a decimation of a once proud industry.

It is now up to the local community to redefine our forestry sector so that we can move beyond pulp and dimensional lumber and find other uses and other markets for our remaining fibre basket. The good news is that this fibre is a source which is still worth millions to our future generations.

In my riding of Skeena we have perhaps the best example of poor public policy with regards to public
[ Page 14079 ]
resources. The aluminum industry was based on an exchange of the vast renewable energy resource in the Nechako and Kemano watersheds. This gave the aluminum industry the lowest-cost electricity in the world. It gave the aluminum industry a decisive competitive advantage. It created the new community of Kitimat and supported all the communities in the northwest. It was a hugely successful exchange.

But this government went to court and argued against their own people and communities and delinked the vast water resources of the Nechako and Kemano rivers from what was one of the lowest-cost aluminum industries in the world.

[1040]

They manipulated the electricity markets at the resource renter's request and provided a guaranteed price for the sale of raw electricity which otherwise supported the industry. They created a vastly more profitable commercial opportunity to sell raw electricity than the already extremely profitable aluminum industry.

Raw electricity sales in this case benefit only the renter. The aluminum industry now must compete with unfettered electricity sales, driving the costs of this critical input to exorbitant heights and eliminating the sole reason for the industry to be in British Columbia.

The resource renters make over 1,000 percent profit, with absolutely no risk, on our water energy resource by selling it back to British Columbians. Yet we are the resource owners.

What kind of sound public stewardship is this? What kind of government would knowingly do this? Who would seek to facilitate this? They broke smelter build agreements on the eve of the investment in the industry and replaced these industrial arrangements with power sales agreements.

A once thriving industry, a thriving community — a rapidly growing wealth-generating industry for British Columbia — now has little commercial reason to exist. It is no wonder that the firm closed profitable aluminum capacity even during one of the most extended periods of record commodity prices in recent history.

It is no wonder that whoever rents our water energy and owns the aluminum industry in Kitimat has never built the forever-promised new smelter in the same period. It is no wonder the record of a resource industry closure is so startling. It is no wonder our resource communities are reeling. It is no wonder home values and savings of so many British Columbians are collapsing — except perhaps to the B.C. Liberals.

The only wonder is: why did this government do this? This globalist liberal economic model driven by primitive ideology — whatever it is — has hugely failed British Columbians. It has effectively Third World–ized this province.

We must recapture our resource wealth and rebuild our industries and re-establish the focus on adding value, creating jobs and wealth for our citizens, and rebuilding our communities, which are the foundations of this province. The alternative is to abandon modern civilization in rural communities, return to the feudal era and become vassals again in our own land.

D. MacKay: I am pleased to stand and respond to the comments I just heard from the member for Skeena.

The first thing I wanted to touch on, of course, was the fact…. I think I did hear him say that we're exporting all of our raw logs. Given the economic crisis that the province finds itself in today, I think it makes a lot of sense to me if we can keep part of that industry — the forest industry — viable and keep some of the trucks and the loggers working. I think it makes sense to allow them to extract some of the wood that we can't find a market for after we mill it and process it here.

I think I heard the member suggest that maybe we should shut down the logging industry, as well, and put those people out of work who are actually keeping their families fed, keeping a roof over their head and keeping the banker away from taking back the equipment they actually operate to make that dollar as they move the wood offshore.

I don't support that in good times if the forest industry has a customer for the product at the end of the day. But to suggest now, given the economic conditions we have, to shut down the logging industry doesn't make any sense to me.

I heard him also talk about the Alcan project and the sale of the energy from Alcan. I have to wonder if the member has forgotten — back in the 1950s, when Alcan first became a reality, the money that went into the province and the encouragement from the government of the day to Alcan to come in and spend money building what is now known as the Kitimat smelter to create all those jobs — where that money came from.

Actually, it came from profits. It came from the word "profits," which I think the member sometimes loses touch of. I want to quote from something that the member had said some time ago, and it just goes right in with what we're talking about here. Can you imagine Alcan having a profit and being able to build a community of Alcan 50 years ago and build the reservoir that was needed to generate the power that they're selling today?

This is a direct quote from that member. "I don't think for one second that I'm here to start business making profits, because I hate profits." "I hate profits" is what that member said a few years ago. So it does shock me to hear him say that he supports industry, but he seems to have forgotten another part of the equation. Job creation is part of it, but there's got to be a profit at the end of the day for these people if they're going to continue to create jobs for the people in our province through resource extraction.

[1045]
[ Page 14080 ]

I'd now like to wander off to the mining sector for a moment. I think we have forgotten that back in 2001, we saw $29 million of exploration being generated in our province. Now, $29 million — that's not a great deal of money. However, in 2007 we saw that number increase to $414 million of exploration. Most of that exploration — or a good percentage of it — took part in the ridings of Skeena and Bulkley Valley–Stikine. That's a big turnaround, given the fact that the NDP were in power when we saw these resource numbers drop to unheard-of numbers.

I think we're going in the right direction. Commodity prices had a part to play in it, but when you look at the actual percentage of dollars being spent in the province of British Columbia under the previous government and what's being spent today, you'll see that there's a dramatic increase. It's because we got rid of a lot of red tape and unnecessary regulation that were there and had been introduced by the previous government.

One great example, of course, is the corporate capital tax. If you bought a piece of machinery and brought it into the province of British Columbia to do any work, to generate jobs, you were taxed on that. Even if the machine sat idle, you were taxed on a piece of equipment that you bought to create jobs for the people in this province.

I want to digress just for a moment and talk about the Kemess North project that I found somewhat unsettling. I've often wondered what decision would be made today, given the state of the economy and the number of job losses that we're seeing. I wonder what would have happened in that three-person panel that was asked to make the final decision on the Kemess North project. Of course, I think everybody knows that decision was that the aboriginal interests outweighed the economic interests for opening up the Kemess North project.

The project did not get the go-ahead, so we're actually going to see around 450 jobs disappear from the Kemess mine that is operating today. The Kemess North was just an extension of an existing mine. I've often wondered what decision would be made, given today's economic conditions.

I see that the clock is on, so I'll sit down and let the member for Skeena respond again.

R. Austin: Thank you to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for his comments.

The argument that we should have raw log exports in a time when markets are bad would be okay if we could see the industry at least having the capacity to still come back. What has happened with continual raw log exports, where the logs aren't just exported out of the province but are sent to another region of British Columbia…. It means that in northwest B.C. we have entirely lost our capacity. So even if markets do improve, we will never go back to the days of having any kind of capacity to deal with these logs and process them and add value in our region.

I think people in Terrace and all over northwest B.C. recognize now the difficulty and the challenges with having lost our capacity — so much so that people in the local areas are realizing that they have to come up with their own solutions to deal with the fact that our fibre is now simply shipped out of the area. There are no jobs that come beyond the initial logging jobs. We want to be able to add other jobs to that.

In regards to aluminum smelting, of course I understand that Alcan and Rio Tinto have to make a profit. That's a given. But what we are arguing here is that this is a public resource. The water that goes into the Kemano project to create electricity is a public resource. Therefore, as British Columbians we have a right to say what benefit we get from that.

When you have an industry that was enticed to come to British Columbia because of cheap electricity now being given an incentive to not produce aluminum but to actually just sell electricity…. Then, in that case, it should just become a B.C. Hydro project. If the Socreds had wanted it just to be electricity sales, they would simply have said 50 years ago: "Hey, B.C. Hydro, come up here. We'll let you take this river, and you can give cheap electricity to British Columbians forever and ever."

They didn't do that. They decided to use some vision. They decided that they would actually create a viable manufacturing industry in northwest B.C., which this Liberal government has essentially cut off at the knees by allowing it to go back to just electricity sales. That's what's happened.

[1050]

My point is this. As the holders and the owners of this public resource, it is the government that should be putting an incentive in place for Alcan to build a modernized smelter, not putting an incentive in place so that they can simply sell electricity rather than smelt aluminum.

We stand to lose jobs — 500 jobs — if we ever get a modernized smelter. But more importantly, we're now talking about actually cutting back on aluminum production. Meanwhile the company still gets to sell as much power as it wants. That's not good for the citizens of British Columbia, and it's certainly not good for the citizens of northwest B.C.

Responsibility

R. Lee: In a little more than two months' time the people of British Columbia will go to the polls to choose whom they wish to entrust with the responsibility of governing our province for the next four years. Both parties in this House are seeking this privilege and honour, which only the people have the power to grant. In order to earn the trust of British Columbians, it is my firm belief that we must demonstrate a strong sense of responsibility.
[ Page 14081 ]

I am proud of this government's record over the past eight years, and I am proud that we have consistently demonstrated this strong sense of responsibility. Unfortunately for the members of the opposition, however, they cannot make the same claim. I will not go into detail about their reckless record in the area of economic management. That's well established. However, I will speak about their complete lack of responsibility in the area of public safety.

Since 2001 this government has taken its responsibility for public safety very seriously. That's why we have steadily increased our annual provincial policing budget by over $128 million since 2001, an 89 percent increase. That's why we have put 950 more police officers on the streets of our communities. That's why we invest $66 million a year in ten major integrated units to solve major crimes, meaning we have more integrated units and joint operations per capita than anywhere else in Canada.

What have my colleagues in the opposition done? They have neglected their responsibility for public safety by voting against every single budget and thereby voting against every single crime-fighting measure I have discussed, along with many others which I don't have time to mention. Theirs is not a record of responsibility sufficient to win the trust of the people, and they know it. I wish I could say that after eight years the opposition has at least discovered a sense of responsibility, but I cannot. Here's why.

With all the crime-fighting initiatives we have put in place, the number of criminals arrested by the police has greatly increased. In the past six years the remand population has increased by 80 percent. Pretrial centres in the Lower Mainland are over capacity. It's very clear to any reasonable person that a new pretrial centre is necessary if we are to keep offenders off the streets while they await trial. That's why the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General undertook a thorough review of available sites in the Lower Mainland.

This review clearly determined that the only viable location for the new Lower Mainland pretrial centre is the Willingdon lands in my hometown of Burnaby. The Willingdon lands have been used for correctional purposes since 1954 and are zoned for institutional use.

[1055]

This site is ideally located within close proximity to a number of court facilities as well as other justice services. The Willingdon lands are the optimum location for the new pretrial centre. It has the correct zoning. The province owns it. It's the correct size. It has the necessary utilities and services and no unaddressed environmental issues. It's near the epicentre of courts and other government programs and services. It has excellent access to major roads, reducing transit time for service, inmates and legal counsel. It's the ideal location.

My colleagues in opposition may be lacking in responsibility, but I give them credit for being intelligent. I know that they know that the Willingdon lands are the correct location for a new pretrial centre. So what are the members of the opposition doing? Are they doing the right thing? No. They are playing politics. Instead of putting public safety first by helping to get the Lower Mainland pretrial centre built, they are irresponsibly spreading fear among my community of Burnaby.

It seems to me that they and their friends on Burnaby city council are more interested in the political career of Kathy Corrigan than they are in making sure that criminals and gangsters are locked up and off our streets while they are awaiting trial. This is outrageous, and this is a complete abdication of their responsibility to the public.

By waging a fear campaign and getting in the way of building this much-needed facility, they are saying that they favour having 360 offenders wandering the streets at any given time. This is the number of criminals and gangsters that the Lower Mainland pretrial centre will lock up, off our streets and out of our communities.

This week two candidates from their party have offered drastically different opinions on the fate of the Willingdon lands pretrial centre.

M. Sather: For the member opposite to stand up and say that this government is concerned about the gang violence in our communities — happened in Maple Ridge just last week — is pretty hard to take when they're the ones that just cut the budget for public safety. It's ridiculous that they would make such a claim.

As far as the Willingdon centre goes, it's not us that they have to convince about the viability of it. It's the people of Burnaby that they have to convince. The member has to convince his own colleague from Burnaby, who said that he would like to see it moved elsewhere. So I think they ought to do a little bit of homework on dealing with the issues that they have there and in their own caucus with regard to that situation.

In terms of responsibility, we have seen a complete dearth of responsibility by this government. If you look at, for example, the unconscionable spending that this government indulged in — months and months of partisan advertising paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia and no accountability whatsoever…. Tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money spent, and this government will not tell the people of British Columbia how much of their money they spent.

Around Christmas the Premier, I guess, was starting to vaguely understand that there were some economic problems. He said: "You know what? We're going to cut out discretionary spending." He said: "Why, we might even have to cut out some of those ads we're running because, after all, they are somewhat discretionary."

[1100]

Eventually he did get around to cutting out those partisan ads, only to bring in the most draconian, undemocratic law this province has ever seen — the gag law. Nobody can
[ Page 14082 ]
do anything in this province that even vaguely opposes this draconian government, or the government freaks out: "How dare anyone criticize this government."

They've got the gall…. After passing such an undemocratic law, they should be ashamed, and after spending tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars to support their government before that. It's a total travesty that this government has undertaken. One can only hope that they come to their senses around that.

Responsibility, too, is having a Premier that's willing to face the people of this province. When he comes to Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, which he does from time to time, he ought to let the people of our communities know. He ought to have the courage and take the responsibility to let them know that he's in town, because you know what? They have the right to speak to their Premier. But no. He comes in quietly, nobody knows about it, he sneaks out, and then it comes out in the paper.

Well, one time not too long ago he came to Pitt Meadows with regard to a Spirit Square, I think it was. Where was the responsibility there, I'd like to know, to the taxpayers? There was a lady that happened to notice that the Premier was in town. That's the only way you do find out — if you happen to see him. She decided that she had certain problems with some of the things that his government was doing. So she took a sign and she walked down the street to protest.

Point of Order

R. Hawes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The rules of the House do dictate that in private members' time individuals are not set upon and disparaged, as you know. The rules of the House are being broken here pretty badly, and I would ask that you enforce them.

Deputy Speaker: Some of the remarks this morning are certainly not within the spirit of Standing Order 25, and I would ask members to please temper their remarks accordingly.

Continue, Member.

M. Sather: Well, Madam Speaker, this member for Maple Ridge–Mission has to be the worst offender in this House with regard to keeping free debate out of this House.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Members.

R. Hawes: Point of order. Madam Speaker, he's just now disparaging me. The standing orders say that you are not to cast disparaging remarks on any member of the House. Perhaps he doesn't understand the rules, Madam Speaker, and you could explain them to him. They are relatively simple.

Deputy Speaker: I cautioned you previously. Continue.

Debate Continued

M. Sather: Well, I think the actions of this member in this House speak for themselves. This is the most irresponsible…

Deputy Speaker: Member.

M. Sather: …we have ever seen in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Order, Member.

M. Sather: The subject is responsibility; the actuality is irresponsibility. We are here today to talk about responsibility, Madam Speaker, and I'm here to say that there is a complete lack of responsibility by this government on a whole number of areas. It is simply time that this government lived up to their promises of being the most open and accountable government in Canada. That's a matter of responsibility. There is no responsibility in this government.

R. Lee: Talking about responsibility again, this week two candidates from their party have offered drastically different opinions on the fate of the Willingdon lands — the trial centre. On Tuesday Kathy Corrigan said that her party told her that there would not be a jail or a prison on the Willingdon lands. However, on Wednesday morning my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds told RedFM that it may be the right location.

[1105]

I'm sure that I'm not the only resident of Burnaby who is completely confused by all this doubletalk from the opposition on this very important issue of public safety. This pretrial centre will be safe for the neighbours and also the people, inmates, released, who will be going home to their own neighbours.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Also, the property value will not decrease because of the crime rate. Actually, from the experience of the pretrial centre in Coquitlam, it actually goes down, so it's good for the neighbours.

Also, the most important point I would like to mention for responsibility in this debate is that one of the Burnaby candidates is not being honest with the people of Burnaby. The question I would like the Leader of the Opposition to answer is: who is not telling the truth?

Is it Kathy Corrigan when she said that there's an absolutely clear commitment from her party that there will not be a pretrial centre on Willingdon lands? Or is it the member for Burnaby-Edmonds when he says that maybe the Willingdon lands are the right location for the pretrial centre?
[ Page 14083 ]

It is irresponsible of the opposition to say one thing on Tuesday and a completely different thing on Wednesday. The opposition has a responsibility to be honest with the people of Burnaby. When will they stop lying and be honest about the issue?

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just take your seat for a second.

Member, will you withdraw that remark, please?

R. Lee: I withdraw the remark.

I would like to say: when will they start telling the truth and be honest about this issue?

Hon. J. McIntyre: I'd like to call Motion 22, please.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, the unanimous consent of the House is required to proceed with Motion 22 without disturbing the priorities of the motions preceding it on the order paper.

Leave granted.

Motions on Notice

DISCLOSURE AND AUDIT
OF OLYMPIC COSTS

C. James: I'm pleased to speak to the following motion.

[Be it resolved that this House affirm the importance of full public disclosure regarding the costs of the Olympics and discuss and debate the appointment of the Auditor General of the Province of British Columbia as the auditor of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games, with established monthly reporting commitments to the Legislative Assembly through the Public Accounts Committee.]

As we all know, British Columbians everywhere are excited about hosting the 2010 Winter Games. We all feel great pride in our province, our heritage and our people. The opportunity to showcase British Columbia to the world is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

I want to say a huge thank-you to everyone on the ground who is working so hard to make the 2010 Games a reality— sincere gratitude from all of us on this side of the House. But it's important that as we prepare for the Olympics, we must not lose our perspective. Though we all want to put our best foot forward, our games planning cannot come at any price.

Experience elsewhere shows us that a legacy of debt, unpaid bills and bitter recriminations can result from unrealistic expectations and from setting aside normal checks and balances in the drive to meet tight deadlines and to impress the world.

The best Olympic Games have been a positive reflection of the times and place in which they were held. For two weeks in 2010, the world will look at us to see the best about the human spirit reflected back. We want to reflect a province united in our support for the world's athletes and a province where our core values — democratic inclusivity, equality and diversity — are also celebrated as our province's greatest achievements.

The Vancouver 2010 bid, as we know, was conceived and won in a global economic boom. It will be held in a global economic recession. That fact should give us all pause when we consider what we want from these games, what message we're going to send the world about British Columbia and what legacy the games will leave.

[1110]

That's why I believe the motion that I've put forward today is so important to the success of our 2010 journey. The global recession is forcing all of us to re-evaluate our priorities and to focus on what's important, to focus on the fundamentals. As the economic news worsens, many British Columbians naturally wonder whether the cost of hosting the games makes sense at such a difficult time of economic hardship and uncertainty.

For the laid-off forest worker who's worried about their EI benefits running out, for the senior couple whose retirement savings have disappeared as the market collapsed, for the young family in Surrey paying a mortgage that's larger than their house is worth, for every British Columbian who worries about how they're going to afford school supplies, much less college tuition — for all of those people….

We owe all of those people the most vigorous, transparent and full accounting of the Olympic Games that we can possibly provide. Any less than that and we're effectively saying to hard-working British Columbians that the games don't belong to them, that they're free to watch from the sidelines, but they'll have no choice but to pay the bills when they come in.

That's why, with less than a year to go before the opening ceremonies, it is so vital that this House affirm the importance of full public disclosure of Olympic costs. To do that, I believe appointing B.C.'s Auditor General to regularly report those costs to the public would be a huge step in the right direction. Supporting this motion and establishing independent financial oversight over the games might not serve the government's political interests, but it would certainly serve the public interest. It would also serve the 2010 games.

Quite frankly, watching the Premier and the Finance Minister over the last number of years insist that the games will only cost $600 million has been an embarrassment. It's been insulting to British Columbians, to their intelligence, to tell them that hosting the games will be $600 million. British Columbians know that's not true. They know that, in the post-9/11 world, we can't
[ Page 14084 ]
secure the games for $175 million, and they certainly know that the new $900 million Olympic security cost will likely still go up.

British Columbians know that we wouldn't be spending tens of millions of dollars on an Olympic secretariat if we weren't hosting the Olympics. I think that's the one that stands out the most. To not count that money — an Olympic secretariat — as an Olympic expense calls into question this government's truthfulness about other Olympic costs.

British Columbians know that the convention centre is an Olympic cost and that the $400 million in overruns should be counted towards the Olympics. They know, too, that the same applies to other major infrastructure projects that were chosen over other important and needed investments precisely because they were critical to a successful bid for the Olympics. British Columbians know that. The Auditor General has confirmed that.

Now we hear the government saying that the games' costs have risen to $765 million, only slightly less laughable than $600 million. The Auditor General, as we know, has put the figure in the billions, but the Premier and the Finance Minister continue to act as though day is night, black is white and that obvious Olympic costs shouldn't be counted. It doesn't make any sense. No one believes it, and it has the potential to severely damage the credibility of the games in the eyes of British Columbians whose support is so essential to their success.

British Columbians deserve better. British Columbians can handle the truth. They deserve the truth. British Columbians went into this bid with their eyes wide open. They knew the games were going to cost, and they don't need the government playing games to be able to keep the real costs away from them. As if pretending that the Olympics cost less will make us all feel better. It's that kind of arrogance that frustrates so many people about this government.

[1115]

In difficult economic times we expect an honest accounting from government, a plan to contain costs as much as is possible and a plan to pay off Olympic expenses once the athletes go home.

The truth isn't going to hurt the 2010 games, as the government seems to believe. The truth is going to help the games. The truth about costs will help ensure that the games are a positive reflection of the time and the place in which they were held. The truth will help ensure that they leave a proud legacy. The truth will serve our athletes and their dedication.

In that effort I ask all members of this House, government and opposition, to support a motion to bring honesty and transparency to Olympic accounting. This motion, if passed, will take a huge, necessary step towards a successful Olympic Games.

R. Hawes: I guess I'd start by saying that this motion, to me, is at best vexatious, at worst very, very naive — obviously very, very political. So let me just start first by letting the Leader of the Opposition know how the Auditor General works and how VANOC works.

VANOC is not operated by the British Columbia government, so we cannot appoint the auditor for the Olympics. Now, every member on the government side of the House knows that. If the Leader of the Opposition needs some advice as to the scope or ambit that the independent officers of the Legislature can operate within, perhaps she could come and speak to any member on this side of the House, because we do understand it, and it's very clear she doesn't.

The Auditor General has the power to follow British Columbia's money as far as British Columbia's money goes. The Auditor General is not the auditor of record for VANOC. He could be, if they chose to appoint him, but that's not our function here.

That makes this motion absolutely benign, and the Leader of the Opposition clearly knows that or ought to know that. We don't appoint the auditor for VANOC. The Olympics, the IOC and VANOC will appoint their own auditor.

Let's talk, then, about the other part. Let's talk about full disclosure of Olympic costs.

First and foremost, I know the opposition has been out talking about $6 billion. Now, if a person were to really look at this, they have included, among other things, the cost of the Canada line, which is about $2 billion. The Auditor has put $8 million of what he thinks should be Olympic cost into the Canada line.

The rest of the expense isn't there, but the opposition, in their attempt to colour the Olympics in the worst possible light, which I think is bad for all British Columbians and is shameful, are adding in all kinds of money, including the cost of the Sea to Sky Highway.

Now, the Sea to Sky Highway just happened to be the biggest death road in British Columbia — 38 deaths in a matter of just a few years. More deaths on that highway than any other highway in British Columbia. Yet it would sound like these members would have rather seen the deaths continue than see that highway rebuilt into a safe condition. I think that's shameful on their part.

To say that the money to rebuild the Sea to Sky Highway should all be put into the framework of the Olympics is to say, perhaps, that they would plan to tear it up at the end of the Olympics. The life span of that highway is going to be for 50 years-plus. You can't take a big capital asset like that and amortize it like they're trying to do. NDP math: amortize it over two weeks. It makes no sense at all.

The convention centre is being built, actually, to host conventions from all around the world and brings us to the forefront in the world as a destination of choice for major conventions. It's not being built for the Olympics. It's being built for the betterment of the economy of British Columbia, and it will reap huge benefits down
[ Page 14085 ]
the road for years to come. Yet these folks would want to attribute the costs to the period that the Olympics are open.

[1120]

By the way, the Leader of the Opposition might want to check, when she mentions it's for a two-week event. Actually, there is a thing called the Paralympics that comes at the end of the first part of the Olympics — a very important part of it. She seems to neglect that.

I just want to close my words on this ridiculous motion that…. Here's a quote from the Leader of the Opposition, February 5, 2009, just a month ago, to the Western Silviculture Contractors Association. She says: "I heard the Finance Minister say this week that the Olympics are the best economic stimulus any government could hope for. I disagree," said the Leader of the Opposition.

Now, Dr. Anne Golden, the president and chief executive officer of the Conference Board of Canada — a woman, by the way, not unacquainted with economic development principles — says: "Winning the Olympic bid has been a huge benefit, attracting investment and stimulating new infrastructure. Continued construction in the Olympic venues and transportation links will support economic growth this year. The games themselves will bolster tourism, retail sales and other related economic activity in 2010."

The Conference Board of Canada and all of the other leading economic prognosticators in Canada say that the Olympics are actually one of the reasons that we will be the first one out of this recession. They are a wonderful thing for the province of British Columbia.

Our youth are actually out there just cheering the fact that we've got the Olympics. Their pride in this province is unparalleled. It has not happened before in our history, and I can tell you, it is a huge benefit to every British Columbian — in spite of these people's attempt to make these games as negative as possible, and they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Oh, and one last thing: the venues have all been completed. They are within budget, and they are ahead of time — the first time in the history of the Olympics that all of the venues are completed early.

So thank you for the opportunity to say something, even though the motion itself is pretty naive.

H. Bains: The member previous to me from the government side said it's shameful to ask for a full public disclosure about the true Olympic cost, and it is shameful to have the Auditor General appointed as the auditor of record for the Olympics. What a noble idea. But you know what shameful is? Shameful is this government's continual refusal to give the true cost of the Olympics to the taxpayers who are paying for their wages and paying for these games. That's what shameful is.

It is actually unfortunate that we in the opposition have to bring a motion like this to force the government to accept their responsibility that they should have been accepting themselves on their own.

We know. We are excited, I know they are excited, and the public is excited that we are going to have the games coming to us within a year, and everyone is waiting and they are all excited about it. But the problem is this. This government continues to deny the public their right to enjoy the games in an open and transparent way.

We would have an opportunity in less than a year to showcase our country, our province, our culture, our diversity that we are so proud of in our country and this province. At the same time, there is a huge potential for economic gains for our province. There's no question about that, if we manage it right. But that isn't coming from this government.

Also, we cannot do all of that, to take on such a huge project, without the trust and without the support of our public. But this government has done nothing to earn their trust. Every step of the way they are trying to insult the public and their intelligence. Every step of the way they are contemptuous — the attitude that they have thrown at the public. That is shameful.

The public knew, as my leader has said, that these types of projects cost money. They also knew that the inflationary pressures will also probably put the budget over than what it was originally scheduled for.

[1125]

They all know that, but they also expect their own government to be open, accountable and honest about the tax dollars that the taxpayers are expected to pay to deliver these games.

Instead of keeping their promise to be the most open and transparent government in Canada, they're anything but. They are choosing secrecy over openness. They decided to be arrogant instead of being accountable. This government ignored the suggestions of the Auditor General to include certain costs that are related to the Olympics. This government also ignored the suggestion from the world experts on what the security cost is going to be. They ignored the public plea to be open and honest with them.

The public has the right. They deserve to know how $600 million — which this minister, this government, continues to insist the total cost is going to be — ballooned to $6 billion. They have the right to know how $175 million, which this minister continues to insist would be the cost of security, ballooned to $900 million.

They have the right to know how this government manipulates accounting — that they will take money out of the capital funding that was designed to pay for some of the infrastructure so that the federal government, in return, will take over the entire cost of the additional Olympic cost.

The public has every right to know that explanation, and this government isn't coming clean. This government isn't coming clean. So this motion goes to the root
[ Page 14086 ]
of that problem that this government has created. It is to solve that problem, to bring the Olympic cost out in the open, to bring the accountability back into the games.

The previous speaker said that it was up to VANOC to appoint whoever they want to appoint as the auditor. But if this government wanted to, they could have set up VANOC, with the help of the federal government, so that they were subject to freedom-of-information laws in this country, but they refused and chose not to do that.

Also, they could have decided to appoint the Auditor General as the auditor of record.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

H. Bains: They chose not to do that.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Members, can we have just one debate in the House at a time, please.

Continue, Member.

H. Bains: I think the problem is that as the public has been trying their best to get some answers from this government and…. You know, as the heckling starts and as they are just laughing and joking about this motion, it just shows the depth of arrogance that these people are willing to go to and how contemptuous they are towards the taxpayers.

I think what this motion will do, if they all agree with this…. I think this cannot be seen and shouldn't be seen as political. It should be seen that what we are trying to do as a House and as the members of this House is to bring the openness, the honesty about the Olympic cost so that the taxpayers will know. At least, there's a perception. At least, we can remove that perception of this government hiding and not telling the truth.

