The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Twelve o’clock noon
Prayers by Mr. Krog.
The Hon. B. Lekstrom (Minister of Community Development) presented to the Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, which read as follows:
Steven L. Point
Lieutenant Governor
The Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith Bill (No. 47) intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009 and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.
Government House,
January 16, 2009.
Bill introduced and read a first time.
The Speaker declared a short recess for distribution of the Bill.
The Hon. M. de Jong proposed that, pursuant to Standing Order 81, the Bill be permitted to be advanced all stages this day, and tabled supporting documents.
Mr. Dix made representations.
The Speaker reserved his decision and declared a recess.
The Speaker delivered his reserved decision as follows:
Honourable Members:
The Honourable Minister of Community Development has introduced Bill (No. 47) intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009. Following introduction and an opportunity to peruse the contents of the Bill the Government House Leader requested that the Bill be permitted to advance through two or more stages in one day due to its urgency.
I have had an opportunity to peruse the Bill and note that as an amendment to the Vancouver Charter it only applies to the Municipality of Vancouver and in fact is limited to borrowing authorization with respect to one project, namely the construction of the Olympic Athletes’ Village. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Bill is sufficiently limited in scope to qualify under Standing Order 81.
Reference has been made by both House Leaders to the decision of Speaker Barnes on a similar application. On that occasion, the reason Speaker Barnes rejected the government’s request to apply Standing Order 81 was that the legislation, which was before the House at that time, failed to isolate the crisis which had to be addressed and was of considerably broader application than the problem which the House was attempting to resolve. Not so with today’s application which in my respectful view has been carefully drawn to cover the specific problem which has arisen in Vancouver.
The second test which applies under Standing Order 81 is that the matter involves an urgent or extraordinary occasion. The House Leader tabled a copy of a letter from the Mayor of Vancouver, Gregor Robertson to the Honourable the Premier dated January 13, 2009. In that letter the Mayor made it clear that the situation was unprecedented and that the legislation was urgently required. The House Leader also tabled a copy of a letter dated January 15, 2009 from the Leader of the Official Opposition to the Mayor of Vancouver, which reiterated the urgency of the situation and stated that “It is not in the interests of the taxpayer to delay consideration of legislation which may provide relief from financing deals that harm the public interest.”
It would appear to the Chair that the Mayor of Vancouver, the Government House Leader and the Leader of the Official Opposition are all of the view that the need for legislation is urgent.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the two House Leaders and in my view, this occasion is clearly one of urgency and scope which would qualify under Standing Order 81. Standing Order 81 provides an alternative process for considering legislation on an extraordinary occasion and should be used sparingly. This case is an example of an appropriate usage of the Standing Order. In making this ruling, I am mindful of the guidelines outlined in previous Speakers’ rulings, including those given in this House by Speaker Richmond on March 12, 2003 and April 28, 2004.
Hon. B. Barisoff, Speaker
On the motion for second reading of Bill (No. 47) intituled Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009, a debate arose.
The debate continued.
The House continued to sit past midnight.
The House divided.
Motion agreed to nemine contradicente on the following division:
| Yeas—64 | |||
| Falcon Reid Coell McIntyre Chong Christensen Polak Bell Krueger Bennett Black Hogg Les Hayer Lee Jarvis | Nuraney Horning Bloy Lekstrom Hagen Oppal de Jong Campbell Hansen Bond van Dongen Abbott Penner Thorpe Roddick Sultan | Whittred Cantelon S. Simpson McGinn Fleming James Ralston B. Simpson Austin Brar Simons Fraser Sather Yap Horgan Gentner | Dix Bains Macdonald Karagianis Herbert Krog Evans Chouhan Coons Routley Cubberley Conroy MacKay Richmond Rustad Hammell |
Bill (No. 47) read a second time.
On the motion of the Hon. B. Lekstrom, Bill (No. 47) was referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.
Bill (No. 47) was committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
The Speaker declared a short recess.
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor having entered the House, and being seated in the Chair —
E. George MacMinn, Q.C., Clerk of the House, read the title to the following Act:
Bill (No. 47) Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 2009.
His Honour was pleased in Her Majesty’s name to give assent to the said Act.
The said assent was announced by E. George MacMinn, Q.C., Clerk of the House, in the following words:
“In Her Majesty’s name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this Act.”
His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was then pleased to retire.
The Hon. M. de Jong moved —
That the House, at its rising, do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet, or until the Speaker may be advised by the Government that it is desired to prorogue the Fourth Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament of the Province of British Columbia. The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date; and
That, in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
Motion agreed to.
And then the House adjourned at 8.30 a.m.
