Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

First Person:

Ted Nebbeling

It has been a busy year, and a busy political agenda, in Whistler, Victoria and Vancouver in 2002. From the World Economic Forum to the Olympic bid and the G8 foreign ministers, Whistler has caught the attention of the provincial and federal governments. West Vancouver-Garibaldi MLA Ted Nebbeling, minister responsible for the 2010 Olympic bid and Minister of State for Community Charter, sat down with Pique editor Bob Barnett June 22 to discuss some of these issues.

Pique:

In February Premier Gordon Campbell invited the World Economic Forum to hold its annual meeting in Whistler. In April Whistler council put some conditions on that invitation. How did that go over in Victoria?

Ted Nebbeling:

Well it was certainly something that… was upsetting, because the provincial government was asked to participate and help out to make this event happen. It required a considerable amount of money, millions of dollars for the upgrade of the convention centre to accommodate the World Economic Forum, and at the request of Whistler that was done.

So we committed to participate in that – the upgrade of the convention centre – and that’s part of the problem. We didn’t, as the provincial government, come and initiate this. This came through Whistler and some Vancouver members of the World Economic Forum.

We certainly saw it as a great opportunity to bring world leaders in government and business, together in a place where I think dialogue has always been very specially treated. So I was very disappointed that the Whistler council basically, by their resolution, shut the door. The timeframe that they offered was clearly not a timeframe that worked with the whole agenda of the World Economic Forum, because they travel to other parts of the world as well.

The argument that I heard made against the World Economic Forum, for me really didn’t sound very convincing. It was, "well you know during the World Economic Forum there will not be opportunities for people to do their work because there will be security and these people will not go to restaurants and they will not go to bars." It’s interesting because we have the G8 right now in Kananaskis and yesterday I saw a report that the whole financial input into the area is calculated at $190 million, that will be spent in Banff, in Calgary, in all the surrounding communities. So obviously there is people there that spend money. So saying that it would make the work impossible for liftees and for restaurant workers is counter to what every other area has experienced.

What it would have done is of course, was once again focus the world’s attention on this very spectacular place called Whistler.

We have to realize that there are more and more other places developing in the world that want to take a bit of this away from Whistler and the resort, especially when it comes to popularity, and unless we as a community and as a resort stay on top of the pack as the top resort in North America – which is bringing the Europeans, it’s bringing the Asians it’s bringing popularity – these people can easily go somewhere else if we get other resorts getting more focus.

The security aspect was something that I was certainly concerned about and I was really pleased to see that the G8 foreign ministers meeting here last week was almost… It wasn’t a love-in but I mean the protest was people that had an issue that they wanted to deliver. And I think that is much more the Canadian way.

So that proves to me that if a program is done in such a way that people can talk to these people, and they did – the seniors were allowed into the hotel to bring a petition to the foreign minister of Canada – that you don’t get these incredible scenes that you saw in Genoa. I think Genoa and Seattle were the worst situations that could develop. I think the organizations that organized these protests in general hated what they saw there because they saw that this was not in any way, shape or form furthering their cause.

So I still hope the community can have a moment of reflection on this particular issue and talk about the issues that are concerns, rather than say ‘I’ve got concerns so go away.’

Pique:

Where does the invitation stand now? I understood council’s resolution was passed on to the premier’s office and it was in his hands.

TN:

No, no, no. This is not in the government’s hands, it is in the hands of Whistler. Whistler passed a resolution. They notified the World Economic Forum. I believe the mayor has talked to Klaus Schwab, who heads the organization, and of course they’ve notified us they’ve made this decision. We have that provincial interest because we’re trying to find all good mechanisms to showcase British Columbia and this is a great opportunity.

But it is Whistler at this point who took the lead in setting different conditions. There are discussions ongoing between the premier’s office and Whistler. Where they are at this point, I don’t know. But hopefully we can find some common ground and show that this is not a threat, that it is an additional opportunity to showcase Whistler as a resort, as a community, as a province. And thereby maintain that status as the number one North American ski resort.

Pique:

We’ve heard through the grapevine that Whistler’s decision on the World Economic Forum hasn’t exactly enhanced its relationship with the provincial government and that perhaps the pre-Olympic legacies promised Whistler – the boundary expansion, the land bank – may have been held up by the World Economic Forum decision.

TD:

No. In no way, shape of form. They are different opportunities.

We are, as you know, 100 per cent committed to the bid. We have, through the Treasury Board, officially now, $310 million from the provincial government in the bank. We have $310 million from the federal government and that is the $620 million needed for the infrastructure. That decision was made after the WEF decision and in the presentations to the Treasury Board that I have made, as the minister responsible, that never came up once.

We look at the Winter Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games truly as an opportunity to do exactly the same again, to showcase British Columbia and create some fabulous legacies. And to get this province to focus on what’s happening is very important.

Besides the economic opportunities that the Olympics create, sports development in this province (is an important part of the bid). I’ve always known that governments give little financial support to the development of new sports programs, new opportunities for young athletes. And that’s why for me it’s so important that part of our reason for bringing the Olympics here is very much focused on that development of young athletes wherever they are in the province. We’re really moving forward on that. We started a legacy program this week actually. It was announced last Thursday night (June 20) at a function where we brought all the former Olympians together, at the Rowing Club in Stanley Park to launch this program. Former Olympic athletes will become ambassadors for the Olympic Games in 2010. They will be travelling the province, they will be going to schools, clubs and organizations, and sharing what a difference sport has made in their life and how it has enriched it and how they today, after years ago being participants, are still part of that whole Olympic group and continue to be.

At the same time we’re going to bring some young athletes from today’s generation and talk about what they’re doing and how much they get out of sport… and obviously they all share that dream, to take part in an Olympics one day.

Pique:

What’s happening with the pre-Olympic legacies? When will they be announced?

TN:

Well first of all, Whistler has always said that they need an indemnity contract, same as the City of Vancouver. We’ve always said that should be there. We do not, under any circumstances, want to have the communities where these events take place having to take financial risks. So that indemnity contract is ready, it’s done.

The other thing of course is that Whistler wants to have some special legacies and one of the legacies was a land base. Whistler has no land for future housing developments for employees. We have agreed that would be a great asset to leave as a legacy because of the Olympics. So there have been discussions ongoing on where that land base should be. There are still some discussions to finalize that process but we have committed to create that land base.

Pique:

When will that be finalized?

TN:

I would think in the next two or three months that that will be done. It’s firming up and as you know with the transfer of land there is a lot of paperwork to be done but the bottom line is that the minister responsible for Water Lands and Air is committed to see that transfer happen.

And I think that’s an important legacy because if we’re going to try and do one thing in Whistler, it’s a problem with retaining our workers living in and being part of Whistler on a day-to-day basis, 24 hours a day, rather than work here and live somewhere else. So that’s one of the things that we would like to see and that’s firm as far as we are concerned. Just let’s make sure that the location is the right location.

They would like expansion of the boundaries into the Callaghan. That is going to take a lot of talk because it’s not just Whistler and the provincial government that are partners in that discussion. It is also the regional district, of course. Definitely First Nations as well. So all these elements added up together, it’s much more complicated than just saying well here’s 300 acres of land for development of housing.

I like to think the arrangement that is being finalized, on the five-acre parcel in Whistler, where the First Nations will have an opportunity to build a lodge where they can showcase their culture, talk about their aspirations, their dreams and everything, can really be an opportunity to showcase how the aboriginal community is becoming part of the whole British Columbia community. So that again is pretty well done, there’s still some dots on the I’s but nothing that could stop it. That’s going to happen. That’s a great legacy.

Pique:

That’s the five-acre site at Blackcomb that was designated for a cultural facility? The province is involved in that?

TN:

It’s crown land. So the province has agreed to give up that crown land. But again, the aboriginal community has wanted it for a long time. Obviously Whistler has to agree to this as well. The aboriginal communities are looking for some funding through the federal government to construct that welcome centre on the land and that has taken some time. But from day one we have thought this was a super idea because we have to start focusing on how we can get aboriginal communities to talk to the non-aboriginals and that can be done in a setting like Whistler, where international dialogue happens. That’s another part of the legacies.

Pique:

What about the highway and transportation options for the corridor?

TN:

As you know the communities in the Sea to Sky corridor have been trying to get support for an alternate route, through the Indian Arm, the Coquitlam-Indian Arm route. What is not known in the communities and by the councils, is that a study has been done to see how viable that would be as a corridor to get through. The study clearly shows that this is not doable, and there are many reasons for it. The costs would be in the order of $3.7 billion. It is rugged terrain. It is higher elevations, so much more severe snow conditions. They have identified 17 rock slide areas – every winter avalanches. It’s a provincial park, and if you think of it that alone should be enough reason for the communities to say no, because we talk a lot about a sustainable environment and a road of that magnitude through a provincial park doesn’t really fit that picture.

It’s also the watershed for Vancouver, and all these elements together made us say that is just not viable.

I wish we could look at the Capilano again, I really mean that. It would be most probably financially the easiest to do. It is a corridor that is already in existence because of the old logging road that went through there. It would cut some of the travel time. So that to me would be the best solution. But again there’s the problem it is a watershed. There is talk of course about shutting down Capilano, that dialogue is still going on. If that happens in the near future, if a decision is reached, then maybe that option would be revisited.

But at this point it really leaves us with the Sea to Sky as the only way to allow traffic into the corridor in a safe manner. And the safety aspect truly drives most of the reasons for doing it now.

Capacity is beginning to be a real problem as well. Many days we are over capacity in use, and that begins to have a stifling impact on other industries in other towns. This is not a road to Whistler. This is the road through the Sea to Sky corridor. Tourism is very important in our economic development but there are many other industries and (the highway) begins to have a negative impact on these industries.

It’s also going to be a problem when we look at other opportunities, such as a new ski development. The Brohm Ridge ski development is on track. It is seen as a tremendous opportunity for Squamish to start building a new economic base, besides the forest industry base that is there but we all know has diminished over the years. So we have to bring some new elements into it.

The second one is the education opportunities through the Sea to Sky University. They will all bring more traffic into the corridor, so one way or another to make the corridor economically sustainable – and that is all the communities – we have to tackle that road.

So that is the capacity issue, but the public safety issue truly is driving this. Regardless of the Olympics, we will have to take that on. I think you’ve heard many times that is a commitment from the provincial government.

Pique:

And 2010 Bid Corp. CEO Jack Poole has been saying "give us something to take to the IOC." I think his idea of what the ideal solution would be and Whistler’s are somewhat different.

TN:

Well Whistler had hoped that maybe a train could become a bigger component of transportation. Again, that has been looked at and studied. If a new train corridor was created through that alternate route (Indian Arm), the study showed that in order to cross 52 kilometres they would have to build about 122 kilometres of line because of the grades. Most of the grades – and this would apply to the road as well – would be in the order of 20 per cent. You can see what that will do during the winter months.

So the train option has been looked at, it has been looked at for costs, potential ridership, and the conclusion was the train from the North Shore through this corridor would require a subsidy per passenger of close to $1,000. I think that taxpayers will realize that is not doable.

It’s unfortunate because I like trains. I’ve always supported trains as an option to consider. But it just has no economic base.

Pique:

What about tolls on the highway?

TN:

What I can say about the toll issue… I was at the Sunshine Coast, in a work session with Cabinet. I saw the paper at breakfast with the headline, Sea to Sky highway toll $32. I flipped.

I gave it to Judith Reid the Minister of Transportation. Her comment was "ludicrous," which was exactly the same word I used. The fact is we have never had the discussion in caucus. We have never had the discussion in cabinet, on setting tolls for the Sea to Sky highway. We have talked about the need for the upgrade. And that’s it.

The one thing the headline did is that it allowed people in the corridor and outside the corridor as well to give a very clear indication of how they felt about this whole concept of a toll. No cabinet minister, no caucus member, if this comes to caucus as a suggestion, will not be aware of how much anger this will create. And we have to keep that in mind.

But the bottom line is that the suggestion of $32 has never, ever been discussed by anybody.

As far as the type (of transportation improvements) I can guarantee you it will never be a six-lane highway. It will never be a four-lane divided highway, as far as I’m concerned or from what I have seen. That is not even on the map.

I hope by September they will be able to come out with the decision, September-October I think that’s the target time. I can’t pre-judge what the final selection is but we better deal with it sooner rather than later.

Pique:

Many people are questioning spending on the Olympics now, in a time of restraint.

TN:

I think that’s fair. People know we are very tight with the strings on the provincial purse when it comes to expenses. But first of all, the $310 million commitment that we now have made towards the infrastructure for the Games, and which is matched by $310 million from outside the province, so we get a dollar worth of work for 50 cents. That’s a good thing.

We’re not going to start with the infrastructure program until we a) know that we get the Olympics and b) that it is still going to take about two years before we start building the infrastructure. So that gives us some time to achieve our goal, to stimulate the economy and restructure our financial management of the province.

So what I look at, in order to stimulate the economy we have a tremendous opportunity here. Just the development of the infrastructure by itself will require thousands and thousands of new jobs. What most people are really concerned about is jobs, jobs, jobs. And this will stimulate the creation of new jobs in this province.

Plus these are going to be tax-paying jobs, so it is not just that we lay out $310 million, we will begin to see tax return immediately from that investment. Sometimes we forget about that.

So in the eight years leading up to the Games we have that tax revenue from the investment coming in to the provincial government.

People are saying they’re concerned that the social circumstances are changing and we’re really tight in funding the social programs. Well again, we are firmly committed to creating these jobs because the best social safety net is a job. So I think that really works well.

The other thing is much of the materials that are used in the construction of these facilities throughout the Lower Mainland and in Whistler, the materials come from throughout the province. We’re going to have a lot of emphasis on wood, I believe. So, that is good for the manufacturing sector, and they are throughout the province.

Furthermore, we are already getting a lot of international attention on the potential of Whistler and Vancouver being the site of the 2010 Games and Paralympic Games. Just getting that world exposure again will help develop further tourism opportunities.

And I think when you put all these things together, directly linked to the Games, $310 million investment will give a huge return and that return is in increased economic opportunities for this province and the development of tens of thousands of jobs related to the infrastructure alone, plus whatever happens within the tourism industry.

We urged the tourism industry strongly to focus on these new opportunities that will be created by the world media. Sydney, Australia calculated that they had pre- and during the Games, 6,000 hours of global exposure. If you had to go and buy that it would be $2.5 billion. Nobody can afford it. We have a chance to tap into that type of source, like Australia did, and use it to further the great opportunities we have here. Expo did it in ’86. Nobody believed that we would see tourism develop the way we did after Expo. Why? The world saw British Columbia. Well, we’re going to remind them that it is still as beautiful, it is still as rich in people and opportunities and I have no doubt that that is going to be in the long term, pre- and after the Olympics, one of the big major advantages that will benefit every community.

Next week: Nebbeling on the Community Charter.