So if they are, as they say that they are, accountable and open, they should be voting in favour of this motion. Then let the public decide what the total costs of the Olympics are. Then they will also know what the total benefits are, because any business person will tell you that if you don't put every cost to secure the revenue on the other side of the ledger, then the bottom line will be deceiving, and that's what this government is trying to do for the taxpayers.

I think that is wrong. They should all agree with this motion. Actually, they should be thanking the opposition leader for bringing this motion, because they never could think about this kind of stuff. It's so foreign to this government. It's so foreign to this minister, so foreign to these members that are sitting in this House.

With that, I would say that I encourage for the sake of the taxpayers, for the sake of honesty, for the sake of transparency, for the sake of accountability…. All members should support this motion.

[1130]

R. Thorpe: Well, today we've heard some very serious doubletalk by the Leader of the Opposition. We've heard disingenuous comments from the Leader of the Opposition. We've heard the opposition leader not recognize that the Paralympics are part of the Olympics and Paralympics in British Columbia in 2010.

We've heard that today the Leader of the Opposition espouses to support the games. But history, and recorded history, has an interesting way of being brought up from time to time. So let's just look and see. This isn't going back to the '90s. This is going back to August 11, 2003, when the Leader of the Opposition said: "I did not support going for the bid in the beginning."

That's what the Leader of the Opposition said, and now we see why we continue to have this negativity, negativity about a bright future for the province of British Columbia and the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics. Then, of course, on January 16, 2004, what did the Leader of the Opposition say? "I didn't support the government trying to gain the Olympics." Now today we hear she's for it. We know that that's not true.

I heard and was slightly encouraged a little bit by some of the comments by the member for Surrey-Newton — somewhat encouraged — but I couldn't say how genuine it was because of the smirk on his face when he made the comments. He might want to talk to the Leader of the Opposition, who said on February 5, 2009: "I heard the Finance Minister say this week that the Olympics are going to be the best economic stimulus any government can hope for." What did the Leader of the Opposition say? "I disagree."

That's not what the member for Surrey-Newton just said in this House a few moments ago. You might want to try to get together and try to reach one of your famous consensuses. I don't know.

I, together with my grandson of less than a year old, was at GM Place on July 2, 2003. I felt the excitement of thousands of British Columbians there. I have travelled around the province of British Columbia. I feel the excitement of British Columbians in every part of the province of British Columbia.

They see a bright future for British Columbia, not the negativity that the NDP want to paint for British Columbians. It's a time to celebrate, not to continue to drive people into the ground, which is what your party is all about. That's what you're all about.

Earlier today in this House we heard people talking about small business. We heard that. Well, the Vancouver Olympic committee says that sales of Olympic merchandise are way up, bucking the overall economic trends
[ Page 14087 ]
in the province today. People are actually voting with their wallets and buying stuff, so they are proud. That's what British Columbians are doing. Why do you folks continue to want to be negative?

The Leader of the Opposition was in the Okanagan this past weekend telling people how bad the world is. But she failed to mention to people that she's against the Olympics, and she was against the money that went to the city of Kelowna towards the construction of a new aquatic centre, a thousand-seat stadium. She was against that $6.5 million. Why did she not tell the people in the Okanagan?

Why has she not talked about the $9.7 million that went for the new multi-purpose South Okanagan Events Centre and the Olympic-sized ice surface? Why be so disingenuous in this House and not tell the people up in the Okanagan what she really feels?

I wonder if she's going to tell the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke that she was against — and is against — the $3.9 million in funding that went for the new international athletic Paralympic Training Centre in Kimberley, British Columbia. This is about British Columbians sharing in the opportunities of the future. It's about sharing in the opportunities for our youth today.

I know from time to time that members on the other side kind of joke and take shots at me because I talk about our children and our grandchildren. That's what this is all about. It's about building a platform for the future — the future prosperity of British Columbia and jobs in British Columbia. That's what this is all about.

[1135]

If the members on the other side just want to listen for a second, because I think it's important in the context of this motion for members on the other side of the House to hear what the Finance Minister of our government has said about the costs.

The Finance Minister said that the price tag for any government expenditure is included in the province's overall budget, making the books entirely public for anyone who has an interest. It may take a little work, which I know you're against. I know you're against work.

The Minister of Finance went on to say that he'd like the audit released of the Auditor General, along with the government's five-page response. He has said he wants that. What is wrong? That's full disclosure. He also went on to say that lots of people — I think some of them are over there — have different definitions of what should or should not be an Olympic-related cost. The minister said that all the information is public, and people can add up whatever numbers they want. It's all there.

What did the minister say this weekend in the Times Colonist? What did he say? "Security costs for the games is the responsibility of the federal government and the RCMP." Now, I know members over there would like it to be another way, but that is the way it is. The province was not at liberty to release Canada's updated numbers on the security budget until we received the final numbers and consent from Ottawa. When we finally received the permission, the public was immediately informed. That's what happened. That's open and transparency. That's what that is.

You know, we hear the members on the other side talk about how we need to do things. We need stimulus. We hear Uncle Jack in Ottawa trying to stop that kind of thing.

The Canada line, a $2 billion expenditure all about providing mass transit. I hear members on the other side of the House talk about that all the time, but now they seem to be against that. "That $2 billion should be an Olympic cost because there's an athletes village stop." Can you imagine that? That stop will not even be used during the Olympics. So you're either for mass transit or you're against mass transit. Sounds like you're against mass transit today.

My colleague from Mission said it very clearly about the Sea to Sky. Ladies and gentlemen, why do you have to make everything negative politics? The Sea to Sky highway, a $600 million project that is actually going to reduce the number of accidents, reduce the number of deaths, increase the opportunity for tourism and economic activity…. Why? Why in this time that we need jobs are you against such worthy projects like that?

Then, of course, there's the convention centre which, I might say, was started long before we won the opportunity to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games. I might just say that. But perhaps members would like to know about the billions of dollars in economic activity that are going to accrue to the province of British Columbia, that are going to accrue to the tourism industry, that are going to accrue to the jobs in Vancouver and accrue to the people throughout the province of British Columbia.

We know that 70 percent of the people that come to British Columbia for conventions…. It will be at the convention centre. They travel to other parts of British Columbia, maybe even some to the member's riding to see the tourism and historical opportunities in the member's riding. But he apparently is against that.

So let's just go through what the NDP are against. They're against venue construction, which is one year ahead of the games. First time in the history of the Olympics. Virtually all the venues are complete. Result: 11,000 jobs.

They're against the 6,000 jobs on the Sea to Sky Highway. They're against the 19,000 jobs on the Canada line. They're against the 8,000 jobs on the convention centre. They're against the 600 jobs on the B.C. Place upgrade. If those upgrades weren't taking place, they'd say: "How come you're not investing? How come you're not protecting jobs?" That's what we're doing.

Somehow I think they'd think the Kicking Horse Canyon Highway is part of the Olympic costs.
[ Page 14088 ]

So I'm always intrigued by the disingenuousness of the NDP, the doubletalk, because when they were in government — I won't mention those words they don't like — there was Public Accounts on the fast ferries, and they were so much for transparency and openness in those days that they closed the Public Accounts down and did not allow debate.

[1140]

So this motion before this House is just pure, cheap politics by the doublespeaking Leader of the Opposition who is afraid to tell British Columbians the truth — that she is against the games.

The question that we need answered in this House by that leader of this opposition is: are you going to go to the games when they're in British Columbia, or are you not? I'll bet you you're going to, and I'll bet you want free tickets.

B. Ralston: If only shouting would make the facts true, I suppose that that member's speech would make some sense. Somewhere in that phantasmagorical fog there was a speech vaguely related to the topic that we're here to discuss. I think the member's performance is probably conditioned more by his wish to prove his valuableness to the B.C. Liberal party as the co-chair of their campaign rather than relating anything to the debate here in this chamber. Volume seems to be an index of loyalty in this member's world.

It is regrettable, though, because if you look back at the history of the Olympics, one of the signal features of the Olympics back in ancient Greece was the Olympic truce. That meant that those who were going to the Olympics were entitled to pass through war zones unharmed, make their way to the games there and back. That was a feature, even in ancient times, of the Olympics. However, we don't seem to have come to any kind of Olympic truce here in the Legislature today.

What we're asking for in this motion is not an attack on the Olympics. It's not an attack on the Olympic spirit. Anything else is really just the usual rhetorical flourishes that we hear from time to time from the government side. This is an issue about financial accountability.

Let's take, for example, the Olympic Secretariat. The Minister of Finance has insisted, and still continues to insist, that the provincial Olympic Secretariat should not be counted as an Olympic cost. Yet, the federal Olympic secretariat is counted, in their accounting, as an Olympic cost.

These very, very basic features of the way in which the government has explained, or attempted to explain, what is the ultimate bill for the Olympics have led to a great deal of public skepticism about what the government is saying.

This is an attempt to give the government an avenue, a way out, and to encourage the Auditor General, who has looked at Olympic costs…. The number — the $6 billion — is not something that the opposition made up. That's something that the Auditor General presented to the very Public Accounts Committee that the member was extolling the virtues of, just moments ago. These are not facts that we have invented or created. These are reports from the Auditor General, the very independent public official that the minister claims he supports.

That's the reason for this motion. It's to strip away the political rhetoric and have a dispassionate accounting by the Auditor General and with regular reports, as we approach the games, to put this issue to rest for once and for all and to give the public confidence that they won't be paying for these events for the next generation, as has sometimes happened in other Olympic cities around the world.

I know there are many people who wish to speak, so I will be brief, but another example is the whole issue of Olympic costs. The minister has stonewalled literally for years on this subject — literally for years. Everyone knew. Everyone knew — whether it was officials at Salt Lake City, whether it was Canadian Senator Kenny in the Senate in Ottawa, whether it was senior police officials, whether it was Minister Stockwell Day. Everyone has said that the Olympic security costs were going to exceed the sum in the budget that the minister so valiantly stonewalled on for years — the figure of $175 million.

[1145]

Everyone knew that, yet the minister refused — just absolutely refused. He didn't even have it in the budget a couple of weeks ago. Only very recently, in a deal that seems to have been cooked up on barter.com, there seems to be some shuffling of costs off to federal infrastructure money in the future that will enable an accounting entry to be made that will enable the province to pay for the expanded financial obligation that everyone knew was there.

So this is a motion about accountability. This is a motion about transparency, all of which we've heard from the government. These are the virtues that they extol, that they claim to support, yet their conduct and their defence of the Olympic file over the last number of years has been exactly the contrary.

That's why I support the motion.

J. Yap: It's my honour to rise and speak on this motion and to speak against this motion.

I'd like to first of all point out that it was very interesting to hear the Finance critic for the opposition talk about this debate being about financial accountability. That seems a bit rich, for this is the political party, the NDP, that after all, during the 1990s, brought us the fudge-it budget, the fast ferries debacle, doubled B.C.'s debt and eight consecutive years of deficits. Here they are lecturing us solemnly about financial accountability. They should look in the mirrors themselves one of these days.
[ Page 14089 ]

On the point of the Auditor General saying that the costs really should be much higher, we would like to point out that the current Auditor General does not agree with the previous Auditor General in regards to including certain costs like the convention centre and the Sea to Sky Highway. So we don't have unanimity between the current Auditor General and the previous Auditors General.

Let's get to the crux of the matter here. This motion, as has been pointed out by my colleagues who have already spoken, is really benign, is really irrelevant because as has been pointed out, we don't appoint the Auditor General to VANOC. VANOC is separate from the provincial government. Of course, we are a funding partner, but we don't have the power to force VANOC to take on an auditor of our choice. It is up to VANOC.

Let's talk about what this is about. This is about the opposition trying to have it both ways, trying to say that, actually, they're really in favour of the Olympics. Yet everything that we've heard is negative on the Olympics in trying to malign this great opportunity that British Columbians have in 350 days to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

We know, as has been pointed out, that this opportunity comes at just the right time for British Columbia. The opportunity to host the Olympic Games comes when our economy is slowing down with the global recession, and any other country in the world, any other jurisdiction, would love this opportunity to host the Olympic Games because it is, after all, an economic stimulus.

The Olympic Games will inject $4 million a day between now and February of 2010. We know that there will be 8,000 athletes and team members and coaches that will come to British Columbia to participate in the games.

We know that there will be 10,000 reporters from around the world that will come here to cover the games and to report back to a worldwide audience about what we have here in British Columbia and about our great place here in this part of the world. It's estimated that there will be a worldwide audience of 3 billion people that will, for the period of the Olympics and Paralympics, see and hear and watch the excitement of the 2010 games.

The 2010 games will inject up to $10 billion in economic benefits for the province of British Columbia — so $4 billion directly and an additional $6 billion in indirect benefits to the province.

[1150]

Overall, these will be successful games. We've already heard how never before has an Olympic Games had the venues completed on time — in fact, way ahead of schedule. For example, the Richmond Oval was finished last November and is now a vibrant part of our community as we head towards 2010. We look forward to the legacy that will come to my community, Richmond, from having this special venue, the speed skating oval. The same goes for all the other venues around the province in Vancouver and in Whistler — the legacy that will come.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The benefits, as have been pointed out: jobs — the jobs that are being generated, that have been generated, because of the construction of these venues. I would like to share one figure: 11,800 direct jobs generated as a result of the construction of the venues and up to 18,000 direct and indirect jobs generated. That's all good news, positive news.

To the motion. It really is an irrelevant motion, one that is benign and that is not really needed, and I will be voting against it.

R. Fleming: I will be speaking in favour of this motion this morning because I think all of us in this chamber know as legislators that we have a responsibility first and foremost to our taxpayers that government not only spends their money properly, but most importantly that they report on how they spend their tax dollars in a transparent, open way, in a very public way. That's why this motion is very appropriate this morning.

It's actually a motion that's not dissimilar to something that just passed in the House of Commons in the government of Canada, except that its scope is much smaller. The Harper government agreed to table reports in the House of Commons recently on all activities of government spending, to update — in these special times — the legislature there on a monthly basis.

We're just asking for reports that deal with Olympic spending because, as we've seen with the security cost overruns, the risks are very real. We're less than a year from hosting these games, from the opening ceremonies, and this government still — since 2003 — chooses to engage in an argument with the Auditor General rather than tell the taxpayers how the spending is going on the Olympics.

You know, in Australia and in Turin it happened very differently. The governments there worked with their legislatures, worked with their parliamentary audit offices and set the bar higher than ever before on definitions of full and clear disclosure. Our Auditors General here — three of them, actually, since 2003 — have recommended definitions of Olympic Games–related costs that have been ignored.

They suggested the New South Wales model from Australia that the accounting office there had developed, and that was ignored. In fact, what we get from our Finance Minister on the issue of Olympic costs is his assertion that Olympic costs are "an arbitrary issue subject to judgment," and that's where he leaves this dispute.

The government insists that the total costs of hosting the games is $600 million. The audit community, the
[ Page 14090 ]
independent officers in the accounting profession in this province, suggest it's $2.5 billion — and $1.5 billion of it to the province. Now, what do we do about that? That has to be reconciled. Accounting isn't arbitrary in this way.

Well, I can tell you what we don't do. We don't dig in our heels and act like this government has for six long years since this issue was raised. Because what they are doing is politics. They don't want to disclose the true costs of hosting the Olympics or any of the overruns that are going on, on Olympic-related projects, until after the games themselves are long gone and over, which by the way, as we all know, is after the next provincial election is long gone and over. That's the real reason that they won't come clean with taxpayers.

[1155]

You know, the danger in all of this is not just in the bills and the overages that we're all going to be responsible to pay. The danger is the government. I've heard so much boosterism again this morning, which is primarily advanced in this chamber to avoid talking about the real issues that the motion speaks to.

The real danger of the total costs of B.C. being much higher than what the government insists they are is the undermining of support, the wide support that British Columbians have for hosting this, the sense of opportunity that there, in fact, is in hosting the 2010 games, that led us to compete for the bid in the first place.

When you treat taxpayers like they're dummies and you deny them the right to regular and credible independent reporting, you undermine and put at risk that wide support that there is for the Olympic Games. That is the real shame. That is why this motion this morning is advanced — to try and restore it, to try and get us back to a place where credible reporting actually means something in British Columbia.

I have heard it from members opposite this morning that that our current Auditor General — there have been three of them that have disagreed with this government on reporting Olympic-related costs — disagrees with them. Well, he issued a letter just a couple of months ago, a follow-up report on this issue. I want to quote the last paragraph there.

He says, in a somewhat resigned tone, as I read the letter: "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."

It's the same recommendation since 2003. It hasn't changed. The only one not listening is the government side. They continue to insist — they came in here this morning — that the Sea to Sky Highway has nothing to do with the Olympics. Well, it was an implicit requirement in the bid book that we submitted to VANOC. No highway improvements; no games.

Now yes, it's a dangerous highway, and it needed improvements. Would we choose, as our first transportation improvement project according to an Olympic time line that has only 40,000 residents along the route, that type of infrastructure upgrade? No. It was designed to meet Olympic requirements and specifications — the same with the Canada line.

If the dispute is between reporting none of it, which the government insists is an Olympic-related cost, and all of it, as the recent Auditor General suggested, well, maybe there's some middle ground that at least tells taxpayers that hundreds of millions of dollars in those infrastructure projects are in fact attributable to hosting the Olympics. That would be an honest first step, but the government doesn't have the guts to do it, and that's why they're voting against the motion this morning.

R. Fleming moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. McIntyre moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:58 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