[ Page 3403 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3403

Oral Questions

Acid mine drainage. Ms. Smallwood –– 3403

Wood for Fort St. James mills. Mr. Kempf –– 3403

Privatization letter to teachers. Mr. Lovick –– 3404

Mr. Clark

Mr. Jones

Motions

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns

Mr. Cashore –– 3405

Mr. Guno –– 3407

Mr. Blencoe –– 3408

Mr. Jones –– 3410

Mr. Barnes –– 3414

Ms. Smallwood –– 3416

Mr. Lovick –– 3418

Mr. Sihota –– 3428

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1988

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the House today our hon. Speaker has some guests from Bowen Island, Ted and John Rogers. I would ask that you make them welcome, please.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery today — in your gallery, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker — from the village of Fort St. James are Ald. Phillis Gainor, Colin Robin and Genesio Rosa, accompanied by a well-known businessman from the fort, Mr. Ron Timothy. I would ask the House to make them all welcome.

MR. LOENEN: In the gallery with us we have two very special friends who are visiting here from San Diego. They took in the Olympics in Calgary and now they're spending a little time in beautiful British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome Alan and Joan Gary.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like the members to welcome back to the gallery today a friend who has been a frequent visitor but not with us so recently, Mrs. Clare McAllister from Victoria. She brings with her today a visitor for the first time to the gallery, Mrs. Janet Hawksley. Will you join me in welcoming Clare again and welcoming her friend Mrs. Hawksley to the House today.

MS. MARZARI: I'd like this House to welcome Mr. Bernie Simpson, a good friend of the NDP, a good friend of those of us in Vancouver who've occasionally reached out for a little assistance and help — and there he's been. So I'd like to welcome Bernie Simpson.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The petition of the undersigned citizens of various points in this province states that they request that the government of British Columbia grant a subsidy to the Evergreen Baptist Home for the continuing care of patients who suffer from Alzheimer's. There are approximately 500 signatures here, and I would present them to the House.

MR. GABELMANN: May I ask leave for the House to go to question period.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

ACID MINE DRAINAGE

MS. SMALLWOOD: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Now that the ministry has finally acknowledged that there is an acid mine drainage problem in the province, has the minister requested his staff to require environmental bonding under the Waste Management Act for existing acid-generating mines?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The question actually hinges on future policy, but it is a good question. We will have further information for you, hon. member, with respect to that type of bonding. It is a consideration at this time.

MS. SMALLWOOD: It's very clear, with the legislation that's in place, that the minister has the power now to require bonding. I'm disappointed that the minister is putting it off, while I'm pleased he is acknowledging it.

My next question, a supplementary. Has the ministry now developed a policy to deal with the 15 to 20 known acid generating mines that are going through the approval process?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's not so much a matter of policy — because the policy, as the member has indicated, can be directed by the ministry under statute authority — but one of techniques. This ministry, along with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — as well as the B.C. Mining Association and academia, who are looking at this very serious problem of acid mine drainage as it occurs in British Columbia — is developing new techniques every day. There was an announcement last week with respect to the Tsolum River and the process there. So it's a government/industry-wide concern that we're addressing. The technology is being developed and researched every day, and as further announcements are made this ministry, along with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, will be making them.

MS. SMALLWOOD: A supplementary to the minister. I'd like to know how this government can bring further mines on line, specifically how you can allow the development of the Cream Silver extension in Strathcona, when you have no policy in place to instruct your employees to put environmental bonding on these mines. How in all conscience can you continue to bring more mines on line and cause more problems for the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Gee, I don't want to disappoint the member. Cream Silver is not a mine, nor have they applied for a mine.

MS. SMALLWOOD: My next question is a supplementary to the minister. If the minister wants to play games with this serious problem, I'll not indulge him.

My supplementary, sir, is: what environmental protection do you have in place to deal with the Sherwood project, which is also in Strathcona, and will environmental bonding be required for that project?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Cream has taken the bulk of the resources of the ministry at this point, so I will take that specific question on notice.

[2:15]

WOOD FOR FORT ST. JAMES MILLS

MR. KEMPF: I have a question for the Minister of Forests and Lands. The B.C. Forest Service has recently put

[ Page 3404 ]

eight million cubic metres of timber up for bid in the Sustut-Takla area northwest of Fort St. James. Has the minister decided to change his mind and designate that timber, or at least a substantial part of it, to be manufactured in Fort St. James?

HON. MR. PARKER: The licence calls for an annual allowable cut of 400,000 metres a year for 20 years. It's part of the Prince George timber supply area. It has been advertised for bid proposals — as have all forest licences in the past. Nothing has changed, nothing is different: no special considerations.

MR. KEMPF: A supplementary. Has the minister at least, then, decided to have the timber appraised to Fort St. James?

HON. MR. PARKER: Appraisals are done when cutting permits are applied for. Cutting permits can only be applied for by a licensee. There are no licensees.

MR. KEMPF: A supplementary. If the minister hasn't decided any of these things, has he decided what he is going to do with the mills in Fort St. James when the timber in the Fort St. James area has been depleted in the next 20 to 25 years, if this timber is going to go elsewhere?

HON. MR. PARKER: The member knows that the Forest Service doesn't own any mills. So what we do with them We don't do anything with them; they're not our mills. There will be plenty of wood when we're both dead and gone.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, has the minister decided to do anything? You know, he's got a problem. He's got an overcutting problem in the Prince George TSA of 30 percent, and now he's going to solve it. He's going to solve that short-term problem, creating a long-term problem for Fort St. James. What has he decided? What has he decided to do when the timber in the Fort St. James area runs out?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to several blocks in the southeastern portion of the timber supply area that are overcut, and the licence that I referred to earlier is advertised in the timber supply area in the northwest portion in several supply blocks up there. The TSA is within cut limits, and the purpose of the licence is to encourage movement from the southeast area into the northwest area of the TSA, so that the cut in the area is balanced.

MR. KEMPF: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister decide to amalgamate Prince George east and west to facilitate the movement of this Sustut-Takla timber to Prince George?

HON. MR. PARKER: The member is referring to the amalgamation of the two forest districts, Prince George west and Prince George east, into a single office. The staff of the B.C. Forest Service were of the impression that better service could be afforded the people of British Columbia with a single office, and I agreed. Fort St. James has its own district office.

PRIVATIZATION LETTER TO TEACHERS

MR. LOVICK: My understanding was that the Premier would be in the House for question period. In his absence, however, I will direct my question to the Minister of Education.

Everybody is aware now about the letter and the package of materials on privatization sent to teachers in the province. My first question to the Minister of Education is whether his ministry was approached directly by the Premier and asked if it was acceptable to send out that propagandic piece of information?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, though I was made aware of the letter going out.

MR. LOVICK: A supplementary to the minister. Do I understand that the minister is telling us that only after the fact was he informed? Is that the case?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, I did not say that.

MR. LOVICK: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, one may have to engage in shadow-boxing to get an answer; I hope not. What I'm asking the minister — and let me be very direct for the benefit of those whose attention span is limited.... The question, then, to the minister is: can he advise us — if he knows in fact what has gone on — how many teachers received that letter? Is it the case that every teacher in the province received the letter and package of information?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I believe the letter went out to all teachers to the extent possible and to many other people in this province.

MR. CLARK: Supplementary to the Minister of Education. Does the minister support this use of teacher mailing-lists for this kind of effort?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I suppose I do support the concept of disseminating information. The reason I have been answering the questions of the member for Nanaimo in the way I have is because I'm trying to avoid the pitfall that he and others on that side continue to get into by interpreting their own version of what something says instead of what it actually says. You might read the thing — and if some of you have difficulty reading and understanding it, we have illiteracy courses going on in the province.

MR. JONES: I'd like to ask the minister a question regarding the use of these materials. Could the minister please advise this House how he sees these materials being used? Are they to form part of the curriculum? Are they to be used as the basis of discussion in classrooms in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, the member obviously has the same misinterpretation as some of his colleagues. It does not say anywhere: "You shall use these materials in the classroom." Does it? It does not say anywhere in this that they shall be added to the curriculum. I believe what it does say is: "Others are counting on you to understand the facts on privatization and to know all sides of the issue." Is the member saying that there are no teachers in the province who want to know both sides of the issue?

[ Page 3405 ]

MR. JONES: The minister is suggesting that these materials on privatization are not to be part of curriculum. As far as we understand it in British Columbia at this point, education is not to be privatized by the government. So if it's not to be used in the curriculum, and it's not part of the privatization initiative, what other rational explanation can the minister suggest for these materials, other than propaganda to the teachers of this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm delighted, Mr. Speaker, that the member has finally come up with one correct observation: that education is not to be privatized. Sooner or later he had to come up with the correct one.

Is there anything wrong with teachers and others knowing both sides of an issue? Should they just be subject to what someone interprets for them? Would it be legitimate for me to send out to teachers copies of the regulations and say: "They do not say what Elsie McMurphy said they say; please read them yourselves"? Is that not a legitimate thing to expect of teachers or educators in this province? "Read it for yourself. Make up your own mind. At least you should be knowledgeable." I have no problem with that.