Pursuant to section 33 (3) of the Constitution Act:
A declaration by the Member of the Electoral District of Vancouver-Langara (Ms. Taylor) of her intention to resign her seat as a Member of the Legislative Assembly, effective December 22, 2008, was delivered to the Speaker.
HON. BILL BARISOFF, Speaker
Tuesday, January 20
2 Ms. James to ask the Hon. the Premier the following questions pertaining to the Olympic Athletes’ Village and the costs of the 2010 Olympics:—
1. Why is the Premier continuing to tell British Columbians that the cost of hosting the 2010 Olympic Games is $600 million?
2. How much will taxpayers be on the hook for the Olympic Village?
3. When did the Premier first learn about difficulties with the Southeast False Creek development and/or that the financing for the Olympic Village was in jeopardy?
4. Did the Premier’s former chief advisor and provincial appointee to VANOC Ken Dobell keep the Premier informed on the Olympic Village project — and if not, why not?
5. Did any member of VANOC’s Finance Committee or its board — which includes Ken Dobell as Chair, Annette Antoniuk, the CEO of the BC Olympic Secretariat as Co-Chair, as well as provincial appointees Rusty Goepel and Richard Turner — keep the Premier informed about Venue Construction progress, one of that board’s key oversight responsibilities?
6. What did VANOC’s “Capital Advisory Committee” report to the Province about the Village?
7. Did Ken Dobell or any member of VANOC inform the Premier about the activities of the “Village Advisory Committee” formed by VANOC — and if not, why not?
8. Was the Premier aware of Partnerships BC’s due diligence reports regarding the Olympic Village and other potential venue risks?
9. Did either of the Co-Chairs of VANOC’s Finance Committee (Ken Dobell, Annette Antoniuk) inform either the Premier or the Minister responsible for the Olympic Secretariat of these due diligence reports prepared by Partnerships BC regarding the Olympic Village and the timeline concerns — and if not, why not?
10. As recommended by the 2007 Partnerships BC report, the City of Vancouver was to provide VANOC with a “project execution plan” for the Village by the Summer of 2007 — was the Premier aware of this plan?
11. Did Ken Dobell, Annette Antoniuk or any member of VANOC inform the Premier about project execution plan for the Village that was due by the summer of 2007 — and if not, why not?
12. Did any of the quarterly reports provided by VANOC to the Province include updates on the anticipatory default of Millennium, as the developer of one of the key Olympic venues — and if not, why not?
13. Was the Premier, any representative of his Office or other provincial government insiders involved in or provide advice on the development deal with Millennium?
14. Was the Premier, any representative of his Office or other provincial government insiders involved in or provide advice on the financial arrangements between the City of Vancouver and Millennium that have exposed the City to considerable risk?
15. Did the Premier, Ken Dobell or any representative of the Premier’s Office or provincial government ever advise the City against entering into the risky financing arrangements with Millennium?
16. Did the Premier, Ken Dobell or any representative of the Premier’s Office or provincial government ever advise the City against the 2007 loan guarantee and completion agreement with Millennium?
17. Was the Premier, Ken Dobell or any representative of the Premier’s Office or provincial government made aware of the concerns raised by the City’s former Chief Financial Officer, Estelle Lo — and if so, when?
18. Why did the Premier wait so long to take action on the Olympic Village issue?
19. Why has the government only budgeted $87 million for Olympic security costs?
20. What will be B.C.’s share of the extra security costs that are reported to be increasing by over $800 million, and when will the Premier come clean with the public on those costs?
21. How much will it cost B.C. taxpayers to cover the Games-related costs of B.C. Transit and TransLink as they provide over one million extra transit rides, and will the Premier release the agreement outlining these costs?
22. How much will it cost Health Authorities to provide additional medical services during the Olympic Games?
23. How many remaining Olympic projects in the city of Vancouver are over budget?
24. How many Olympic projects are at risk of not being ready for the Games and is the preparation centre in Surrey one of these?
25. How many additional projects may be in trouble and when will the Premier admit that his 2010 plan isn’t working?
26. Are all agreements specifying costs in place, and, if not, which are not yet signed and what costs are outstanding?
27. How much will municipalities and TransLink end up paying for their share of the 2010 Olympics bill?
28. Why has the Premier refused to listen to the prudent advice of the Auditor General about the Olympics, and why is he still refusing to cooperate with him?
29. Does the Premier still believe his July 2003 statement that “At the end of the day it’s [the Olympics] going to generate revenues into the province”?
30. On behalf of BC taxpayers, will the Premier finally agree to the Auditor General of B.C.’s request to be the official and independent auditor of the 2010 Olympic Games?
31. When will the Premier come clean about the true cost of hosting the 2010 Olympic Games?
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada