[ Page 3341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion funding. Mrs. Boone –– 3341

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

Motions

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Sihota –– 3343

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Rose

Mr. Michael

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

MR. S.D. SMITH: In our midst today, returned from a recent convalescence, is the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), back to do his duty to this House and to be, as he always has been, its true and honourable servant. Would all members please join me in welcoming him.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon is a gentleman who was previously the planner in the district of Surrey and is now with Kelowna. I would ask the House to please make Mr. Louke Kleyn welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: In quite a number of places in the gallery this afternoon are members of the Douglas College community social service workers program with their instructors, Lorna Kirkham, Sally Nordman and Bob Shebib. This group comes annually to the House as part of a full day's visitation and consultation in the city. I’m sure all of us will join together in welcoming them to this part of their very, very busy day.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yesterday I introduced to the House Eleanor and Walter Stobbe. I could not see them in the gallery, and the reason I couldn't see them is because they weren't there. They're here today. Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Stobbe.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are Don and Iola Boyce and Mr. and Mrs. Peter McDonald from Maple Ridge. On behalf of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and myself, I'd like the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. WElSGERBER: Today I have the pleasure of having two guests in the members' gallery from the beautiful community of Tumbler Ridge: His Worship Mayor Mike Caisley and his administrator, Mr. Bob Miles. Please join me in welcoming them.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on behalf of the Speaker I would like to make two introductions today. First of all, I would ask you to give a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Max Bushby, who are from Launceston, Tasmania. Mr. Bushby is a former Speaker for the State of Tasmania in Australia. Would you welcome them, please.

Also, on Mr. Speaker's behalf, I would ask you to give a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Bob Liverant of Vancouver.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we have two people from my riding: Mrs. Mary MaeQueen, who comes from Yale and is a director of the Fraser-Cheam regional district; also, the chairman of the regional district, who lives in Boston Bar, Lloyd Forman. With them we have administrator Bob Moore and planner Peter Cave. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to bring forward our tribute to International Women's Day today. I'm sure that all members of the House will join with us in paying tribute to the great strides that have been made in achieving equality for women — and men — and in recognizing that there is still a great deal to do. International Women's Day started in 1910 as a way for women to protest unfair working conditions and low wages. The symbol of International Women's Day is bread and roses: bread to symbolize economic security and roses as the symbol of a better life. So I would like to express our support for, participation in and contribution to the struggle for equality for women on this day, International Women's Day.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today and in the House this afternoon we have the honour of having the Very Reverend Canon Borden Purcell, who is special adviser to the Secretary of State, the Hon. David Crombie, and Olivia Jacobs. They're visiting British Columbia today to take note of what will be happening in the year of the disabled, particularly evaluation of the publication of accepting the challenge in bringing forward the awareness week that will take place in May in British Columbia and across Canada. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

ABORTION FUNDING

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. In view of the B.C. Supreme Court decision that the government must pay for abortions as of today, are abortions in this province publicly funded under the Medical Services Plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They are today.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. Will the Premier assure the women of British Columbia that abortions performed since his withdrawal of public funding will be paid for retroactively?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I can't give that assurance. Mr. Speaker. We haven't had an opportunity to discuss this with the Ministry of Health.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the Premier. Can the Premier then advise this House if he is consulting with the Premier, and will you be making recommendations regarding retroactivity?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am the Premier, and that is future policy.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier, then. Have you met with the Minister of Health to discuss the issue of retroactivity?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just returned from a great free trade conference in Saskatoon. I'll certainly be meeting at the earliest opportunity, but we've just returned.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the Premier. What directive has the government given to hospitals telling them that abortions are now to be publicly funded?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'll defer to the Minister of Health.

[ Page 3342 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I have instructed our staff to communicate with the hospitals and instruct them to fund abortions that are approved by a doctor and by a woman's request.

MRS. BOONE: A question — I'll go to the Minister of Health on this one too. What directives has the Minister of Health given the B.C. Medical Association telling doctors that abortions are now to be publicly funded?

HON. MR. DUECK: The notice will be going out to hospitals and to the doctors that the law was struck down, and that they are now to proceed the way they were prior to the section being struck down.

MRS. BOONE: On January 29 the Minister of Health publicly stated that we the government will not use public moneys to pay for abortions. Will the Minister of Health categorically assure the House that he no longer believes this and is now prepared to defend B.C.'s health care services, including publicly funded abortions?

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. Will the Premier explain why he publicly stated this morning that it was doctors who wouldn't cooperate with government to find a more reasonable abortion policy in the first place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the member to listen to the tape again that was obviously provided her, and maybe she would then rephrase her question, because I never said that. I said that an attempt was made to try to work it out with the doctors prior to our adopting the policy which was in place until yesterday. This attempt failed at the time. However, we might try to do this again. We're certainly hoping — expecting — that the medical profession would agree to cooperate.

MRS. BOONE: Question to the Premier. On February 10, almost two weeks after the government's introduction of its abortion policy, Dr. David Jones of the BCMA publicly stated: "Neither the Health minister nor the Premier has contacted us for our advice, opinion or otherwise in this whole controversy." What assurance can the Premier give this House that full consultation with the BCMA, who have stated that abortion is an issue to be decided between a woman and her doctor, will occur? Will that consultation occur, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Minister of Health. I can assure the member, however, that we have ongoing consultations.

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't think I have to answer any more than that. We're in constant contact with the BCMA. As a matter of fact, I meet with them on a regular basis.

MR. SIHOTA: This government seems to be unusually hesitant in answering questions.

I want to go back to a matter that was raised before, and the question is to the Premier. Yesterday the government policy on abortion was struck down by the courts. Up until then, government had not been funding abortions, and I guess in a strange sort of way saving money. Does the Premier believe that his government should be benefiting from an illegality?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: What's silly is that this Premier doesn't understand the question. A question again to the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll listen to the point of order after question period, but would the member stick to his questions.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, if the Premier would answer them, it would be a lot easier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member ask his question.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the Premier is: yesterday the government policy on abortion was struck down by the courts. It was deemed to be illegal. The government, up until then, had not been funding abortions, hence, in a funny sort of way, saving money. Does the Premier believe that the government ought to benefit from its illegality?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I take it the Premier's stumped. I can only assume by his silence that the Premier is answering in the affirmative, unless he clarifies the matter.

My question to the Premier — we'll try something different for him — is as follows. Yesterday the Supreme Court said in its decision that "the cabinet may have been within its authority if it had made a regulation that provided that an abortion would not be an insured service." Does the Premier intend to pursue that direction?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This government believes that taxpayers should not be funding abortion on demand. This government is also extremely concerned by the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court, where they certainly said that at some point in time the fetus, the baby, was deserving of protection in society and by the community. All of this needs to be addressed and we'll be looking at all of the options available to government in how this might best be addressed.

MR. SIHOTA: Will the Premier categorically assure this House that he rejects the option that I referred to?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only assure the hon. member that we do not agree with the philosophy or the policy obviously held by him and members of the opposition that abortion ought to be available on demand by all people at any time for any reason, and that we will take whatever action necessary in order to assure that we have a reasonable policy in place.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from other things, the Premier is in a vacuum when it comes to understanding our policy. A question, again, to the Premier: given that such a regulation amounts to a non-funding policy, and the Attorney-General said yesterday that this would not survive a constitutional challenge, is the Premier ready to accept the Attorney-General's opinion?

[ Page 3343 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Attorney-General, the Ministry of the Attorney-General, the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health and I will certainly be addressing this over the next number of weeks.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier "vowed to find another way to cut off payments." I quote: "He will try to prevent" public funding for abortion "despite advice from his Attorney-General that any roadblock he puts up will likely be struck down by the courts." And he said he has "not ruled out an appeal of the court ruling, despite the Attorney-General's advice that either an appeal or a new regulation will likely be tossed aside in another court challenge." My question....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: No, those are the Premier's quotes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if the Premier can explain why he continues his personal crusade to deny women their legal right to publicly funded abortions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the opposition leader go back to the newspaper from which he took the quote, and he'll see that it wasn't me who was being quoted; it was obviously a statement by whoever was doing the reporting in the article. I think that's evident from what he has read here. So I would suggest he go back, read it again, study it a bit more and rephrase the question.

MR. HARCOURT: I will do just that. I'll read it to the Premier. "Don't Fight Abortion Ruling, Smith Warns Vander Zalm." Would you like to read it, Mr. Speaker? Here it is. 'Abortions Free — Chief Justice Vetoes Socred Policy." It's very clear. The question is straightforward: when will the Premier obey the law? When will the Premier obey the Supreme Court of Canada, our constitution, the Canada Health Act and the Hospital Act and stop interfering with the decision of women and doctors in this province for proper health care?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We will always obey the law, and we'll not use the front page of the Vancouver Province for research.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says he always obeys the law. Will the Premier then agree to retroactively fund those abortions which have been provided? Will he obey the law on that point? Will he agree to meet the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which says no user fees can be charged? Third, will he agree to respect the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which says that no "financial or other barriers" may be established to the provision of health care? Will he agree to respect those two principles of law and the other point that I make with respect to retroactive funding? If he says he always obeys the law, then I assume that his answer must be yes. But will he do that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member is making a number of assumptions, and one of the assumptions obviously is that through question period he can help determine the future policy of government. That's not the intent of question period. We will be dealing with that in future.

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, earlier during question period I expressed concern about a member in question period seeking legal opinion, and Your Honour will know that that is not allowed. As much as the member does need it from time to time — which will be obvious in the upcoming debate — it is not allowed during question period.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the government House Leader for his point.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call the deferred motion in the name of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota).

Motions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in allowing the motion to be moved by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I am mindful of the observations of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, to be found in the Journals, House of Commons. Canada, June 9, 1969, pages 1136-8. That opinion is: "Such a motion cannot merely ask that the committee investigate whether or not there has been a breach of privilege; it must allege a breach of privilege. It should not simply propose that a matter be investigated to determine if there is or is not a breach of privilege." Such an allegation has already been made in the House. and in this case that should suffice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the same decision states: "In my view, the motion should follow the question of privilege as a logical sequence." Therefore, in allowing the motion in the form presented, the Chair must nevertheless point out to all hon. members that the scope of debate on such motions must be conducted within permissible limits.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance, and I appreciate the fact that it was distributed in advance — much in advance — and hence provided all of us in our caucus an opportunity to consider the parameters that are established.

I will be dealing largely with the matter of the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), and subsequent speakers — the next speaker to myself, in particular — will deal with your ruling and the procedure that flows from it, in the form of the government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say at the outset that we should never be here debating this issue. We should never have been required to go through the somersaults of the process and the procedure that we went through to get here. I say that because the honourable thing for the Premier and the government to have done a long time ago, after the MacKay commission came down, was to have demonstrated some leadership, taken the recommendations of the MacKay commission, recognized the limited terms of reference of that commission, recognized that the commission took the matters up to the cabinet doorstep and chose not to go any further, and then assumed the leadership necessary to answer all those questions that remained unanswered from the MacKay commission. They should have assumed the leadership necessary to bring about those statutory reforms that are required as a consequence of the MacKay commission and have taken the

[ Page 3344 ]

steps that were necessary in terms of ensuring that never again in this province would there be a $500 million overrun.

But the government chose instead to deny this province that leadership. It chose to allow this forum to get into this extraordinary debate. The government sadly, because of its attitude, chose to further its role, in my submission, in preventing the public from gaining full knowledge of the facts that transpired on the Coquihalla issue, and that's a shame.

When one takes a look at the conclusions of the MacKay commission, there are a whole number of questions that remain unanswered that this government on its own initiative ought to have referred to a committee. What are some of those questions? I want to go over them quickly.

It should have referred to a legislative committee the question of who oversaw the Coquihalla project; which members of cabinet were responsible for overseeing the activities of the Coquihalla project; which officials, for example, in the Premier's office were responsible for overseeing the matter of the Coquihalla project.

Who thought of the plan, the concept — the idea, if you want to put it that way — to transfer some of the work from vote 74 to 69? Where was this concocted? Why was that seen as an opportunity? Why was it that certain information that related to the famous $118.8 million special warrant was provided in the fashion that it was?

Why was Treasury Board so submissive? When one looks at the process and the structure in terms of Treasury Board procedures, Treasury Board mandate, Treasury Board operations and the way it's supposed to be set up and arranged in theory the way it's done in practice, given all the checks and balances that exist in the Treasury Board process, why was Treasury Board so submissive?

Why did the Treasury Board acquiesce so quickly to the representations that were being made? Why did the definition of the project narrow as expenditures went up, and who decided to deal with that issue? We know, Mr. Speaker, that $281 million was originally allocated, and we know which projects were assigned to the $281 million. But as the process went on, fewer of those projects were assigned to the $281 million and more and more were assigned to the capital construction program with respect to the Coquihalla. Who were the various cabinet members who played a role in the affair and dealt with it in the fashion that it was?

When I started off speaking, the Premier was here, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) was here, the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) was here, the government House Leader was here, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was here, the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) was here, and they're all leaving. Is that the extent of respect the members have for this serious matter of privilege, especially when a prima facie case has been made? It's astounding that they've chosen to walk out at this juncture of the debate; a calculated move on their part, obviously — I saw the quick caucus that occurred. Regrettable, I think, but yet indicative of the attitude of the government on this issue.

This was the largest cost overrun in B.C. political history — $500 million. The position of the government on this issue since the MacKay commission has come down is highly contemptuous. They walk out of the Legislature. They don't want to hear the facts. They want to sweep the entire matter under the carpet. They want to pretend it didn't happen. And worse still, they don't want to take any responsibility or leadership in terms of finding out what transpired, in terms of being honest about their role in the matter, in terms of bringing about reform with respect to the matters that require reform in light of what transpired. It's a shame to watch that contemptuous attitude manifest itself....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you instructed the assembly earlier that scope must be within limits in terms of this debate, and it was a quotation from Speaker Lamoureux. I believe we have no problem in accepting that. However, in looking at the motion that's in the hon. member's name and listening to the last 15 minutes of his debate, I can't see any relevance between his debate and what the motion actually says. I wonder if you could instruct the member to be relevant in speaking to his motion.

MR. ROSE: I think the hon. House Leader is being rather narrow and rigid in his approach to this. I think the member was merely setting the stage. He was also trying to base his contention that a committee is needed to look into the facts, because obviously members of the government aren't interested in looking into it. They're not even here listening to him. I really feel that that is his point, and I think he will be guided in terms of order on the important parts of Mr. Speaker's admonition to us before we started this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both of the hon. members for their presentations. As you know, the Speaker is always in a difficult position. I assume, when members are speaking, that they're always building a background to get to their case, and I would assume that the hon. member is doing that also. I'm quite anxious to hear him get to his points.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the government House Leader would rather heckle than pay attention to relevance. If he chose not to heckle, I think he would quickly gather what I'm trying to do here.

Let me say that what we're dealing with in part are reasons as to why we should have a committee. I think I'm laying out some of the questions that would be appropriate for a committee to consider. I said at the very outset that part of what I will be saying later on refers to the matter of the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). Some of it refers to why we need a committee. Some of it refers to the surrounding facts. I believe, in all respect, that if the government House Leader would read the motion and realize that the motion does talk about those three things.... I'm quite free to talk about those three things, and I intend to do so.

I'm sure the government House Leader would prefer to cover up this matter and hope that it's not proceeded with. Like I say, if he would listen instead of heckle, perhaps we'd get through this a lot quicker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has been instructed to heckle.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh, I see. The instructions provided to the government House Leader by those who left were for him to heckle.

[2:45]

As I was saying before the point of order was raised, this was the largest cost overrun in political history — $500 million. A whole series of other questions remain unanswered. I want to share some of those as well, because I

[ Page 3345 ]

think it reinforces the case as to why a committee should be established.

It seems to me that one of the issues that arises out of what transpired on the Coquihalla matter was the breadth of cabinet powers and the ease with which cabinet was allowed to, chose to and, indeed, did proceed with an extraordinary amount of funding without prior public scrutiny. And I think that is a legitimate question for anyone who is investigating this issue, particularly a committee, because I've always maintained that the committee must deal with issues that fall well beyond the personal issue, that the committee ought to take a look at cabinet powers. It should determine whether or not special warrant rules should be changed. It should determine whether special authorizations are an adequate alternative.

We've seen a lot happen with special warrants in this province, both during the Coquihalla matter and subsequently, in my experience, in terms of decentralization. Certainly those are legitimate issues for a committee to take a look at and pass judgment on. Those are not issues, in my submission, that must be dealt with only by cabinet, if indeed there has been an internal review of those types of matters.

Another legitimate issue to be looked at by a committee of the Legislature on this whole issue, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, is whether or not the provisions of the Financial Administration Act need to be amended, to be clarified, to be strengthened. In my original submission on this matter I went through a whole series of provisions within the Financial Administration Act — I think, starting from section 5 and ending at section 25 — which were, in my view, misapplied given the spirit and the intent of that enactment. And I think that a legitimate matter to be looked at by a committee of this Legislature is the matter of the Financial Administration Act, matters of special warrants and special authorizations.

Treasury Board process must be a matter that a committee of this nature should have reviewed. As I have often said outside this House — and not had the opportunity to say within this House because of the limited nature of the first opportunity that I had to speak on this — a legislative committee should be asking itself: what checks, balances and safeguards must we put in place to prevent a repeat of a $500 million overrun? What checks and balances? And yet this government would prefer not to deal with those issues. This government, Mr. Speaker, would rather not investigate the role of the political principals on the Coquihalla issue. This government would rather not reform the system. It would rather not explain its role in the affair. And as I said before, three pieces of evidence: the forty-sixth economic review, the public accounts and finally the Ministry of Highways brief of September 1987, all of which contained inaccurate figures.

This government, in my submission, prefers to cover up. It prefers to blame others for what happened on the Coquihalla. It prefers to spend money on a commission of inquiry in the form of the MacKay commission and then ignore its findings.

I don't hear this, but if it is the view of members opposite that I'm wrong, that that isn't the government's preference, then the clear way to prove me wrong is for the government to vote in favour of this motion and to allow for a full and exhaustive review of the issues that remain unanswered from the MacKay commission. Is the government prepared to do that? It is not adequate, in my submission, for the government to say: well, we appointed the MacKay commission. True, it did, and it ought to be applauded for it. It did it after the matter was raised in this House by myself and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), but it did it. and I applaud the government for it. But the MacKay report gave the government a body of evidence. The government now has an obligation to act upon that body of evidence, not to ignore it. It's not sufficient to say: "We did the MacKay commission.- What's required of a government that is prepared to provide leadership is for it to act on the matters that remain unanswered as a result of the MacKay commission. That leadership can be demonstrated, should the government choose to support this motion.

That's the challenge, and I wanted to put it out that way. I wanted to start out by focusing in on the reasons we ought to have a committee. I wanted to focus in on the questions that arose for the MacKay commission. I wanted to focus in on the non-personality issues. I wanted to appeal to the sense of reform that the government ought to have. I wanted to appeal to the imagery of a fresh start — as the government still tries to pass it off. Is it prepared to do that? That's what this whole debate will be about. That's why we need a committee. That's why we should never have been here in the first place. That's why the government should have moved right off the top, after the MacKay commission came down with its report and with its findings. If it doesn't want to demonstrate that leadership, I guess it has got one last opportunity, one last avenue, and that is that which flows from this motion.

I want to turn to the second large issue I wanted to deal with, which is, legitimately, the matter of the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). I want to go through some of the facts that in my view are salient, in order to establish the basic case. In doing that, I want to make it clear — and I've said this before — that this is not a personal vendetta on the part of members on this side of the House. It's a matter that the rules require us to deal with, and it's a matter that the government could easily have dealt with well in advance of us getting to this stage.

Nonetheless, on February 11, 1985, an announcement was made by the provincial government that it intended to build the Coquihalla Highway. At the time of that announcement, the government provided an indication of what the cost would be for construction of the Coquihalla Highway. The cost figure which was provided to the public at the time was $375 million for the entire project.

In July 1985, some five and a half months after the announcement was made, the government of the day was well aware that the project was over budget. Substantiation for knowledge of that fact comes from the MacKay commission, and the knowledge that was available to Mr. Curtis at the time, as Minister of Finance. and the information that was shared between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Highways. Other speakers who will be dealing with this matter, Mr. Speaker, will deal more specifically with the knowledge that was available to the Ministry of Finance, in order to build the case of knowledge; I want to deal specifically with the member named here. That information was shared with the Ministry of Highways.

At that time the former Minister of Highways asked Mr. Curtis for $37 million for Coquihalla projects — $37 million over and above that which had been allocated. As substantiation of that fact I point to the transcript of evidence from the MacKay commission, and the documents that the MacKay commission received. In August 1985 that request was renewed.

[ Page 3346 ]

In September 1985 the former Minister of Highways was told by Mr. Curtis to request the funds by way of a special warrant. By this time the project was considerably over budget. Again, from the evidence that was provided to the MacKay commission, the government was aware of the extent to which it was over budget, and that information was particularly known by the former Minister of Highways and the former Minister of Finance.

Subsequent to September 1985, the Legislature was called back into session. Despite the knowledge that the matter was over budget — and I think it's reasonable to assume, but other members, as I said, later in their presentation will talk about the knowledge that was wedded to the mind of the Minister of Highways — the matter was raised in the Legislature and on November 20, 1985, the former Minister of Highways indicated in the House that the project would still cost $375 million. On November 21, 1985 — and I would draw members' attention to Hansard of both those days — those statements were repeated in the House. Yet by November 30, 1985, the ministry's own figures, the information that the ministry had in its possession, indicated that the total spending on the project had risen to $415 million, well above the $375 million originally projected. The member would only talk about phase 1 at this stage of the game.

So the project was considerably over budget by November 30, 1985, and it's reasonable to assume that if that was the case on November 30, 1985, then it must have been ten days before, on November 20, 1985. It is also important to note at this stage that various people who testified during the course of the MacKay commission, and in particular Mr. Rhodes, indicated that the matter of the Coquihalla was a top agenda item at the weekly briefings between staff and the minister.

On December 9, 1985, the former Minister of Highways, the first member for Cariboo, made application for a special warrant in keeping with the September 23, 1985, letter; in other words, the September 1985 request that I referred to earlier. We have then, on December 9, requests being made for additional funds, some ten days after the House was adjourned.

[3:00]

As a result of that special warrant request, a briefing note was prepared by Treasury Board staff. That briefing note would explain why the additional funds were required, where the funds were to be applied and what matters ought to be taken into consideration by cabinet, Treasury Board and the Minister of Highways at the time, in terms of resolving how to deal with the issue.

I must bring to the attention of members of the House — the few government members who remain in here — that the background documents and papers provided by staff to support the request to Treasury Board indicated that the project was $82 million over budget. This is on December 9, 1985, some scant 11 days after the request was made on November 30, and some scant 19 days after the matter was raised in the Legislature and we were told effectively that it was within the budget target of $375 million.

On January 8, 1986, the special warrant as requested was approved. On January 20, 1986, a special warrant of $118.8 million was requested by the Ministry of Highways. That $118.8 million made no mention of the Coquihalla, no reference at all to the fact that the funds were going to be utilized for or applied to the Coquihalla project. Yet interestingly enough, on January 21, 1986, Mr. Emerson, an employee of government, circulated a memo — which I filed with you as an exhibit in this matter, so I don't think it's necessary for me to file it again — effectively indicating that the scope of the Coquihalla project was going to be narrowed in light of the fact that it was costing more than originally estimated.

In other words, some of the projects that were originally part of the Coquihalla budget — some of the projects shown in the original maps released by government — would no longer be paid out of the Coquihalla budget but out of another budget: the general government operations budget. In keeping with that, a special warrant request of $118.8 million was issued, but no mention of the Coquihalla was made in the matter of the special warrant. If you think about that, the money was going to be used for Coquihalla projects, but the special warrant made no reference to that.

Again, if it wasn't the former Minister of Highways who was responsible for that, then who was it? Perhaps the committee ought to be looking at that matter as well, because, Mr. Speaker, it's clear from your ruling that you did not consider that I had put out enough evidence to convince you of a prima facie case. That, of course, doesn't conclude that there is no case. Of course, if the committee should determine that the first member for Cariboo was not responsible for that, then perhaps we should find out who was,

On January 31, 1986, the special warrant of $118.8 million was approved. No mention was made of the Coquihalla. A fair bit of time elapsed between the issuing of that money, which was obviously applied to the Coquihalla, and March 26, 1986. But a pivotal event occurred on March 26, 1986. I must say, before I get to March 26, 1986, that the provincial government of the day, in its throne speech — other members will talk about this in further detail — indicated that the project was on budget and on time, despite the $118.8 million request for additional funding, despite the fact that the project was $82 million over budget. But as I say, other colleagues will elaborate on that matter in order to establish knowledge and intent.

Nonetheless, on March 26, 1986, the interim Supply Act was debated in the House. It dealt with $118.8 million, a phenomenal amount of money that the government had secured by way of a special warrant. When that was considered, a question was asked by Mr. Lockstead, the former member for Mackenzie, of the Minister of Highways at the time, the first member for Cariboo, about whether or not any of the moneys requested — the $118.8 million — related to the Coquihalla. The answer that came back, Mr. Speaker, was: "None of it applies to the Coquihalla." That can be found in Hansard for March 26, 1986. I think it's fair to say, if I can be generous in my statement, that that was not, in my submission, indicative or representative of the truth or the facts as we now know them, in light of the MacKay commission.

I think that fairly sketches out the facts as they apply to the member named in the motion. I've tried to stick only to those matters that were reported by the Mackay commission, only to that evidence which was given under oath, and only, generally speaking, to the evidence subject to cross-examination — which of course stands in contrast to some of the other material we've seen, including the Auditor-General's report.

From the MacKay commission, Mr. Speaker, we know now that the government knew better all along. We know that these matters were discussed on a regular and frequent basis with the former Minister of Highways and his staff and with other government members, including members of cabinet. It was discussed regularly in Treasury Board; it was discussed

[ Page 3347 ]

regularly in cabinet. It was known particularly by assistants to the former Premier, as to what the status of the project was.

MR. CLARK: And his staff.

MR. SIHOTA: And his staff.

It was also known to the member named in the motion. But it is important to note at this juncture that the MacKay commission in its findings — and I say this in fairness to the member named in the motion — concluded that very little of this emanated from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I think that should be put on the record, because it reinforces the need for the committee to look at the surrounding facts.

There's no doubt that this knowledge was in the possession of the member named, but there's no doubt in the minds of the MacKay commissioners, in light of their report, that others not only had knowledge of it but were the directing and controlling minds of the $500 million overrun. They were the ones who directed the will of government, Mr. Speaker, and I think that that matter has to be looked at by a committee of the Legislature in assessing. And I think it would be particularly relevant at this stage for me to refer to your words:

"Nothing, however, that the Chair has observed with respect to the inquiry report or Mr. MacKay's conclusions in the realm of parliamentary procedure or parliamentary conduct is in any way intended to be by way of criticism or adverse reflection upon the commissioner. Nor, of course, are the commissioner's findings of large overruns of expenditure and patent inadequacies within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in any way questioned by the Chair."

Commissioner MacKay's conclusions remain unquestioned and may be considered to be reinforced, Mr. Speaker, by your comments in that regard. So the MacKay commission stands.

I want to bring to the attention of the members of this House, in summing up my comments, that this is an essentially unprecedented decision by the Speaker. This House functions on trust. The public relies on the statements which emanate from it, as do members of this House.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the public was denied the truth, and it's my submission that it wasn't simply the former Minister of Highways acting in isolation. It is difficult to believe that the former Premier did not know, that for some reason the former Minister of Highways kept it to himself, that he kept it away from the former Minister of Finance and from members of this government, that it was one issue done in the laboratory of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with no consultation or knowledge on the part of Treasury Board, the former Minister of Finance, the former Premier or his staff. I find that difficult to believe.

In concluding, let me say this: this is the first opportunity for this government to live up to its promise of open government. If it truly believes in its promises of open government, it would allow for a full and exhaustive inquiry into this issue. That's the challenge before this government.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to finally have the opportunity to rise in this House and speak to the question put by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

I want to remind the House, first of all, that we are bound by the words contained in the specious allegations: "deliberately misled." That at all times must be the focus for our remarks.

The first point I want to make is this: in my judgment the need for an inquiry is absolutely unnecessary and, Mr. Speaker, I make that statement not without some substantiation from the other side of the House. May I remind this House that when the Leader of the Opposition appeared before the Coquihalla commission, he said: "The commission offers British Columbia the best hope for a definitive account of the Coquihalla's construction and the effectiveness of the financial safeguards of the taxpayers' money."

That's what we did, Mr. Speaker; we provided that. Those are the words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition from across the floor. Surely in an abundance of justice it should be conceded by those members across the floor that we did exactly what they wanted and, more specifically, we followed exactly the request of the Leader of the Opposition.

Then when they get what they want, they cry "foul." They try to create some sort of misunderstanding, misperception that there has been some skulduggery. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore, may I suggest respectfully that to have a relatively junior member of this assembly apparently contradict in a public manner the opinion and views of their leader who, as I say, has said that that's what he expected the commission to produce and it was the best way to get the answers....

MR. SIHOTA: You're a junior too; you haven't been here any longer than I have.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I submit, with respect, that this characterizes the approach this opposition has taken throughout these relatively short proceedings. It shows they are disorganized and undisciplined. As a consequence, we've all had great difficulty sitting here silently while we listen to this diatribe.

The fact of the matter is that this inquiry has brought out all of the information that could have been obtained. Furthermore, to suggest that a committee of this House might be able to get more information is absolutely without foundation, and anyone who understands the rules and procedures would agree with that comment. The inquiry that this government created followed the terms of reference set by the Leader of the Opposition. When speaking to the MacKay inquiry, the Leader of the Opposition said: "The main task for this inquiry is to report on the costs of building the Coquihalla Highway and to ensure there will not be a recurrence of massive cost overruns."

I remind the House of a comment made just 45 long minutes ago by the hon. member, who said that it's time we addressed the limited terms of reference of the commission. His own leader gave us his comments of what he thought of the terms of reference of the commission, once again a classic illustration of a disorganized, all-over-the-map approach these poor people are taking to the question.

Both the tasks requested of this government regarding the inquiry were completed satisfactorily. The costs have been identified as requested and, secondly, there has been adequate comment about the changes we have implemented to ensure there is no recurrence of the kind of thing that happened at that time.

[ Page 3348 ]

Other speakers will develop at some length the measures and initiatives we have undertaken to ensure that we have some administrative changes. I think it is fair for me to say that if the hon. members' research wasn't so selective in their material they might have adequately determined to their own satisfaction that the minister in charge has publicly recounted the changes that have been implemented in the ministry as a consequence of the inquiry's recommendations.

Furthermore, we have accepted almost unilaterally every single recommendation made by that inquiry commission. We now know, as a consequence of the inquiry, that there was no conspiracy to mislead this House. We now know that the blue book of estimates and the public accounts were not misleading and that the vote descriptions were accurate.

There can only be two motives that occur to me as to why the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would have the temerity to raise this issue in such a public profile way as he has done. One of them might be to attach blame so that some sort of punishment can be meted out, or the second one might be to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we've already, I believe, publicly proven that such an occurrence will not occur, because we have made some administrative changes. Other speakers will deal with that a little later. I find it somewhat ironic and difficult to deal with when I hear the hon. member, the junior member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, publicly accuse this government of trying to hide something.

We appointed the commission to ensure that there was full and frank and open revelation of all of the facts and, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition, we provided all of that information and everyone was given an opportunity to comment and give evidence.

[3:15]

I think it can fairly be said that the inquiry has produced much good. I do believe that as a consequence of the inquiry's recommendations it has been possible for us to validate the need for change in terms of the operation of the ministry, and that is a most useful purpose.

Anyone who has any experience with dealing with government at any level will understand that if you are going to make any significant changes affecting the operating styles of a function, you must have some validating authority to do so, and in that respect the inquiry was valuable.

I must say, however, that some comments made in that report are difficult to accept. Most specifically....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could the minister take his seat for one minute, please. Could the members just let the minister make his speech. They will have an opportunity to be heard themselves and will expect the same respect from the other side, and the debate will continue a little better.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate your calling the other side into some semblance of decorum and appreciation of the wisdom of my comments.

I am concerned by some of the statements made in the MacKay report as are, I am sure, many members of the House, possibly on both sides of the floor. One of them deals with, specifically, the question of deceit and prevarication, and I have to get it on the record that that particular comment, in my judgment, is totally rebutted by the letter submitted by the Auditor-General referred to earlier. I can't help but Wonder why the Auditor-General wasn't called by the commission, and it does seem to me that the explanation given by the commissioner for not calling him was valid at the time. No one in his right mind would have believed that there would have been this kind of vindictiveness exhibited by the opposition such that we are dealing here with nonsensical allegations.

No one could have predicted that, but I suspect that had the commissioner realized the use to which his honestly obtained material was to be put he would have called the Auditor-General, and I suspect that that would have eliminated the whole basis of this motion we're asked here to debate.

The commission, in my judgment, makes two basic oversights, in addition to the one, in retrospect, of not calling the Auditor-General. There were two misunderstandings, I believe, which have coloured the comments of the commissioner and caused us all much needless trouble.

The first misunderstanding, in my judgment, is that the commissioner clearly did not understand government procedures for vote reporting. That is brought out by the Auditor-General's letter of January 22, and further on page 5 of his most recent special report dealing with this subject in which he describes that the projects in vote 69 were tabled in the House and ample opportunity had been provided to the House to get into those matters had they so wished. So the first misunderstanding, I believe, would have been failure to understand or appreciate the procedures for the reporting of voted expenditures.

The second misunderstanding, in my judgment, is the failure of the commission to adequately explain the possible various definitions of the Coquihalla's start and ending. That also is made mention of in the Auditor-General's special report on page 4. Quite clearly, that's a key element of this debate. If the debaters can't agree on the boundaries of the road they're describing or trying to cost, you're obviously going to have some disagreements about that cost.

I say again, I do not make that comment without some basis of fact. I refer the House to page 4 of the Auditor-General's special report which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, gave to us a few days ago. Quite clearly, that's the basis on which much of this confusion arises.

The report provides many findings, and the hon. members from the opposition have elucidated those that suit their purpose. Let me elucidate a few that might add some balance to the debate. The first finding that I want to draw your attention to is that nobody benefited illegally out of the Coquihalla construction project. That is a direct quote from the commission's findings and I just happened to notice that it was continuously absent from any commentary provided by the opposition.

Furthermore, the report said there were no excessive profits realized by the private sector in the construction of this highway — once again, an oversight in terms of the material presented by the opposition. The findings of the report clearly point to the reason for this confusion in terms of costing. It's rooted, of course, in the long-standing ministerial practice of not attaching a great deal of attention or profile to cost estimates of roads to be built.

The opposition's sanctimonious stand would be more easily defended had they themselves not had the mantle of government from 1972 to 1975, because during that period of time they didn't see fit to change the system. They didn't see fit to demand all of the changes or implement the changes they're now demanding of us; and, in fairness, neither did this side of the House see that need until this experience.

[ Page 3349 ]

So first of all, this question of poor estimates was something that was always done. It was never paid a whole lot of attention to. It was something that was developed only in a ballpark kind of sense. If you couple that with the difficulty of defining the boundaries of these roads themselves and the approaches to the highway, I think everyone can better understand how this contradiction occurs.

The other reason for the differences between estimates and actual costs, obviously, was the decision to fast-track. The commissioner makes comment about that fast-tracking decision. But let me take the minds of this House back to the economic times when the decision was made to proceed with this highway. Let me remind this House that at the time of the cabinet decision in 1984, the unemployment rate among construction workers, in particular heavy and road construction workers, was over 30 percent. There was a very real and profound need to diversify the economy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The government House Leader on a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was some heckling, I'll admit, on my part when the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was speaking, but since the Minister of Finance has risen to his feet the NDP benches have not stopped heckling. I guess to paraphrase Shakespeare, methinks they protest too much. They're awfully nervous about something.

But that aside, I think the minister should be allowed, as every member should be allowed, to continue his remarks with some courtesy shown by members in this assembly, and he should be heard.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the government House Leader for his remarks, and I would ask members of the House to allow the Minister of Finance to continue and to listen to his debate. I'm sure he'll offer the same courtesy on the other side.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it, fellas.

To continue, at the time the decision was made to proceed with the construction of the Coquihalla Highway, there was a very real and profound need to diversify the economy of the interior, which was plagued with an unemployment rate three to five points above the provincial average. Construction of that highway provided a total of 10,600 direct jobs and 15,900 spin off jobs during the life of the project. That highway has reduced the travel time between Vancouver and Peachland by one and one-half hours. It has reduced the travel time from Kamloops to the lower mainland by one hour.

From 1981 to 1986, 85 people lost their lives traveling the Trans-Canada Highway between Hope and Kamloops. May I respectfully remind the hon. members across the floor that since the opening of the Coquihalla Highway, there has been only one recorded traffic fatality on this new route. In addition, may I remind members opposite that the construction of this highway has the effect of annually saving travelers on that portion of the road $40 million in fuel and operating costs and over 20 million litres of fuel. In addition, it makes a valuable contribution towards tourism development in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the Coquihalla Highway is a good road. It's worth its cost and it achieved the public policy goals of the provincial government. The Coquihalla Highway connected the Okanagan Valley, the Nicola Valley and the Thompson Valley into a cohesive whole, serving a market of a quarter of a million people at distances of only one and a half hours apart. The interior is now linked to the Seattle-Vancouver market of 4.5 million people. If that's not making a valuable contribution to economic development in this province, I wonder what else would have done better.

[3:30]

At that time the government had to make a decision: how does it create more spending power: how does it get the economy moving again: how does it get some level of optimism in our people, and most importantly, how does it make sure Expo is a wild success? Rather than handing out money in terms of largess, in social assistance payments, it preferred to build some infrastructure which will be there for all of our children to use in the future.

An important part of the hon. member's allegations dealt with the question of special warrants. I'd like to make a few comments about that.

It is suggested that the use of special warrants in this instance deprived the Legislature of the right to vote on real estimates. As I mentioned earlier, the Auditor-General's report makes mush of that allegation. May I now take the opportunity to get into the record something that I've been sitting on for months, and that is to say how special warrants have been used by previous governments who have served the people of this province.

I first of all would like to make the point that back in the nasty old days of 1972-75, different legislation was in place governing how the votes and proceedings of the House would be dealt with than is in place today. But I am assured by people who are professionals in the field that the requirements and the wordine of those acts then and now are similar; so one can safely assume that the application of those rules and instructions has been followed religiously in both cases.

Let me put on the record a few facts. During the first session of the thirtieth parliament of the Legislature of British Columbia, in which, as I mentioned earlier, leadership was provided by the now opposition — Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — they introduced four warrants the week prior to the session. In the second session they introduced 19 special warrants, all but one of them issued the day prior to the opening of the Legislature. In the third session they introduced eight special warrants, all in the week immediately preceding the opening. In the fourth session they introduced 40 special warrants, 17 on the day the Legislature opened. In the third sitting of that session they introduced ten special warrants the week before opening, and in the fourth session they introduced 19 the week before opening,

Just to put that in perspective, may I point out that during that brief, wild fling in the heady rounds of powerage held by this official opposition, their count on special warrants, using the same rules we use today, was in '73, 76 special warrants; in '74, 122 special warrants; and in 1975, 116 special warrants. May I respectfully point out, on the record, that our record this session is 11. More than that, our traditional record has consistently been far fewer than those harumscarum without-forethought decisions made by the government of that day, who had to run to the bank every next day to cover their overdrafts.

[ Page 3350 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would members please listen to the hon. member who is speaking.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: After getting those comments on the record, I'd like to say that, in my judgment, special warrants is an appropriate use of government authority and necessary many times. I have some doubt it is necessary 128 times, but nevertheless, during the session it has its place.

I'd like to talk about the way this motion we're dealing with seems to have unfolded. As I mentioned, I find it ironic that this government, open and full and complete, is the one that somehow is being characterized as having something to hide. We're faced almost every day with a newspaper headline with some sanctimonious breast-beating that suggests that the only ones who are protectors of the public interests are those who don't presently hold the mantle of power.

I suspect that headline-hunting does a disservice to the issue. The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tried to inject a serious note in the debate this afternoon by dealing in a very tender way with the one member whose actions we're discussing here today. But the fact that we are discussing this matter at all, Mr. Speaker, I find an offensive overreach, an attempt for headline-grabbing which I think does a disservice to this House and certainly does a disservice to the intentions of the MacKay commission itself, which was surely all that is required in order to provide, and it has provided, all the full facts surrounding the matter.

The member who has introduced this motion could have, had he had the wit or maybe the intention to be fair, stopped these proceedings far sooner than at the point we're now finding ourselves. I find it passing strange that someone who tries to characterize himself as being so concerned with justice and honesty and fairness could have deliberately omitted from his submission of evidence to you, Mr. Speaker, the one most critical piece of evidence of all, which kneecaps his proposition that an inquiry is needed at all. I find that pretty hard to accept. In an abundance of fairness, I always thought, the legal profession and any profession that claims to be representing honesty and openness and fair-minded treatment to all would have ensured that you, sit, had all of the evidence before you were required to make your deliberations. I learn to my astonishment, after the fact, that you did not have access to that most critical piece of information. Without it, of course, the prospects for the opposition's claim were dramatically increased.

However, the member's actions are not offensive only for that reason. In my judgment, the hon. member's actions are offensive for a few other reasons which I will now put on the record. This member, this junior member with the vast sum of two years' experience in local government and one and a half years' experience in this House, has attacked an employee of this House, the acting Auditor-General, with his public comments. I want to get in the record one of these comments. The hon. member described the acting Auditor-General's letter: "A Swiss-cheese opinion; it's full of holes." Back when I was in the area of local government, it was deemed most inappropriate for any elected person to make accusations of a staff member knowing full well that the staff member could not respond, that the staff member was legally constrained. I think that such actions by an elected member are reprehensible.

Furthermore, this same member, this same honourable protector of public rights and all that's good, attacked you, Mr. Speaker, in a statement that he gave to the Vancouver Sun on March 2. This hon. member said — I'll put this in the record: "...It was 'incongruous' that Reynolds could reject one of the MacKay commission's key findings in favour of 'one paragraph from one letter. I'm astonished and somewhat disappointed by the Speaker's decision.' "

Mr. Speaker, may I tell this House, if anyone's disappointed about the consequences and the actions and this journey we're embarked on, it is I. And it's all caused entirely by some of this headline-grabbing exercise by the hon. member opposite.

Then, to add insult to injury, we have a third case of an attack on a staff member who cannot respond — all for the purpose of providing pulp for the fourth estate. The reference I make here is in today's Vancouver Sun; there is a comment from the same hon. member dealing with the new Auditor-General. He makes the point that the new Auditor-General's "reliance on the...evidence the Legislature must have been aware of the transfer of funds and therefore approved it is proof 'the report crumbles on its very foundations."'

The hon. member obviously doesn't like hearing what professionals who are paid by this House, not by this government, advise us upon. In an abundance of fairness, surely, had he not been so determined to grab the next headline or the next deadline, he might have acted a little more responsibly in terms of what he said.

I'd like to introduce the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to the hon. first member from the riding of the Cariboo. Alexander Vaughan Fraser has served this province, my friends, for 38 years of public service. Alex Fraser served as chairman and mayor of Quesnel for 19 years. He served in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps during the war. He's won six re-elections to this House. He's served this House for 19 years.

How do you equate these allegations made by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to the record of service of this man, this giant of B.C. politics, this man who has in 19 years of leadership in this House had the largest say in terms of putting highways into British Columbia, all over this province? If there is one single architect of economic strength and vitality in this province, it is the hon. first member for Cariboo; and he's done it responsibly by spending taxpayers' money building infrastructure for us and our children.

Here we have the hon. member entering this House to defend himself against these unnecessary and, in my judgment, spurious allegations. This government has recognized the service of the first member for Cariboo by naming our newest and biggest and most beautiful bridge after him. His memory will survive these sad days in this House, my friends, long after you are gone. And we take much pride and comfort from that truth.

In the final analysis, the allegations the hon. member makes — the member either knew or he didn't know when he commented on the cost of construction in the House. In the final analysis, he either knew or he didn't. Using your own words in your report, Mr. Speaker, it would take a quantum leap to assume that the hon. member knew. But what if he did? What is the retribution expected as a consequence?

I am advised by those more experienced than I that the absolute most consequential event of this allegation, if proven — and, believe me, it will not be.... The best that can be expected is an apology. I would take no pleasure in that

[ Page 3351 ]

eventuality. I happen to think it is sickening to see the travesty of the rules of this House stretched to that limit.

If, as I think is far more likely, the hon. member didn't know, there would be adequate reason to believe and support that thesis. First of all, it was a matter of record that the records were poorly kept. There was no....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member's time is up.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. Not to interrupt the hon. member, I think the standing orders will show that both sides are allotted a designated speaker. If the Minister of Finance wants to designate himself that way, he certainly can.

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister would like to designate himself the designated speaker, he can take more time.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: It will take me 30 seconds to finish; I'm on the last page here.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, if I'm denied the right to conclude with the one-minute closing, then I'll have to take....

MR. SPEAKER: If the minister closes, he will have gone well beyond his time, so he'll have to be the designated speaker.

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cariboo either knew or he didn't know. As you yourself said, it would take a quantum leap to assume he did know, and even if he did know, what's the retribution — an apology?

Mr. Speaker, I submit it's far more likely that he didn't know. It's already a matter of record that there was not a great deal of discipline in terms of accounting records in that ministry, and that had been historic, going back into the days when members of the opposition were in power. There was never any great focus on estimated costs. The decision was always: shall we build the road, and if we're going to build the road, from where to where? Once that decision was made, funds were provided, because this is a government of action, and this is a government that provides work to the people when they need it.

The MacKay commission clearly pointed out that proper procedures were followed at all times by this government and by our predecessor government. There is absolutely no case to be made, both in the opinion of the comptroller-general — who is an employee of government, a public employee — and in the opinion of the Auditor-General, who is hired by this House to ensure that the government acts responsibly. The hon. members opposite had the authority and certainly the freedom, and they did participate in the selection of that individual. I find it incongruous in the extreme: all of a sudden, within months of his appointment, they're already finding some fault with the decisions that they pay him to provide them with.

It surely is nitpicking, Mr. Speaker. It surely doesn't deserve the attention that has been given this subject. The case for the motion has not been proven, quite clearly, in my estimation. But most important of all, who are we talking about? We're talking about one of the great heroes of British Columbia politics. I think it's time to end this needless charade.

MR. ROSE: I'm reminded of a fundamental rule in the law courts as far as an attorney is concerned: if your case is weak, shout louder.

The Minister of Finance started with an arm-waving defence of the indefensible, and he ended with a tacky, spurious appeal to sentimentality. It was tacky and it was spurious, because the record of service to this province by the former Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo, is not in question here. We are not questioning his service to the province. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, made the ruling that there was at least a prima facie case, and I think it's quite traditional in a House of this kind, according to our precedents, that you don't make critical reflections on the Speaker or his decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance attempted to justify the Coquihalla on some pretty flimsy grounds. The minister said we needed construction jobs. Agreed; we needed construction jobs. We needed lots of jobs, because we were firing people left and right at that point.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's got nothing to do with it. Wasn't it the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) who was complaining here a little while ago about people heckling? Well, he can take his own advice.

The minister attempted to justify the Coquihalla on public safety grounds; on fuel-saving; on time-saving; on everything but the glories to God, as far as I can see. This is what he did. That was spurious, too. It had nothing to do with the question that confronts us. The question confronting us is: is the minister in a prima facie position of contempt of the House? Is the House justified in providing a motion of privilege? That's the question we're dealing with.

The minister may talk about public safety and everything else if he likes, but what he has done is widened the debate to the point where you could drive a truck through it. What can't you talk about anymore?

The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is not the value of the highway. The question is: was there a conspiracy to cover up the $500 million overrun? Forget about all the diversions, about whether my hon. friend from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was attempting to malign a public servant. It's just another diversion. His speech was just laden with diversions.

I think we should remind ourselves why we're here, Mr. Speaker. I think we should remind all the hon. members why we're here: to decide whether or not members of this House were deliberately — I repeat, deliberately — misled in the matter of costs of the Coquihalla Highway. That's why we're here. It is not Mr. Speaker's role to determine that. Mr. Speaker's role is quite clearly to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case to be made that this House was deliberately misled. The House — all its members, not just the opposition — is charged with the responsibility of deciding that matter, not Mr. Speaker.

I think everyone knows — it was mentioned by my hon. friend — that the House in a parliamentary democracy rests on trust and truth. When a minister is asked a question, it is a responsibility of that minister, so far as he is able. so far as he

[ Page 3352 ]

has knowledge, to tell the truth, to 'fess up. When ministers in other jurisdictions — notably the Mother of Parliaments, upon whose rules our rules rest — come under a cloud, they resign. When they are named by a royal commission as stridently and aggressively as they were by the MacKay commission, most honourable ministers would have resigned; we wouldn't be dealing with this today at all.

The motion before you, Mr. Speaker, asks for a special committee to be struck to consider the facts surrounding the prima facie case against the first member for Cariboo. Prima facie: that case has been made in the matter of one individual only — the hon. first member for Cariboo and former Minister of Transportation. A prima facie case has not been made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, according to you, Mr. Speaker, against the others named. Who were the others named? Mr. Bennett, the former Premier; Mr. Curtis; the current Premier; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Convelier ; and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). That does not mean that some of the others didn't conspire to deliberately mislead the House. It means only that — on the basis of the evidence presented by my hon. friend, the evidence available to Mr. Speaker, presented by my hon. friend and others, such as the acting Auditor-General — at that time it wasn't convincing enough for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on a case beyond the one you did, in which only one person was named. That's why we're having this debate: so that the House can enlighten itself on that subject this afternoon.

In other words, Mr. Speaker's ruling doesn't find innocent the former Premier, Mr. Bennett; Mr. Curtis; the current Premier; the Minister of Finance; and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Mr. Speaker has not found these people innocent. What he has ruled is that we did not present enough evidence to find them guilty, prima facie, or enough evidence to suggest that there might be a conspiracy. But it's a little different that assuming that because they were not found guilty in terms of the prima facie case, they are in fact not involved. It doesn't prove that at all. I don't think that that's an escape hatch for anybody.

Only a prima facie case has been established against the former Minister of Highways from Cariboo for attempting to deliberately mislead the House — a coverup of some $500 million on the Coquihalla Highway construction, the largest overrun in B.C.'s history. Welcome to Alabama north.

I'm going to come back to these matters later, but before I go on, I think it's important to observe the precedents relating to the references to the Speaker's ruling and subsequent debates in this House. I say, too, that I hope I won't offend the Deputy Clerk when I do this, because I intend to cite from rules established in the federal House by Beauchesne in the fifth edition.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I cite section 117, subsection (1), which states in part: "His" — meaning the Speaker's — "actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive motion." I assume that's for impeachment, which is rather rare.

Beauchesne, section 119, says: "Speakers' rulings, once given, belong to the House which, under standing order 12" — of the federal House — "must accept them" — in the case of more than one ruling — "without appeal or debate."

Two things stand out here, and I'm attempting to set the parameters that were all shot to pieces when I listened to the minister of bombast over there just a minute ago. I'm attempting to set the parameters of what we might speak about in this debate.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I think that what I have to say about rulings apply to both sides of the House. At least I'm entitled to express my views on them. I don't need any guidance through heckling.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Well, get up and protest then, if you don't like it.

Two things stand out from these citations. First, Speakers' rulings are no longer appealable. We don't question that. It's gone. It was once upon a time a fact of any Legislature that if you didn't like a Speaker's ruling, you could appeal it. That is no longer a valid approach to our proceedings.

The second thing is: Mr. Speaker's "actions cannot be criticized incidentally in debate." I don't question that ruling at all either. But hon. members should note that nowhere does it say that a ruling by Mr. Speaker cannot be discussed and referred to in debate. It doesn't say that. It can be praised, even. It can be analyzed, but it cannot be criticized or appealed anymore, once it is called. I accept that too.

I think it's important to establish this because, as Mr. Speaker said at the outset, the scope of the debate "on such motions must be conducted within reasonable limits." I think this side of the House doesn't intend to violate those reasonable limits, but I wonder about the previous speaker.

I now turn to page 5 of the Speaker's ruling, in praise of his ruling:

"Nothing, however, that the Chair has observed with respect to the inquiry report or Mr. MacKay's conclusions in the realm of parliamentary procedure or parliamentary conduct is any way intended to be by way of criticism or adverse reflection upon the commissioner. Nor, of course, are the commissioner's findings of large overruns of expenditure and patent inadequacies within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in any way questioned by the Chair."

So Mr. Speaker hasn't questioned in any way any of Mr. MacKay's report nor his findings.

It's absolutely spurious for the Minister of Finance, as he did just a moment ago, to suggest that somehow we were unfairly attacking some member of the House who has an unblemished and long record. It's just patent nonsense, and another spurious tiptoe through the tulips.

[4:00]

What did Mr. MacKay find? If Mr. Speaker has not questioned his findings, it might be worthwhile noting what his findings were. Here are his findings: "(a) established that the costs of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects grossly exceeded the estimate of costs, both as announced to the public and reasserted in the House." That's pretty heavy stuff. That's one of his findings. Remember, Mr. Speaker hasn't questioned these findings.

Mr. MacKay "(b) expressed an opinion based on the commissioner and his consultants' understanding of the parliamentary process" — and that has something to say about

[ Page 3353 ]

the acting Auditor-General's understanding of the parliamentary process — "involving statements made and documents tabled in the House that the House, was misled and that the 'financial reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project' was 'tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication both by politicians and public servants.' " And he continues to say: "(c) that neither the Ministry of Transportation and Highways nor Treasury Board had an inadequate system for auditing, controlling and reporting the Coquihalla project." And: "(d) that while the published information presented to the Legislature would have allowed anyone interested to have deduced" — now we're talking about deduction; we're not talking about explicit statements — "that the final costs would exceed the ministry's published estimates, staff within the ministry knew the amount of work yet to be done and the costs of the upcoming construction season."

The highways department servants knew. Right? And Mr. MacKay says the reporting of the financial aspect of it was tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication on the part of politicians — not one politician; politicians. "Politicians and civil servants." I didn't write his report. That's what he said.

What are some crucial questions arising out of all this, Mr. Speaker? First of all, "prevarication" means "lying." Politicians and public servants were lying. That's what it means. So much for democracy. So much for trust. They were lying, according to the royal commissioner, Mr. MacKay. Which politicians were lying? That's why we want the committee — to find out which politicians were lying.

MR. RABBITT: Witch hunt?

MR. ROSE: No, it's a rabbit hunt.

As far as deceit is concerned, "deceit" means the opposite of being open. Being deceitful means you're trying to hide something, something that people should know but you're hiding it. Why were they deceitful and who was deceitful? Again, we don't want a witch hunt. We don't want a whitewash either.

So these are questions really for the committee to decide, so it can consider, as the motion said, the facts surrounding the prima facie evidence that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) misled the House.

A lot has been made about this shell game with votes 69 and 74. I don't think the question is whether it was technically legal for the funds to be shell-garned from one vote to another. We've heard from the Auditor-General and his successor, the acting Auditor-General, on that topic. That's not the point. That's a technicality at this point, although several assertions have been made that the acting Auditor-General did not appear at the commission and did not give testimony. All of a sudden, when asked, he was prepared to say he would have given it a clean bill of health, no matter what happened. That's what he said. My information........

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I haven't said anything about it. I'm just stating what he's done. But I want to say that it is my information that there were in camera meetings with the commissioner and the auditor- general's department. All right. There were.

Okay, let's suppose it is legal. Let's suppose the shell game is legal. The fact is the funds were shifted from one vote to another, and I believe for a deceitful purpose. The legality of such a shift is really irrelevant because it doesn't alter the public perception of what went on. I mean, these are fine little Druid games we play in here, but not everybody understands them outside, and a lot of us don't understand them inside the House. But that isn't the point. It's the public perception that there was a wilful attempt, a deliberate attempt to cover up a massive overspending on the Coquihalla by politicians and public servants. Mr. MacKay believes this. He says so in his report. The opposition believes this because we all said so. More importantly, the public continues to believe that there was a massive and deliberate coverup. No amount of fancy footwork is going to escape that fact. No amount of fancy footwork is going to change that public perception. No amount of saying no to a request for a committee is going to change that at all.

You, sir, made your ruling that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew had not made his case, except for the member for Cariboo, the former Minister of Highways. It comes down to just one person that we're supposed to be attacking. We named six people, not just one. The government has seen fit somehow.... Again, I mustn't reflect on the Speaker's ruling, but the point is that there is only one person named in the Speaker's reply to our motion. We would have much preferred it to be broader than that.

We want that kind of commission. We want a committee to examine the facts surrounding it; this is the reason for this. Are we really being asked to believe that the hon. first member for Cariboo acted alone, that he was the only one involved? It's kind of stretching credulity, in my view, to believe that he and his officials fooled the Premier, Mr. Bennett; that he and his officials fooled Mr. Curtis. I believe that granting the member for Cariboo powers of deception almost matching or even exceeding those of Harry Houdini is granting him far more than he deserves in this.

Did the member for Cariboo transfer funds from one vote to another? Of course he didn't do it by himself. How could he? He didn't have the power to do it by himself. Did the member for Cariboo sign the warrants to spend money by himself, or were there other signatories, such as Mr. Curtis or Mr. Bennett, on those warrants? To give the member for Cariboo the kind of powers suggested here in this debate, certainly by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), is to suggest that he ran the show. Nobody believes that either.

Mr. Bennett, then Premier, so careless.... Was Mr. Bennett so careless or stupid not to have known what was going on, or was he less than candid with the public about fast-tracking the Coquihalla? What fast-tracking means here is "cover your tracks fast."

Mr. Speaker, you've decided that there's at least a prima facie case of deliberately misleading the House against the member for Cariboo, and we accept that. But I and my party cannot accept the fact that the member could have acted alone. We don't accept that. He did not act alone, without the knowledge of his colleagues and superiors: quite to the contrary.

The first member wrote letters to Treasury Board chairman Hugh Curtis, who approved the money. His staff met with the Finance ministry and the Premier's office staff. Cost data were regularly supplied to the first member for Cariboo and discussed at his weekly staff meetings and with his office. Funding was approved by Treasury Board. He could hardly have been acting alone.

[ Page 3354 ]

We did not prove the case against the others, according to Mr. Speaker; I don't question that. We'll do better the next time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude now. We are calling for complete committee hearings and feel confident that if we haven't already done so, we can make an extremely strong case for this committee to act, to travel, to hear witnesses, to call for papers. We need a lot more ventilation of this, and the government needs to bring more controls in so this kind of financial Coquihallacaust doesn't happen again.

MR. MICHAEL: I'm sorry there aren't more members of the opposition present during this debate; however, I suspect that part of the reason might be that the lines are buzzing between here and Manitoba. I've just heard that the government of Manitoba has gone down to defeat after having lost a vote of confidence. I'm sure that is causing a lot of concern with members opposite, and perhaps that's some of the reason why many of them aren't here to participate in this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader rises on a point of order — which is a point of order?

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I know that the members across there are jubilant over what has happened in Manitoba, but I don't see what this has to do with the debate on the overrun of the Coquihalla. I'd also like to point out that we were quite pleased about the court decision yesterday, but we didn't interrupt the debate on the Election Act to gloat over that decision because it happened to embarrass the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. I would ask the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to speak to the matter at hand.

MR. MICHAEL: For the record, if that was an embarrassment to members opposite, I apologize and I withdraw. I want not to spend too much time on the document delivered to the House yesterday by George Morfitt, the Auditor-General, an officer of this House, but I do think that it's important to take just a couple of minutes and read a couple of the paragraphs in that document. For the record, the paragraphs are at the bottom of page 5, and simply say: "Accordingly, and notwithstanding the matters raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in his submission to the House, we do not believe the March 31, 1986, financial statements of the government to be misleading."

I would like to conclude from that report by simply reading the last paragraph on page 14:

"Based on this work, and based on the knowledge that the government was within its authority to account for highway construction costs as it did, and in the belief this accounting treatment was in keeping with the intentions of the Legislature, we expressed our opinion on the financial statements of the government without reservation. After considering the matters raised during the commission of inquiry and the submission to the House by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, we believe that such opinion remains valid."

[4:15]

From there, I would like to move on to some other areas and show to this House how the NDP opposition has failed the province of British Columbia, and I would like to put into question some of the statements made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), indeed challenging and questioning his accountability.

I do not want to take any time, as it's already been said, over some of the tremendous service given to this House and to this province by the former Minister of Highways, so I will leave that part out of my address. But I do feel that it's important to pay attention to those two simple sections out of the Auditor-General's report.

Now we could talk about how the NDP failed in four areas in providing good opposition on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia regarding the Coquihalla Highway. They have four opportunities, four formal methods, basically, of questioning ministerial estimates and overruns.

First of all, they can write the Minister of Transportation and Highways a letter and ask him questions on a formal, straightforward basis. I can tell you that during my term as the Minister of Transportation and Highways I received not one single letter from a member opposite asking questions about the Coquihalla costs or the overruns in general.

The second thing they can do is put a written question on the order paper. They did put some questions on the order paper directed to the Minister of Highways, a position that I held at that time, and I can tell you two things: there wasn't one single question dealing with the Coquihalla overruns, and every question directed to me that was on the order paper was answered forthwith.

The third thing I would like to point out to the House is that they have an opportunity to place questions before the minister during question period and they also, fourthly, have the opportunity to question the minister during his estimates. On those two points, we've already pointed out that there were no letters sent to the Minister of Highways. We would have to grade the opposition with a failure in that respect. There were no notices put on the order paper for questions. We would have to grade the opposition with a failure in that respect. Regarding question period, on July 13, 1987, there was one question asked by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) about a segment of overruns, and it was limited to the Great Bear snowshed. The question simply was:

"I wonder if the minister could confirm that a project let on the Coquihalla Highway — namely, the Great Bear snowshed project — which was originally tendered for some $5 million, has in fact come in at just about double that, at about $10.5 million."

MR. LOVICK: What day?

MR. MICHAEL: That was on July 13, 1987, page 2413 of Hansard.

The response from the minister was: "Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm the exact dollars. He's talking about a project in Coquihalla 1, and there was a significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal nature of the work."

I suggest to you, speaking of the Great Bear snowshed, that the questioner did not do his job in this Legislative Assembly by following through and asking the minister of that time how the seasonal nature of the work caused the overruns on that particular project. He failed to do that. However, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, in his

[ Page 3355 ]

statement — his accusations — to this House dated February 23, 1988, on page 3061 of Hansard, said as follows:

"On July 13, 1987, my colleague, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), asked the then Minister of Transportation and Highways, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke...whether the Great Bear snowshed — originally tendered for $5 million — had come in at or about $10.5 million. The member for Shuswap replied — and this can be evidenced through Hansard, page 2413 — that: '...there was a significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal nature of the work."'

He went on to compare what the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways said at the MacKay commission:

"In September, the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Illing, presented a ministry brief to the MacKay commission. That brief flatly contradicted the July 13, 1987, answer of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke about the Great Bear snowshed. At that time, according to his own ministry's brief, the most important reason for the additional payment was that the site was not available to the contractor on time, and in support of that fact and evidence, I draw your attention to page 30 of the MacKay report."

As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, he is charging me with deliberately misleading the House. That's the accusation against me which has blackened my name in the press and in editorials throughout the province. I suggest to you that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew deliberately did that. He knew full well, for on July 15 he was in the House. His name is in Hansard as being present during this particular ministerial estimate.

If you look to page 2539 of Hansard dated July 15, 1987, you will see that the member for Prince Rupert asked questions to the minister again regarding the project of the Great Bear snowshed, the Kerkhoff Construction Group of Chilliwack — project B-2882. I want to read into the record my response on that day. To me, this will clearly point out to the House that that member, who was present while I was giving this response — his name is shown at the bottom of that same page — heard what I had to say, is deliberately misleading this House by not acknowledging — refusing to acknowledge — that I answered the question in the following way, which clearly contradicts what he said on February 23, 1988. Here is my response to that question during my estimates:

"Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question and a very good issue. The original bid price was $5.5 million. The total payment to the contractor was $10.5 million. Some of the reasoning is the fact that the tender was let with the understanding that the work would commence on a certain date. Unfortunately the contractor involved was not able to get into the area for some two months after the date that he was told he could enter the area.

"He had worked and bid on the project on the basis of completion by November 1985, and we all know what the Coquihalla is like in that particular region of the project — a tremendous, heavy snowload factor. As a result of the two-month delay in his getting into the project, of course, he wasn't able to complete the project until a long time after that, having had to work through the very heavy winter months. There was an extremely heavy snowload factor, and it was very expensive to keep the project going.

"Along with that — again no blame on the contractor — he had difficulty as a result of our efforts and not having adequate access. He had access to only part of the site, again resulting in delays. Also, the contractor had poor rock. which was not anticipated. Much more money than anticipated had to be spent to set these anchors in place as a result of the poor rock. Along with that, as in many other major contracts that have been let, there were other extra work items that our staff had laid on the contractor which resulted in this figure."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you: how could the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew be present in this House, hear what I had to say and make the accusations that were made against me in his statement to this House, impugning not only myself but five other members of this assembly? I would suggest to you he either did not do his homework or he is deliberately making accusations that are not valid, because the record clearly refutes the accusations as made against me dated February 23, 1988.

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the estimates of the minister in 1987, it's interesting to look at the work the opposition did during those estimates. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asked me no fewer than 25 questions. None of them had to do with the tremendous overruns in the entire Coquihalla project. Rather, the opposition in this House zeroed in on one particular project, the Great Bear snowshed, the contractor being Kerkhoff. I wonder why that was the only project that the opposition zeroed in on. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in their blind submission to the labour leaders in the province they completely neglected an issue of paramount interest to the people of British Columbia. They were taking orders from headquarters, and zeroing in on Kerkhoff, and they completely let down the people of the province in analyzing the ministerial estimates and looking at overruns in the length and breadth of Coquihalla 1 and Coquihalla 2.

Mr. Speaker, it would be well at this time to inform the House as to what brought about the inquiry.

MR. WILLIAMS: What was it?

MR. MICHAEL: Let's talk about it. It wasn't through the efforts of the opposition, Mr. First Member for Vancouver East. It was no thanks to you or any of your colleagues. You failed to ask proper questions. You failed to make proper cross-examination of the minister during his estimates.

There is one reason and one reason only why there was a MacKay inquiry and an inquiry into the overrun, and that was the result of a Vancouver Sun columnist who approached me on leaving the House on July 13 and asked me several questions, at which time I asked him to put those questions in writing, which he did within an hour. He had the response to those four questions in less than 24 hours. He asked in the afternoon; he had it the morning of the next day. One reporter had more moxie than the entire 22 members opposite.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the audacity to accuse me of deliberately misleading the House. The facts are plain and simple: we gave them all of the answers to the questions that they asked, all on the order paper, and all those questions asked during the ministerial estimates.

[ Page 3356 ]

I don't wish to get into it, Mr. Speaker, because I'm no longer the Minister of Highways, but I could suggest to you that there were many changes taking place during this entire period, changes that I can assure this House.... I will leave the details of those to the Minister of Highways when he returns to participate in this debate. But I can tell you that there were changes regarding the organization within the ministry — reporting changes and changes in the control procedures. There were a lot of changes going on, to make sure that overruns of this nature would not happen again.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the charges being made about deliberately misleading this House.... I have a note that was made here during the speech given by the opposition House Leader. He was talking about deceitful being the opposite of openness. I would ask that member to search the records and to show that at any time I was not open with this House, open with the press, open to any questions asked on the order paper, and open to answering questions delivered to my ministry. It was the opposite: we were continually open with any inquiries made by the members opposite. We attempted continually to work with them in answering questions in the interests of the residents of the province of British Columbia.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP have failed on all counts in their responsibilities as an effective opposition party in this House. They did not ask the proper questions. The only reason, I repeat, that this inquiry was brought about was through a single member of the press gallery, and not as a result of their efforts.

[4:30]

I would suggest that if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, being so good at using the old scattergun approach to deliberately blacken names, as he did for me back in November 1987.... I would love to have the opportunity to talk to him or to some of the other members in person about the type of bed-mates that that member chooses to receive information from, but we will get into that.... I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, I would be ruled out of order if I got into that too heavily. But I want to say that when that member talks about honour and trust, I have to tell you, I sit here and shake my head somewhat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the comment you made just a few moments ago is entirely unparliamentary, and I'll have to ask you to withdraw it, please.

MR. MICHAEL: Which part was that, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection.

MR. MICHAEL: I'll withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will take my seat, and I'll look forward to hearing the balance of the debate. But I just wanted to put on the record how the opposition has failed in this assembly in doing its proper job and, again, for the history books, how the inquiry was brought about in the first place, because it sure wasn't any credit to any of the members over there.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, some astonishing remarks from the former Minister of Highways, who said that it's our fault. It's the opposition's fault that we didn't ask questions, that they were $500 million over budget. He knew it; he made those allegations. He said today, the former Minister of Highways: "The opposition never asked about the tremendous overruns in all the projects associated with the Coquihalla Highway." He never made that clear to this House. He never clarified the remarks of the ministry's submission, while he was the Minister of Highways, to the MacKay commission, which had clearly false and misleading statements in it. It clearly violated — and he never took the opportunity today to clarify the ministry's remarks before the MacKay commission, which have been refuted clearly in every case.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to reflect upon why we're here today and what we're here to discuss. We're here to talk about a question of privilege about one member and the facts surrounding it, as to whether we were deceived in this House and misled. And the reason this arose is because of the monumental overrun, the likes of which we have never seen before in British Columbia: the Coquihalla Highway in total cost about a billion dollars, almost $500 million over budget.

This overrun was not made public, in spite of the fact that the minister's remarks clearly allude to the fact that they knew there were tremendous overruns — to use the former minister's own words — in this project.

There can be only two explanations: first, that the government was so incompetent that they couldn't find $500 million, that they lost it somewhere in the shuffle — half a billion dollars; or the other alternative is that the government knew, and they systematically moved to hide from and deceive the House and to cover up the fact that these overruns were taking place. I submit that the remarks just made by the former Minister of Highways indicate very clearly that they knew that this was tremendously over budget. They never came clean; they never took any opportunity in this House to establish the facts. And they blame it on us for not asking the appropriate questions.

Well, $500 million over budget is enormous. But one of the problems with the amount — $500 million — is that it's almost too big. No one knows what it means. Five hundred million dollars — how much is that? I've never had $500 million in my hand, and neither have other members here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just give two examples to indicate how much $500 million is. Let me just give you two little examples. Say, for example, that someone was hired to do a job eight hours a day, five days a week, 50 weeks out of the year, and his job was to count $1 bills one second at a time — one, two, three...40,990,000. One dollar at a time, he worked at that job. How long would it take for that person to count to $500 million? It would take 69.4 years.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about the slow counters over there?

MR. CLARK: Well, I think one second a dollar bill, Mr. Speaker, might be a bit too conservative. It seems to me it would take longer, especially with those big numbers when we get up around 499,999,999. So I'm being conservative. Sixty-nine years for someone working full-time eight hours a day counting $1 bills, with no coffee break and no lunch break, by the way. Sixty-nine years.

One other little example — and I don't want to make light of this. But I think it's important to recognize the enormity of the overrun. This is just the overrun. This isn't the estimated cost of building the highway; this is the amount the government went over on one project.

[ Page 3357 ]

Mr. Speaker, if those one-dollar bills were laid end to end, how far would they go? I'll tell you: 47,349 miles end to end with no break.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's farther than Kelowna.

MR. CLARK: Just by way of the analogy with the Coquihalla, it's 419 times the length of the Coquihalla Highway from Hope to Kamloops.

These numbers are so big that they become unreal for people. The government can laugh off the suggestion and say that these overruns are simply that: little overruns, little oversights. We have never seen in British Columbia the likes of the magnitude of this overrun. It is staggering that this government, which professes to get elected on business acumen and efficiency, can come in here and not only be $500 million over on one project, but then systematically lie and cover up the fact that that $500 million overrun has taken place. In passing comment, the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) said: "Oh, we've had other overruns — more than that, even. For example, the rapid transit project was estimated at $200 million and came in at over $1 billion."

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier was the minister.

MR. CLARK: Someone chose that crazy system, and he happens to be the Premier now.

We have seen other systematic overruns with the previous administration and this administration that have been phenomenal, unbelievable. At the same time, of course, that this horrendous overrun was taking place, this same government was cutting back on every service to people in British Columbia. Every social service was being cut back and thousands of people were being laid off at the same time as we saw a half-billion dollar overrun on concrete and highways. That's a large amount of money by any measure.

That there has been this overrun is absolutely clear. It is my contention that the overruns were systematically hidden from public view, not because of incompetence.... That's the other choice: simple incompetence. In fact, the Minister of Finance, in his remarks purportedly defending the comments, made it very clear that the system was at fault. Essentially he was saying that he thought it was incompetence. I don't think it was incompetence, but a deliberate and planned deceit on the part of the government of B.C. Certainly the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) played a role in that coverup — no question about it — but he was clearly not alone. Through a review of the evidence....

MR. RABBITT: If it's so clear, why couldn't you substantiate it?

MR. CLARK: I think it will become obvious as I go through the evidence with respect to the first member for Cariboo and his associates at that time that the first member for Cariboo deceived the House. It is absolutely clear that Mr. Hugh Curtis, the former Minister of Finance, was an accomplice in that deceit.

I will go through it for the members of the back bench. He, Mr. Curtis, aided and abetted the coverup, and it is my belief that a coverup of this magnitude happening in the private sector, which is accountable to shareholders, would mean that people would very likely be put in jail. People would be put in jail if this happened in the private sector and the board of directors systematically hid $500 million and deliberately misled the shareholders in that regard. Mr. Curtis is an accomplice because he sat on Treasury Board. Indeed, he was chairman of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, and the Treasury Board facilitated the coverup perpetrated by the first member for Cariboo.

I would like to concentrate on two methods used by the government to conceal the very existence of overruns, let alone their magnitude. I think it's clear when you look through the MacKay commission report, when you look through the evidence that we've seen across the board, that there were really two methods used. First was the use of special spending warrants to conceal votes that would have come before the Legislature, second was the switch to vote 69 of moneys allocated to vote 74. I would like to go through those two methods that the government used to systematically hide the facts from the public and from the Legislature.

Special spending warrants are to be used extraordinarily. The members across the way know that, and the Financial Administration Act is very clear. Only when the House is adjourned and only in a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, or unforeseen circumstances, are spending warrants to be issued.

Spending warrants were used in the Coquihalla coverup. The issuance of special warrants clearly indicates, firstly, that the government knew that costs were soaring — that evidence will become clear — and that they were over budget, all the while maintaining in this House that the Coquihalla project was on time and on budget. The evidence is absolutely clear and irrefutable: special warrants were issued to cover overruns, while at the same time the former Minister of Highways, the first member for Cariboo, was in the House maintaining the fiction that the costs of the Coquihalla were on time and on budget.

The first mention of special warrants was made on July 15, 1985, where the first member for Cariboo, the former Minister of Highways, sent a letter to Mr. Curtis, the former Minister of Finance, requesting a special warrant. On July 15 that first letter was sent: "Supplementary Highway Capital Construction Program," asking for approval in the amount of $156 million, of which $37 million was for the Coquihalla Highway. The projects were described as "...of the highest priority as outlined at a recent meeting between staffs of the Ministry of Finance, this ministry" — the Ministry of Transportation and Highways — "and the office of the Premier." Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways was acting in concert with the Minister of Finance and the Premier's office.

On August 2, which is only two weeks later, another request was made. After intervention by the Minister of Finance and the Premier's office — that's very clear from the evidence — a second letter was sent by the first member for Cariboo clarifying his request. He wrote a letter to Mr. Curtis asking that his previous letter be cancelled, and asking for approval in the amount of $128.8 million. So he reduced it by roughly $30 million as a result of his conversations with the Minister of Finance and with the office of the Premier. For the Coquihalla, $37 million more was required than the estimates approved less than eight weeks before. The estimates were approved in the House, and eight weeks later, the minister is going in concert with the Minister of Finance for a special spending warrant asking for $37 million more. The letter

[ Page 3358 ]

made reference to a specific meeting between Finance, Highways and the Premier's staff. The reference was also made that if the program was approved as agreed to by the cabinet, then it was necessary for a special warrant to be issued.

[4:45]

On September 23, about a month later, that resulted in a personal and confidential letter being sent to the first member for Cariboo indicating that that request was approved by Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, it should be known that Treasury Board, of which the chairman was Mr. Curtis, approved a special warrant to the tune of $30 million over and above what had been approved in estimates.

On November 20 in the House the first member for Cariboo continued the falsehood that it was on time and on budget. He asked for a special warrant to cover $30 million over budget, and then on November 20, he came in the House and announced that it was on time and on budget. How much clearer can one get? How could one argue that it's incompetence and not deliberately misleading? On November 21, the next day, in response to a question from the former member for New Westminster, the member for Cariboo again advised the House that no additional requests have been made to Treasury Board for funding of the Coquihalla Highway. That's a quote from the former Minister of Highways — that he had made no request from Treasury Board for further funding of the Coquihalla Highway, when in fact he had. The factual and hard evidence is clear that he had. However — and this is how people have hidden behind this fact — even though the approval had been agreed to by Treasury Board, it had not been formally written out and approved by Treasury Board.

The House adjourned, Mr. Speaker, on December 2 of that year, and on December 9, seven days later, the member for Cariboo made the formal application, referring to the private letter he had received, asking then for the special warrant to be approved. That was formally approved on December 20 by Treasury Board — which was chaired, of course, by Mr. Curtis. So we know that on November 21 he said in the Legislature that they had not made any requests for further funding of the Coquihalla Highway, even though the evidence is that he did. We know that he didn't take the opportunity to raise that in the House at that time, and we know that he got money from Treasury Board, approved by Treasury Board, for overruns on the Coquihalla Highway a week after the Legislature adjourned. Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence in that respect is absolutely clear.

The December 20 agreement by Treasury Board to fund the overruns on the Coquihalla Highway included a Treasury Board briefing note which indicated that $61.8 million of the warrant was for the Coquihalla Highway, and that the expenditure on the project was going to be $363 million, or $82 million higher than the estimates figure of $281 million.

The former Minister of Highways and the former Minister of Finance can't plead ignorance, because the facts are absolutely clear that the Treasury Board briefing note states categorically that the spending warrant, if approved, would result in $82 million over budget. That spending warrant was approved. It was approved in principle in September, and in November the former minister lied to the House by saying that in fact he had not made an approach to Treasury Board. The facts are absolutely clear in that regard.

The Treasury Board, chaired by Mr. Curtis, knew that the highway was significantly over budget. The use of the special spending warrant hid the fact from the Legislature, and the timing of the warrant seven days after the House adjourned could only lead to the conclusion that it was a deliberate, political manipulation — absolutely deliberate. There is no other conclusion that members of the House can come to.

On January 20, a month later, the first member for Cariboo requested another special warrant. This would be, I believe, the third special warrant with respect to the Coquihalla requested. The member asked for $118.8 million for the Coquihalla Highway in addition to the previous special warrant that was issued.

It was here that Mr. Curtis played a pivotal role. In deliberately concealing the facts.... I said there were two ways in which the government deliberately concealed the facts. The first was the selective and deliberate use of special warrants; the second was the selective switching of authorization of votes; in other words, the movement of moneys between votes to disguise the fact that it was over.

When the second warrant — actually it was the fourth special warrant requested but the second in this series — was requested, the former Minister of Finance decided that the vote switch from vote 74 to vote 69 would be in order, in order to conceal the fact. In his submission to Treasury Board, the former Minister of Highways, the member for Cariboo, referred to the previous request for funds relating to the Coquihalla Highway and said, in effect, we need more money. However, the letter sent in this regard said that it was for highway projects other than the Coquihalla.

On January 21, one day later, the Treasury Board secretary, David Emerson, wrote to Mr. Curtis a memo which said that the Highways ministry's intention was to use vote 74 only for those projects directly related to the Coquihalla. In other words, on January 21, when they got another spending warrant from the former Minister of Highways to the tune of $118 million, having just approved one that they knew was making it over budget, Treasury Board decided to arbitrarily allocate those funds to vote 69 instead of vote 74.

Even though this was a deliberate manipulation of the estimates procedure, and Mr. Emerson suggested it apparently, according to the evidence we have, Mr. Curtis agreed. It is interesting that Mr. Emerson has now been hired by the Premier as one of the major consultants on the privatization initiative, and we see his name all the time.

MR. WILLIAMS: Not to mention the bankrupt bank he was with.

MR. CLARK: That's right, he was with the bank.

So this individual played a key role in supporting the political manipulations desired by the government. Perhaps the only reason to question.... The only person probably in this whole area that comes out unscathed, I think, by the documents we have seen is the former Attorney-General, Garde Gardom, who, when he saw the memo from Mr. Emerson that documented this manipulation, the switch of money from one vote to another, suggested that he wouldn't approve that as a member of Treasury Board, and that it should go to the entire cabinet for discussion as to why it was warranted that this switch take place. Instead of going to the entire cabinet as Mr. Gardom suggested, Hugh Curtis, in his position as chairman of Treasury Board, approved the warrant.

We know from testimony at the MacKay commission that the vote switch took place at the request of Treasury Board. Although we are today discussing a prima facie case against

[ Page 3359 ]

the former Minister of Highways, the first member for Cariboo, we know that the vote switch actually took place by Treasury Board; and that is documented very clearly in the evidence that the decision to make the switch to hide the money was made by Mr. Curtis and by the Treasury Board staff and by all those who sit on Treasury Board. They simply facilitated the desire of the first member for Cariboo, the former Minister of Highways, to spend more money than was allocated on the Coquihalla Highway.

The Financial Administration Act is absolutely clear that that's simply not allowed, that the legal framework under which the Legislature gives the government of the day authority to spend the taxpayers' money is in common with other Westminster-style legislatures. It is the centrepiece of the process in the presentation of the budget by the Minister of Finance, seeking legislative approval for the government's spending plans of the coming fiscal year.

I think the evidence of Mr. Hooper in this regard is absolutely clear, and it has been unrefuted so far by any of the speakers.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: He only looked at a handful of contracts, as opposed to the 200 or so.

The speakers we've seen in debate so far have not refuted any of the evidence suggested by Mr. Hooper. I just want to read a little section from Mr. Hooper's testimony. He was made aware of the transfer of expenses which had occurred during fiscal '85-86 between the Coquihalla legislative appropriation, vote 74, and the highways operation appropriation, vote 69. In studying the ministry's brief, his investigative experience caused him to examine closely the statement regarding the special warrant provided by the ministry in fiscal 1985-86. This was specifically footnoted as "not Coquihalla." In his evidence, Mr. Hooper described this:

"...looking at (the ministry's description of special warrant No. 5 for 1985-86 which noted 'not for Coquihalla') I wondered why the note was in there at all if there was nothing to do with the Coquihalla. I'd wondered in the first place why the note was in there, and that made me look at it a little closer."

In other words, why put on a special warrant the note that this was not for the Coquihalla. It's never been done before. Mr. Hooper, an investigative accountant, said: "This is strange." The fact that they've noted that it's not for the Coquihalla meant that he should investigate further.

Mr. Macintosh, the counsel, said: "Yes, and how did you learn of this transfer; was it from the ministry material?" In other words, was it from the Minister of Highways or the Ministry of Highways?

Mr. Hooper says: "No, it was not. It was from the Ministry of Finance. I obtained from the Ministry of Finance a complete printout of every entry that went through vote 74 during the 1985-86 fiscal year, and there are a large number of journal entries marked 'vote transfer.' "

So while it is clear that in this regard the former Minister of Highways, the first member for Cariboo, has deliberately misled the House, he was aided by the former Minister of Finance and by the Treasury Board, and it is documented very clearly that it is the Ministry of Finance that moved the money from one vote to the other, and not the Minister of Highways. So it is the Ministry of Finance that has bent the rules to conceal the overrun.

In summary, then — because it's quite clear that there are two ways in which they have worked together to confound the facts — there have been two ways that the House has been deliberately misled, and the Minister of Finance, Mr. Curtis, was a party to that action. The two ways were the use of spending warrants and the manipulation of moneys from two votes, vote 69 and vote 74.

The original Coquihalla project decided upon in April 1984 was funded solely by two special warrants, although the Legislature sat at the time. In April '84 the decision was made, the Legislature sat until mid-May, and the total was $120 million. They never went to the Legislature. They used special warrants. That was the first time.

Then the budget and the estimates were tabled the next year, separating out vote 74, the Coquihalla and related projects — remember, related projects as well. However, during the months July to September 1985, a supplementary program was authorized for vote 74. Again, however, instead of seeking funds through the Legislature, Treasury Board approved entering into contracts in excess of the amounts appropriated, and special warrants were provided for later in the year when the cash was needed. So not only did they not come to the House to get the appropriate appropriation, they used the special warrant, and then they exceeded the money allocated by special warrant and the Treasury Board allowed them to get approval by special warrant after the fact.

The Financial Administration Act is absolutely clear, and it has been deliberately violated. No amount of incompetence could come up with this very sophisticated, I might say, act of deliberately misleading the House. First, special warrants were used when the Legislature could have voted appropriation. This is clearly contrary to the intent of section 21(1) of the Financial Administration Act. Secondly, awarding contracts with no appropriation in place, either by legislative vote or by special warrant, appears contrary to section 25(1).

What about the vote switch? In fiscal year 1985-86 the Coquihalla and related projects were reported under vote 74. However, $80 million of work was moved from vote 74 to vote 79; and a special warrant, made necessary by the supplementary program, was applied to vote 69. The project had been arbitrarily redefined by the Treasury Board, by the former Minister of Finance, and the scope of related projects had been arbitrarily reduced. This redefinition — or this scope reduction; whatever you want to call it — by means of this arbitrary vote transfer had given the project additional funds to cover the mounting costs, without appropriation, without authorization and without any statement in Public Accounts or in this Legislature that this had been done.

[5:00]

It's absolutely clear that the use of special warrants, after the Legislature sat, was to hide the fact that the budget was overrun and out of control. The sophisticated use of switching between votes by Treasury Board, and not coming to this House, very clearly and deliberately misled the House in every way imaginable. There is no way that you can come to any other conclusion than that the House was deliberately misled by those two devices, not only by the former Minister of Highways, who clearly contributed to this coverup, but also very clearly by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Hugh Curtis.

[ Page 3360 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If I may, for just a moment.... The tone and certainly the content of this debate to this point, I venture to say, have been reasonably well established. There seems to me to have been a great deal of latitude extended to both sides of the House in how this debate is being conducted. I would just like to remind hon. members that what we're here to debate this afternoon is the motion that a special committee of privilege be appointed. It's very easy to fall into the error of doing the work of that committee, which hasn't been formed yet, and making points in debate that would better be served by being put to the committee. I just remind hon. members. I have no intention at all of inhibiting the debate in any way; but it would probably be helpful to us all if we think about this and know that the real reason we're here is to debate whether or not there should be a committee appointed. Having so said, I would recognize the government House Leader.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm glad you said that, Mr. Speaker, because that's exactly what I want to speak about this afternoon: whether or not we should have a special committee of privilege appointed.

I can tell you that I was convinced by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), who said it was not the first member for Cariboo but in fact the former Minister of Finance who caused us all this concern. On the basis of that remarkable evidence....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're twisting.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm not twisting anything. I think you'll find that in the Blues.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Hey, you guys are getting a little nervous over there, aren't you?

On the basis of that remarkable, sterling evidence from the second member for Vancouver East, I will be voting against this motion that a special committee of privilege be appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I'm further convinced that we should not appoint a committee of privilege by the rambling, irrelevant, rather feeble, nervous, skittish debate we've heard this afternoon from members of the opposition. As I said earlier, paraphrasing Shakespeare in The Taming of the Shrew, methinks they protesteth too much — and I'm sure they do. Every time one of our members has risen to speak, the back benches over there get nervous, a little skittish, and the heckling carries on. In fact, what's most interesting is that this is a debate discussing one of the best opposition members this House has ever seen, the first member for Cariboo — good enough to defeat the government of the day — and you're attacking him. If you want to take lessons on how to be members of the opposition, take them from that member, because he was just superb and helped us form government.

I guess the other reason the members opposite are so nervous about this debate about the Coquihalla project, about the fact that we should or should not have a special committee of privilege, is that they don't really understand the central interior of British Columbia. If we look around, we note that there are only three New Democratic Party members who represent areas that would be in any way connected to the Coquihalla Highway — right? Count them: Rossland-Trail, Prince George North and Kootenay.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is not a motion to investigate anything, because we've in fact had a complete and a very accountable inquiry. What we have is not a request for accountability, but essentially a.... It's not a request for responsible action. The motion before us in the committee is nothing more than political voyeurism, I would submit. What we have here is the left-wing peeping Toms breathing heavily at the political windowsills and drooling at the thought of one more peek. You know the Baton Rouge motel room. You can hardly wait to get into this, can you? Remarkable.

It is interesting that we've heard evidence from the former Minister of Highways about stories and the beginning of the whole thing really by Vaughn Palmer, the columnist with the Vancouver Sun. I think it's obvious to all of us that what we have here is the NDP finding which way the parade is going and running to the front of it so that they can claim leadership in this debate.

The motion before us fails miserably, and it has failed miserably from the start, because it says that a special committee of privilege be appointed to consider the facts surrounding the evidence that the first member misled the Legislature in the matter of costs on the Coquihalla Highway. It goes on with a litany of points saying why we should have that committee. Mr. Speaker, we have already had that committee: the MacKay inquiry commissioned by this government. It was commissioned by a Premier, the current Premier. It was commissioned by a Premier who demanded political and public accountability and had the accountability to deliver to the people of the province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Speak for yourself.

We've had an inquiry that was chaired by a member with expertise. Mr. MacKay is a man with professional training. He involved expert witness from within British Columbia, expert witness from a highways official from the state of Washington. We had a committee that really was unlike anything else this province has ever seen; the NDP have admitted that, and I think we all have to admit it. I think it behooves all of us to wonder why we should have a further committee that would really be feeble and a poor attempt at telling us something we already know. I don't think anyone else can present any better evidence to that.

Mr. Speaker, the motion fails. We have had an inquiry. The evidence is clear. As a matter of fact, the only evidence the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) could muster, the only evidence mustered here today by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), has been evidence from the MacKay inquiry. You are using evidence from an inquiry to say we need an inquiry. We've already had that inquiry, and why on earth would you ask us to put the public to a further expense for a further inquiry to discover what you already know? Do you think inquiries come free?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right. Further expense to discover what you already know is beyond me. No thanks. As I said, speak for yourself.

The motion does fail miserably. As I said, the only evidence presented in the original motion was evidence from

[ Page 3361 ]

the MacKay commission. However, in presenting the evidence, the NDP forgot that evidence from the Auditor-General — evidence that they had to conveniently cover up, since it destroyed their case — would in fact really negate all the evidence that they wanted to lead and use to make a case.

MR. LOVICK: On a point of order, I'm sure the government House Leader will agree with me that he was injudicious in his remarks to suggest a deliberate coverup of evidence by people on this side. I would ask him to withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If I used the word "deliberate, " I withdraw. However, the evidence before us is that a letter requested by the chairman of the NDP caucus regarding this issue, a letter requested from the acting Auditor-General, was delivered to the chairman of the NDP caucus, and that evidence was not used in the member's motion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, good. It is ten after five and now you've decided you're going to talk about it. That's good. The letter's been around since — I think January 22 is the date.

MR. LOVICK: It had about three lines in it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you'll have the opportunity to speak. You'll have your time to speak.

In any event, in presenting the evidence there was evidence that was left out. One has to question why it was left out. However, we are advised that we're going to be told why that letter was not presented in the original motion by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in presenting his case, and I'm sure that we will find all of that evidence interesting.

It's also interesting to question why we have heard innuendo from members opposite — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) spoke to this briefly and I'd like to touch on it again — accusing or suggesting that the acting Auditor-General, the current Auditor-General and the current Speaker were somehow not acting in a most forthright manner. I find that innuendo curious, Mr. Speaker.

I also find it quite upsetting when I recognize that there are members in this House who don't have the courage to stand up and make a substantive motion, which is the way to present such concern if they do have some concern. They don't have the courage now, and I don't think they ever will have the courage. If they have concern about those officials of the House, then a substantive motion is the remedy to express that concern. Innuendo outside of the House is certainly not.

The members opposite have indicated that they have lots to say. They are going to bare their chests and tell us about why they did not use the letter from the Auditor-General in their original attack. I can hardly wait to hear that evidence so I'm going to conclude briefly, but I do want to conclude on this note by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I do want to conclude on that note, Mr. Speaker, by saying to you that....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the interjections and conversations coming across the floor are completely unacceptable. If you wish to speak, I believe we have a standing order that says you shall rise in your place uncovered, or something like that, and then you'll be recognized and you'll speak. Otherwise I suggest that the least you can do is work through the Chair.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In any event. you can look it up when you get home. I know you're having trouble following it but it's all there and....

MR. SKELLY: Are you finished?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm not. The Whip says I have to keep going. I’m just having so much fun here.

[5:15]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I spent all Christmas reading that.

In any event, we have heard compelling evidence all afternoon that there should be an inquiry, the curious irony being that all the evidence presented is from an inquiry. I don't think any member opposite can demonstrate to me or to anyone in this House. or in fact to anyone in British Columbia, that they can mount an inquiry; that they can use this special committee of investigation to sit and receive evidence; to travel when the House is adjourned or in prorogation or in a subsequent session; that they can use all the facilities of this Legislative Assembly to discover, to tell us, to tell themselves, to tell the people of British Columbia, anything new, anything that is not already presented and uncovered in the commission that you used for your evidence. I don't think you could muster the expert witness that MacKay used....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There is nothing left to be said that hasn't already been said, and there's no question about that. I doubt if you would reveal anything else to the public of British Columbia, outside of your insatiable quest to be political voyeurs and continue to peek here and there and cast innuendo and aspersions.

With that said — I know you're going to love this — I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am voting against the motion. I would urge all other members to do so. I'm delighted to take my place and to listen to the first member for Nanaimo, I believe, carry on.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have not seen the likes of the performance on the other side in ages. What a dismal defence on the part of this government with respect to the unprecedented overrun and coverup of $500 million! We have not seen the likes of it.

[ Page 3362 ]

There's one little common line that we've heard between the fog from the member from Saanich and a different kind of fog from the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan) this evening, and that is: "You've had a complete inquiry." Well, have we?

Only toward the end did the commissioner, Mr. MacKay, a man with long experience in engineering projects from the GVRD throughout his career as an engineer, who was shocked by what he found in terms of the level of incompetence and deceit from this government or its predecessor.... But their so-called specialist, their forensic accountant, Mr. Hooper, only looked at 15 of the 200 contracts. They smelled rotten to him, and they were. There were 185 more that deserved thorough investigation.

Let's remember that 40 percent of all of the work done on that project was without benefit of bid. That is shocking. What's that, $400 million? We're not through it yet — something less. But hundreds of millions of dollars without benefit of bid. You the professional businessmen, you the so-called sensible free-enterprisers. We get that high-flyer fog speech from the Minister of Finance, who justified this incredible level of deceit on the grounds of the theories of Lord Keynes from the twenties and thirties. Incredible!

The Minister of Environment says it was a complete inquiry — 15 of the 200 looked at by the forensic accountant in terms of contract — and then has the unmitigated gall, in terms of this project, to say we really shouldn't look at any more, we don't have to investigate it any more, because that would be expensive. He smiles and nods and says yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What would we learn?

MR. WILLIAMS: What would we learn? Well, we would probably learn that there are at least another 15 of those contracts that you could smell a rat on, that wouldn't stand full scrutiny — and I bet you I'm being conservative. So we'd find out it was doubly bad. And you say that's insignificant!

That's the shocker out of the performance today. The shocker out of that group today is that somehow it just doesn't matter. Maybe in a British Columbia with blinkers, in a British Columbia that is called polarized, the public can swallow the lump you've left. But surely at some point the lump is too big for anybody to swallow. The $500 million that you people and your colleagues tried to conceal is something that the public won't buy. Communicating it is difficult. Indeed, $500 million is a lot of money. It is incredible.

The performance on the government's side today has been one of callous, casual indifference. We were lied to on a scale unprecedented in the history of the province of British Columbia, lied to in this chamber. All of you know that when the Speaker gets up, he says: "We must accept the word of the hon. member, because that's the tradition of the British parliamentary system." That's easy enough in Great Britain, where they have more of a genuine tradition, but after this episode on the Coquihalla, after this episode of lying and deceit and improper documentation, how can we accept the words of hon. members on the other side? Especially after the performance today — no contrition. Nobody was contrite in terms of your performance today — not one.

Gentlemen and women of the government benches, don't you realize what this place is supposed to be about? Don't you realize that there is some history here? The business of the spending of the Crown's funds is our primary concern and purpose, in terms of determining that they are properly spent and properly gathered and properly reported. That is what this chamber, to a very great extent, is all about most of the time.

What we have found out of these studies and reports is that the government didn't think twice about lying about the $500 million overrun that you tried to hide under the carpet. Now it's all clear what the exercise was about in terms of winning that previous election. It's all clear that this was an electorally driven mandate out of the Premier's office: we're going to do Expo, we're going to do the Coquihalla and we're going to do the Annacis bridge.

MR. MICHAEL: Where was the opposition?

MR. WILLIAMS: The ten-minute former Minister of Highways says: "Where was the opposition?" Now that takes gall; that takes almost as much gall as the Minister of Environment wringing his hands about the expenses in terms of further inquiry work.

When the former Minister of Highways was quizzed by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) before this whole matter was triggered, he didn't answer the questions. You look at Hansard. He says: "Where are the questions?" You look at Hansard, my friend from Shuswap, and the question is: where are the answers?

The member for Prince George South says that the opposition are voyeurs in this instance. Why, we actually want to see what went on with the $500 million. You call it what you will, Mr. Minister, but the job of everyone in this House is to be concerned about the spending of public funds. To want proper accounting is hardly voyeurism. That's a pretty twisted view of the public process.

I can't help but think about my old friend the former member for Okanagan South, the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, in all of this exercise. Where was the political drive of that administration? Ten lost years we had with Bill Bennett — ten lost years in terms of the provincial economy while he proceeded with the disastrous northeast coal project. You ask Bill Bennett, as he sails into the sunset, literally and figuratively: "What were the great achievements of your administration, Mr. Bennett?" And he will say: "Why, the Coquihalla Highway." Yes, indeed. It was a $500 million coverup. It is unprecedented in the history of this province. Indeed, it was the crowning achievement of a flawed government and a lost decade.

Let's remember how that former Premier used to operate in terms of dealing with questions of public policy in this House. He operated in a bunker over there on the west side of these buildings — and they called it "the bunker" in those days. He actually spent — what was it — $35,000 on an escape hatch so he would never have to face the press; he could always escape down through another floor. He ran a highly centralized government. He ran a secretive government throughout that decade. He had two prime fixers in his office. One had a veneer of the Ivy League and academia, Dr. Spector. The other was his principal secretary, nominally his political operative, Mr. Smith from Kamloops — the present second member for Kamloops. Out of the bunker it was politics, politics, politics. That was the directive that went to Treasury Board and to the former Minister of Highways. In a sense, in terms of the rules of law in this province, in terms of proper reporting and all of that, it was simply the public be damned. Five hundred million dollars covered up.

[ Page 3363 ]

Does anybody believe, for a second that the former Minister of Highways was the prime operative in all of this? No way. It was the fixers in the bunker directed by the Premier who were carrying on a deceit unprecedented in the history of this province.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let's defeat the motion then. Isn't that what you said?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, let's defeat the motion.

These were pre-election projects directed out of the bunker. There was one simple political line on both of these projects: "They're on time and they're on budget because we're smart businessmen. We don't make mistakes like that. We can do proper budgeting and we'll live up to the budget." That was the lie that was repeated again and again in this House and around the province. And Expo? Same line, same problem. No investigation. But this one, there was an investigation.

[5:30]

The man in the Premier's office, the prime fixer, Mr. Smith, appeared before the commissioner, and he was the classic hostile witness in all of this. Read the transcript. You see the frustration of the counsel for the commissioner in dealing with him. He finally just washed his hands of it because he was just not answering the questions. He was giving political responses. Nevertheless, the evidence that comes out of that report is damning in the extreme in terms of that operation out of the Premier's office.

It is abundantly clear that the real directing of this whole exercise in terms of the covering up of the $500 million of extra cost was out of the Premier's office. Oh, you can shake your head, Mr. Member, but the benefits were extreme for the former Premier. His home town of Kelowna was going to be the prime beneficiary of this new system. You ask yourself who the prime landowner is around Kelowna and you've got the answer. The same bird. The ACT Ranch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. WILLIAMS: You'd better believe it. Shame all you like. This whole exercise was geared to change the role of Kamloops as the dominant town of the southern interior of British Columbia. This freeway was being built to benefit the people of Kelowna as much as anything, and the people who own land in Kelowna. And the Premier was the prime landowner in the Kelowna region, no question about that.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

So the bunker was directing the whole program. The present member for Kamloops was involved and the Premier was the prime player. It's amazing, really, that the response out of the people on the other side has been as weak as it has. The member for Saanich said it was all in the report. It was not all in the report. The member for Prince George South referred....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, what's missing? Well, he referred to the Auditor-General's letters to myself. I might just comment on that for a minute or two.

Did it not strike anybody over there, as members of the Legislature, as passing strange that all this should tumble out of Commissioner MacKay's work and yet not have anything significant reported from the Auditor-General, lo, these many years? Did it not strike you as passing strange that maybe the Auditor-General hadn't done everything he might have in terms of serving this Legislature, in terms of dealing with the $500 million coverup?

Well, it did cause this member to pause. So I wrote the acting Auditor-General of the day, and I got a reply. It was a classic, unsatisfactory, bureaucratic reply from our servant.

MR. CLARK: Cover your butt.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that kind of reply: "I'm going to look after myself like a good bureaucrat, but the big issues, we'll leave those." That was the word in that letter. I responded in detail to that letter. because it was so unsatisfactory. Then I got a more lengthy response from the acting Auditor-General. But the reply was not simply a reply to me, it was a reply to the Premier's office. This was a letter from an individual member of the Legislature. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I am offended by that action of the former acting Auditor-General. I think it was quite improper on his part and should not....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: No. I think that when the correspondence is to be revealed, it should be revealed with the agreement of both parties. I might indicate in addition that I had not advised the member for Esquimalt with respect to that correspondence. It was, as I saw it — at that stage, at any rate — private correspondence between me and the former acting Auditor-General, because I was rather unhappy with the work he had done. It was less than adequate.

The MacKay inquiry.... I think we might cover that at another point. But I'd like to spend a little time with the kind of evidence that came from Mr. Smith, from the Premier's office. It's abundantly clear that the push at all times was through Mr. Smith and through the Premier's office, in terms of being determined that this project would be pursued and completed according to a political schedule. There's no question.

MR. RABBITT: Is that the real agenda?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well. that's a good question.

At one point Mr. Macintosh, the counsel, said: "'The projects planned are considered to be of the highest priority as outlined at a recent meeting between the staffs of the Ministry of Finance, this ministry and the office of the Premier."' He's quoting from material that Mr. Smith had been involved in. Mr. Smith said: "Right." Subsequently Mr. Macintosh said: "Well. Mr. Smith, it says 'The projects planned are considered to be of the highest priority.' Do you accept that characterization of those projects at that time?" Mr. Smith's answer was: "Yes."

The meeting is carried on between the offices of the Minister of Finance, the Treasury Board, the Premier's office and the Ministry of Highways. Consistently, the Premier's office was involved along with the Ministry of Finance.

[ Page 3364 ]

Further, at one point in an interesting aside, Mr. Smith said the following: "I don't think you can isolate the ministries of government and the very competent staff the government has into people who walk around in little pockets immune to all the other considerations of public policy." Everybody was on board on this one: the Premier's office, the boys in the bunker, the Treasury Board people, the Ministry of Finance and the Minister of Highways and Transportation. The member for Kamloops was absolutely correct: you can't isolate these ministries of government. You can't at all.

There was a coverup, pure and simple, of the incredible amounts of money that it was costing to pursue the political deadlines of the Premier's office. Again and again, it's clear that the push was from the Premier's office. As Mr. Smith said in evidence before the commission: "I was fulfilling my responsibility to the office of the Premier to ensure that public policy decisions taken by the cabinet of British Columbia were fulfilled in a meaningful way...." and that included the acceleration of the Coquihalla Highway. So there's no question about the push there, no question at all.

Finally, in his summary area, the commissioner, on page 69, said the following — and in terms of the casual disregard on the government members' side, I think the benefit of hearing it is important for the handful of government members here this evening. This is what the commissioner said on page 69: "When all of the foregoing" — and this is the evidence of Mr. Smith and the other players in this exercise — " is added to the findings of chapter 3" — chapter 3 dealt with the incredible incompetence in terms of planning and budgeting for the whole project — "including the misleading news releases issued about the project, the commission finds the financial reporting of the Coquihalla Highway project to be tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and prevarication by both politicians and public servants."

When, in the modern history of the province, have we heard that kind of statement by an independent commissioner? When has a commissioner appointed by government stated those kinds of words: deceit, prevarication by both politicians and public servants? Not only have you contaminated yourselves, not only have you contaminated the public service, you have contaminated this very Legislature by your actions. That's what this debate is about today.

So no more of this nonsense from the Minister of Finance talking about Lord Keynes and the benefits of a highway to the interior. No more of this nonsense about the expense of further inquiry from the Minister of Environment. This House has been done a serious injustice, and that's putting it mildly. And you on the government side should address that question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Speaker, due to arrangements which we have made between the opposition and the government with respect to the speaking order tomorrow, it would be convenient for us now to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House, and I so move.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.