MR. CLARK: The minister knows that this has nothing to do with education. He has announced that. Do you think it is proper use of public money, coming from the Premier's office, to disseminate information on a completely different matter, a political matter, to teachers in this province?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If we get into that part of it, I guess the government is not allowed to disseminate information, according to those members. Then would those members agree that they have the right to send out letters to their constituents, that they have the right to send out newsletters every year at taxpayers' expense, espousing exactly and only the NDP's interpretation of government policy? That seems to be okay. When you use the mails, when you use the free postage, when you use the free rights of every MLA in this place to send out your message to others.... It was okay, I guess, when I was on the teachers' BCTF mailing-list during the last election, when I got the NDP version on that, from the NDP, asking me to please donate money to defeat the member from North Peace River.

MR. CLARK: The minister knows that that was funded not by the taxpayers, but by a political party. This is propaganda, being funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House how the Premier's office got the list of teachers, to do the mailing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The list has been available. Mailings were made out during Bill 20, so that list is available to the government.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I rise on behalf of the government to extend the government's sincere condolences to the families and loved ones of those five students and principal who perished in that tragic accident on the highway near Dawson Creek, and I would ask the House to join in passing on condolences.

Motions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS
(continued)

MR. CASHORE: Prior to adjournment, Mr. Speaker, the point that I was making was that almost without exception the comments coming from the government benches on this motion have been actually furthering the nature of a coverup by avoiding the issue that is before the House at this time — a very serious issue in which the very integrity of the House is at stake. I want to say that I have gone through the Blues, and I have found that there is one member of this House, the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers), who in his remarks has demonstrated some contrition and some ability — albeit not adequate, to my way of thinking, but at least some attempt — to recognize the seriousness and the gravity of the issue before us at this time.

When the present Minister of Highways rose in this House yesterday afternoon to speak, he said — and this is repetitious of something that many members of the opposition have been saying during this discussion: "...the question really before us is: has the House been misled?" I would submit that with the kind of rhetoric that we've been hearing, rhetoric that seeks to justify road-building without realizing that that's not the issue.... I mean, we all recognize the importance of road-building. The Minister of Highways has said these words: "I can recall when Mr. MacKay was originally commissioned to do this report that there were cries that it would be a coverup and that it would be a hollow report, and I don't believe anybody's calling it a coverup today."

It's obvious that the present Minister of Highways has read this report and has some awareness of the seriousness of the charges in it that have resulted from that very thorough investigation. I want to affirm that, because I believe that it is perhaps the only flickering ray of light that we see coming from the government that there's any awareness whatsoever with regard to what this motion is all about.

The Minister of Highways went on to say: "I think it's probably one of the most thorough investigations of a highways project done by anyone. I also have known Mr. MacKay for some years, and his integrity I think goes without question." We have here the Minister of Highways saying in this House that he respects the integrity of Mr. MacKay and that he respects the report. Anyone who has read the report will realize that Mr. MacKay has made some very serious charges, resulting from the commission.

[2:30]

I would like to suggest that we need to be advising the members of the government to take the lead from the present Minister of Highways and hopefully move a little bit further along the path towards being able to address this question of whether this House was misled and whether the motion to have this addressed by a committee should be affirmed. Now the minister did not go as far as saying that, but if we read the remarks he has made in this House, we will find that much of what he says affirms that.

In trying to respond to the issue, the Minister of Highways referred to the fast-tracking approach that was taken. He was appealing to this House for some understanding of the stress under which members of the government and those in the Highways department were operating. He said:

"I wonder — and others have wondered — whether the whole magnitude of the ministry, from the deputy minister right down to the very bottom, had the ability, within the time-frame they were given, to do this project without running into the kinds of problems they ran into. Remember that they were put under the time-gun of Expo 86. They were also told to speed this project up, to at all costs...."

[ Page 3406 ]

This is an admission on the part of the Minister of Highways that there were political decisions invading that process that were putting incredible pressure upon people within that department. I commend the minister for having stood in this House and attempted to defend those people who were under that pressure by recognizing the kind of political dynamics that were taking place during those heady days of Expo and fast-tracking and all of that.

The Minister of Highways went on to say: "But they were given the instructions to go ahead and build the highway, and there was even at that point some reluctance by the ministry to say: 'This is a major project, a very big project, and it's going to cause some problems.' They were told: 'No, you can get on and do it.'"

I emphasize the words, "but they were given the instructions," again a recognition, a tacit admission by the Minister of Highways in this House yesterday afternoon that the people in this ministry were under some kind of pressure. I don't think it would have taken very much more of a leap of logic for him to have gone on to say — and I wish he had — that that was an inappropriate pressure coming from inappropriate quarters and in an inappropriate way. It was unfair to this House, but even more than that, unfair to the people of British Columbia.

He went on to say: "I can't emphasize enough to the members of this House the strain" — get that word "strain" — "that was put on the employees of this ministry." The present Minister of Highways was recognizing that the employees of his ministry were under a tremendous amount of strain. Where was that strain coining from? Where did it originate? What was causing that strain? We can say Expo caused the strain, or a whole convergence of things that were happening at that time caused the strain, but any thinking person knows that is not what caused the strain. It was a political decision that caused the strain those people were working under at that time, and that resulted in the kinds of excesses, the kinds of unconscionable acts that have been outlined in the report of Mr. MacKay, who has the very high respect of the Minister of Highways of this government at this time.

He went on to say that the strain that was put on the employees of the ministry meant that: "Everybody who was involved, from the deputy minister down, worked on this project like they had never worked on a government project before. The same thing can be said for the contractors, the subcontractors, the suppliers, the people who supplied the suppliers and, of course, the workers — the contractors' employees and the ministry's employees." I commend the Minister of Highways for having acknowledged and recognized the kinds of dynamics that were functioning at that time.

He went on to say:

"Somewhere along the line not absolutely every single, systematic, regular reporting system fell into place as it had usually done. Many errors were made in estimating quantities of work, and errors are still made in the estimation of quantities of work.

"In that process the question is: were we deliberately misled, or did the system strain so much that it was unable to come up with the data in time for the members of this House?"

I submit that on that point the Minister of Highways is mistaken. It's not a question of either were we deliberately misled or was there strain. The question is: what was the combination, what was the connection between that process of being misled and that process of stress under which ministry employees and others were working?

I want to commend the present Minister of Highways for what I think is the only breath of fresh air that has blown through this House with regard to the comments that have been made on the government side.

I want to make just one comment as a follow-up to some of the points that have been made about how valuable that highway is. I too have driven that highway, and I must say I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the drive. I was able to see some of the results of the fast-track work that was done where construction was going on at enormous cost during a very snowy time in winter. It has been said in this House that all the people living in the area are very pleased with the Coquihalla. I would like to put it on record that that's not the case. I was speaking to an independent trucker this morning, and he told me that 90 percent of independent truckers avoid the Coquihalla. The reason is the $80 toll for a five-axle truck. So I think we perhaps need to put some of those comments into a little bit of perspective.

I want to go on now to another aspect of this whole issue and to say that given that all expenditures in this House require proper procedures, and given that it is recognized that there have in the past been overruns — NDP and Social Credit governments.... Recognizing that that's not the issue, the issue still remains that when there are to be expenditures in this House, proper procedures are to be followed and the proper information is to come before the House.

I have to ask this House at this time: at what cost was this half-billion dollars expended without having the proper kind of approval? If we think back to the time of the previous government, the Bill Bennett government, and the restraint program that was taking place at that time because of the requirement that costs be cut within this province, we have to remember that at that time, in preparation for Expo, people in this province were being called on to tighten up their belts.

At that time I happened to be working in one of the areas of downtown British Columbia, the downtown east side, where it seemed that the people who were having to tighten their belts the most were the people who had the least. I would like to say that those people are, by and large, good citizens who, amazingly, cooperated in that process to the greatest extent. I realize that there were people who did speak out, and appropriately so, but the vast majority of people who were going through that time of restraint were very good citizens and were not speaking out.

I think of the problem that we had with housing at that time, the problem of evictions at the time of Expo and the way in which no adequate, creative preparation took place on the part of this government to prepare for that eventuality. There was no attempt to perhaps put some of those dollars through the proper procedures in the Legislature so that those dollars could have been used to mitigate those problems that were affecting those unfortunate people who were forced to move several times.

There was the loss of the CIP and VIP programs at that time, again at incredible cost to a low-income person who was looking forward to that $50 per month. There were the years and years of no increase in income-assistance rates. There was the loss of funding for alcohol and drug education programs. There was the loss of funding for family planning, an issue that could have exacerbated in a positive way the very difficult thing that we've been going through in this House on the abortion issue by having been a more appropriate way of

[ Page 3407 ]

preventing unwanted pregnancies. Support that was needed for detox facilities was not forthcoming. The support that was needed for school programs, such as English as a second language, and the support that was needed to keep the fostering program at an appropriate level so we wouldn't have to be going through this PR program we're going through at the right time; and the need for respite care.... The list goes on and on.

I want to conclude my remarks with a reference to the letter that the Premier has sent to the teachers, with the recognition that perhaps the Premier would like to have some assistance on his second volume of that letter. I'm prepared to offer that to him and to read into the record a suggestion for what I think the Premier might want in his second letter to the teachers. It would go something like this, if he chooses to use it. This would go to all the teachers:

"I choose to write you directly because, in your role as educator, it is important to me that you have the facts on the Coquihalla. I respect the hard work and dedication of those who worked on the MacKay inquiry, but I have also been a strong believer in the talent, the energy and the genius of those who work to befuddle such a procedure. They too continually strive to provide better service, to get on with fast-tracking in spite of cumbersome democratic procedures. That's why I'm so much in favour of avoiding the troublesome questions of those who seek to uncover the truth.

"The Coquihalla coverup is an important part of an economic strategy arrived at by getting re-elected through mega projects. The benefits are clear. The coverup will pay off for this government. Getting the reporters, opposition and auditors off our backs will help government get re-elected, and that's what it's all about. It may not help to reduce the provincial deficit and produce lower-cost government, but services to people, such as feeding hungry children, simply don't deliver the votes.

"In your special role as educator, you can offer a unique perspective on the coverup as such. Others are counting on you to understand the value of a coverup, and to understand it from our perspective. To help you in this regard, I include some material on farming. Please find out more about fact avoidance. Select and receive specific information by marking and mailing the enclosed card. Utter confusion is important on this issue, and I look forward to hearing from you."

[2:45]

MR. GUNO: I am glad to be able to join the ranks of the non-city slickers to speak on this important matter. In fact, where I come from, even a member from Prince Rupert is a smooth-speaking urbanite.

I just wanted to dwell on the word "Coquihalla." It's obviously an Indian word which I haven't had time to research and find a meaning for. But in the context of this debate, I want to be creative and maybe take some poetic licence and imagine what the word Coquihalla means. I think it would be appropriate if we were to say that it's a place where the fiscally irresponsible meet, or it could be a trail of many tears, just to judge from the speeches from the other side. Or for the truckers, maybe it would be more appropriate as a trail of many gears.

At any rate, I just wanted to respond first to some of the statements made by the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) who said that it's all about highways; it's all about the importance of a good road system: the need to have safe highways for our school buses and emergency vehicles and so on. I couldn't agree with him more, but the problem I have, as a northerner, is that those kinds of resources are unevenly and — it appears from this debate — dishonestly allocated.

In Atlin, the riding where I come from, we have the worst road system in the entire province. I really have to commend the people who live in the Nass Valley for their patience, because the road is in horrendous condition. The kids who have to travel every day between Greenville and New Aiyansh — where the school is — have to deal in the fall with very unsafe conditions. In fact, there are days when they cannot — or the drivers just choose not to — travel that road. There are times in the year when the community of Greenville is virtually cut off. If there was some kind of emergency — a health emergency — they would be virtually isolated. So I find it rather ironic that the second member for Cariboo should talk about the importance of road systems.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this important question that's before the hon. members. I've listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. In a sense it's not really debate, because there's been a distinct absence of reasoned exchanges between the two sides on the issue. It's clear that the members from this side of the House have presented a good case to support this motion of privilege, so I will not revisit the evidence that has been presented to support the need to set in motion a process that would clear the air.

But I must say that most of the government speakers have chosen to ignore the real issue at hand. Instead, speaker after speaker from the government side has gotten up and said virtually nothing, except to cloud the issues further. We've heard attempts to diminish the process by such inane and fatuous statements that this is a witch-hunt. Now this is hardly an original defence. It's usually used as an old standby when that side has no real defence, so they turn offensive.

We've heard the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) say that this is an expensive waste of time. We all know that, for this minister, any effort is just too daunting for him to make.

Another charge is that we are launching into some kind of personal attack on a political icon. I agree with my colleagues that it is regrettable that we have to focus on one individual. I must say that many people in the Nass Valley, particularly in the community of Greenville, hold him with a great deal of esteem, because he was the minister in charge of highways when the Greenville bridge was built. That's an important connection for the community in a sense that, before the bridge was built, it was isolated for much of the year, so there are some very fond memories of this gentleman.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Another charge from the other side is that we have some kind of hidden agenda. Mr. Speaker, the only agenda we have is to get to the truth surrounding the allegations that this House was deceived, that this House was misled by the first member for Cariboo. The issue is simply whether we must strike a committee of privilege to deal with this serious allegation in a fair and open way. Because as long as the

[ Page 3408 ]

government tries to stonewall this process with bombast, then the credibility of this House will remain in serious question.

In light of the allegations of misleading the House, of coverup, and in light of the Speaker's own ruling that there is a prima facie case against the hon. member for Cariboo, there is really no other recourse for us but to begin this important process to clear the air. We simply have no other choice. As the opposition, it is our duty to make this government accountable for the unaccountable overrun. We would be derelict in our duty if we did not do that.

This debate is no less than about restoring the public confidence in our political system. It is about restoring government honesty, accountability and democracy. It is not a witch-hunt; it is not in any way a personal attack on the first member for Cariboo, as I said before. To suggest that it is is simply puerile and self-serving. I must say that I'm absolutely amazed at the kind of personal attacks and invective launched against the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) for doing what this government should have had the guts to do: to deal with some of the very serious unanswered questions relating to who was responsible for the deceit perpetrated against the House.

There were two points made by members from this side of the House this morning that I would like to re-emphasize. The member from Port Alberni said that since a prima facie case has been established against the first member for Cariboo, it really is important, not only for that member but for the entire political process here in British Columbia, that we go through the process of establishing this committee.

Another important point that I thought should be highlighted was made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann): if the present government refuses to undertake to restore public confidence, then this government would be continuing the deceit that was made against the House. In law we have a saying that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I think that's equally applicable here in the House: accountability must not only be done but it must be seen to be done. I would urge all members of this House to seriously consider supporting this motion, because I think it is absolutely essential for the continuing integrity of this House.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has tried over the last few days — indeed, over the last few months — to indicate to the government opposite and the people of the province of British Columbia how seriously we take this issue of Coquihalla and the overruns, the coverup, the deceit and the continuing attempts of this government to try to run away from this very important issue.

Speaker after speaker has talked about public trust, public confidence and the ultimate right of the public to know what happened and who was responsible. No one really believes that the hon. first member for Cariboo was the only one who knew what was going on. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the government should be ashamed of the role it's playing in terms of trying to get the hon. first member for Cariboo to be the scapegoat in the Coquihalla coverup. He was not alone. The people of British Columbia don't believe that. There are others implicated, and the truth will win out.

This issue is so important that in my estimation and in the estimation of this side of the House, this is British Columbia's equivalent of Watergate, in terms of the deception and the coverup, and the MacKay commission saying that this government deceived and misled this House, and the people of British Columbia being the ultimate ones who have been misled in this whole situation. This is British Columbia's Watergate — Coquihallagate, Roadgate, whatever you want to call it. It obviously does not have the immense proportions that Watergate had in the United States, but in terms of this province and the immensity of the coverup and the scandal and the deceits and the lies, it is our Watergate. The people of British Columbia have a right to have it totally exposed, to have all the facts before them, and to have those who were involved in this Coquihallagate dealt with properly. Justice must prevail. Public confidence must be returned to the province of British Columbia, and public trust must be enhanced and brought back.

This government is continuing to try to cover up. This government knows that the first member for Cariboo is not the only one involved. There are others. This whole shameful incident is bringing continuing shame. It is impacting on the pride of British Columbians as our reputation gathers, not only in British Columbia but outside the province, for scandal after scandal — incompetence, mismanagement — over the last 13 years of Social Credit administration, since they came back to power in 1975. Mismanagement, incompetence, coverup and scandal, which the people of British Columbia want cleared up once and for all. What we are asking in this motion is for the rights of British Columbians to get to the bottom of our equivalent of Watergate.

[3:00]

It was half a billion dollars in overruns, half a billion dollars that this Legislature was not told about, was misled and deceived about. Yet when you look at the last 13 years of this administration in this province, it's the culmination of mismanagement and incompetence by Social Credit. We have had incident after incident of fiscal incompetency and overruns by this administration. In B.C. coal we've had half a billion public dollars virtually wasted; now we know that situation and what's happening there — half a billion dollars of fiscal mismanagement by this administration. Thanks for the memories, Mr. Speaker. Massive debt write-offs. For B.C. Enterprise Corporation, there was another half a billion dollars by this Social Credit administration. There has been 13 years of fiscal incompetence by this administration, culminating in Coquihallagate, the equivalent of Watergate in the United States. The incompetence of the former Minister of Finance with B.C. Rail, in one budget writing off $430 million before the debt was due; paying off the debt in advance, going against all sound financial practices. Another half billion dollars of Socred mismanagement. How many more half-billion dollars are we going to waste in the province?

MR. WILLIAMS: It's like money off the back of a truck.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. This government that tells the people of British Columbia that they follow sound business practices — half a billion dollars to pay off B.C. Rail in advance, against all sound financial planning. Another half-billion dollars wasted, gone. Thanks for the memories of this administration.

Now, today, we are desperately trying to get to the bottom of Coquihallagate. The people will win. Truth will win out and we will get to the bottom of Coquihallagate, as we have tried to get to the bottom of Tumbler Ridge and the massive

[ Page 3409 ]

overruns of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation in writing off debt — half a billion dollars there.

They laugh about the squandering and the mismanagement and the fiscal incompetence of this administration over the last 13 years. It's been one large truck shovelling off taxpayers' money with hardly any accountability to this Legislature or the people of the province. Today we're trying once again to get to the bottom of another half a billion dollars of wasted taxpayers' money. When will this Social Credit administration come clean? How many more half-billion overruns and fiscal incompetencies do we have to talk about?

Let's list SkyTrain.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, and who started that?

MR. BLENCOE: Who started that? The current Premier of British Columbia, that great manager of taxpayers' money. What did he tell the people? "Oh, it'll only cost you $289 million. Trust us." What did the costs come in at? One billion dollars — in excess of a $700 million overrun.

The mismanagement and the fiscal incompetency of this government is so overwhelming that we wonder what they're going to do next. A $700 million overrun for SkyTrain. How many more overruns and incompetent acts of this administration will the people have to witness before the truth comes out over Coquihalla? How much more of the taxpayers' money are you going to waste? Massive write-offs, debts.

Let's take a look at the last 13 years of Social Credit financial management in British Columbia. Let's put it in context of what we're debating today for Coquihalla in order to get to the bottom of this half-billion dollars. The overrun in the operating budget for 1980-81 was $256 million; '81-82, $184 million; '82-83, $984 million; '83-84, $1.19 billion; '84-85, $993 million; '86-87, $948 million. In the last eight years this government has added $6.4 billion to the provincial deficit. I would point out that this same administration told the people of British Columbia that that deficit would only be $3.4 billion. But what happened? Even in their operating budgets they were out by $3 billion in the last eight years. The total deficit was $6.4 billion, and Coquihalla is going to continue to add to that incredible deficit for the people of British Columbia.

What's the deficit for the last 13 years, since 1975, that this government has perpetrated on the people of British Columbia — this great government that says it's the best business manager this province could have? Do you know that in 1975, after 100 years of all governments in British Columbia, there was an accumulated deficit of $4 billion — all debt, all governments? This great government, this great manager of the people's money....What is it today?

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, has it doubled?

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, it has more than doubled. Do you know what it stands at today? It's $19.6 billion — five times the amount it was in 1975. Do you know how much that is for every man, woman and child in British Columbia? In 13 years this administration has given $666 debt to every man, woman and child in British Columbia.

Do you wonder, when we see this incompetence over the last 13 years, that we want to once and for all deal with something like the Coquihalla in an honest, candid and decent way on behalf of the people of British Columbia? No wonder we want to deal with this thing and let the people of British Columbia find out what happened with this half a billion dollars.

What happened to this half-billion dollars? We've never got an honest appraisal or analysis of what happened to the other half billion I've been talking about this afternoon.

Over the last 13 years this government has put this great province of British Columbia into so much debt that now every man, woman and child in the province owes $666 each. That's their share of the provincial debt — five times the amount it was in 1975.

Yet on the Coquihalla we have this government desperately trying to lay the blame on one member of this House — a shameful attempt to make the hon. first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) take the blame for Watergate, Coquihallagate, Roadgate in the province of British Columbia. That is totally shameful.

MS. CAMPBELL: Could we have some Canadian scandals as examples?

MR. BLENCOE: I have just given you the Canadian examples. Madam Member. I have listed them. We still haven't come clean on those, and now we have a scandal in our midst that is the equivalent of Watergate in terms of coverup and deception and lies to the people of British Columbia. That's how serious it is, and that's why we will do our utmost to get to the bottom of it and ensure that the people of British Columbia get the truth out of this deceptive government. They deserve no less.

Part of the problem with this Coquihalla situation has been this government's flagrant abuse of the special warrant, a privilege laid out in the Financial Administration Act, but with rules and regulations that govern such warrants. This government has not learned its lesson with special warrants.

MRS. BOONE: Did they use it this year?

MR. BLENCOE: Did they use it this year? We all remember the $8 million for the instant millionaires. They have not learned their lesson with the special warrant and the abuse of this House, because they continue to use those warrants, flouting the Financial Administration Act.

Let's take a look at the MacKay commission. The MacKay commission records that on October 19, 1984 — and I refer to the commission's report — there was a request from the minister Fraser to chairman of Treasury Board Curtis, in accordance with Treasury Board directions for a $100 million special warrant. He requested $40 million for Coquihalla on November 15, 1984, and $53 million later that fiscal year. "Funding not available within the budget," which meant that no appropriation had been made by the Legislature, and payment for the 21 Coquihalla contracts would be covered by special warrants.

[3:15]

On November 28, 1984, another $100 million special warrant was issued. December 20, 1984: a letter from the minister Fraser to chairman of Treasury Board Curtis requesting further special warrants, bringing the total for Coquihalla to $120 million "as scope of Coquihalla and related work has expanded." On January 31, 1985, special warrant approved — amount, $121.5 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's my contention and our contention that this government continues to abuse the Financial Administration Act; it continues to use special warrants in an illegal

[ Page 3410 ]

way. I think it's very useful to remind this government of some pertinent sections of the Financial Administration Act that we think they should start to use and apply in their daily business.

Section 5 of the Financial Administration Act makes the minister responsible for presiding over the ministry and responsible to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for its direction.

Section 6 of the Financial Administration Act assigns the Minister of Finance responsibility for the management and administration of the consolidated revenue fund, and supervision of the revenues and expenditures of the government.

Section 7 gives each minister responsibility for the financial affairs of their ministry, under the general direction of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board.

Section 8 requires, in part, that the comptroller-general shall prepare the public accounts, subject to the direction of the Treasury Board.

Section 18 requires that no money be paid from consolidated revenue without the authority of an appropriation.

Section 20 stipulates that no sum shall be paid and applied to any purposes other than those described in the votes, or in excess of the amounts in the votes. Section 20 and all the others are quite clear about the accountability of the Financial Administration Act and the role of the Legislature in governing and watching over the utilization of taxpayers' money.

Section 21 makes provision for authorizing expenditures in addition to the annual estimates by way of special warrants. The circumstances are, however, that an expenditure is unforeseen or insufficiently provided for, or the expenditure is urgently and immediately required for the public good.

Section 25 controls contract work by requiring that no agreement for payment of money by the government shall result in an expenditure in the current fiscal year that would result in the appropriation of that fiscal year being exceeded.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question, when you read through the commission's report, that this government, over and over again, abused their power in terms of special warrants, and misled this Legislature in terms of the costs of the Coquihalla Highway. There is absolutely no question, and yet we have had a desperate attempt by this government to try and bluster their way through; to cover up wherever possible; to use the first member for Cariboo as a scapegoat. But at every turn you make in this report, in the documents that are before us and in the research and analysis, this government misled this Legislature, misled the people of the province of British Columbia, and in my estimation did an incredible injustice to this institution and broke public confidence and public trust. With all the other items I have listed, over the last 13 years of Social Credit mismanagement, incompetence and lack of answers, we think it's time that this House be accorded the traditional rights and privileges. We are here to do the people's business; we are here to ensure that the government is accountable for the money it spends and for its actions. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, to bring back public confidence and public trust and to ensure that we get the truth from this incredible coverup perpetrated on the people of British Columbia.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure to rise in my place and attempt to make a small contribution to this very important debate in this Legislature, although I don't know if we can really call it a debate. Naively, before becoming a member of this Legislature, I assumed that there was debate taking place here, but what we see today on this important issue and what I've seen in the last year are speeches making powerful and cogent arguments on behalf of the opposition and very little defence of the position of government, because they know they have the power of the vote. And I see it constantly abused, rather than having a little sunshine in terms of debate in this House. I think that's what this motion is about too: to try to let in a little sunshine in the form of a legislative committee and review some of the people's business that clearly they have a right to know.

It's very hard for me to stand and follow the eloquent comments of my colleagues. I heard the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) briefly this morning, echoing comments that I felt very strongly about at the time — very bitterly and very passionately: the misuse of funds and the inappropriate priorities of the government of the day. She was lamenting the restraint program's effect on our education system. And while we had a serious, critical shortage of funds for necessary educational priorities, the government of that day had no problem finding tremendous amounts of money that — I think it's claimed — have been misused, that were overrun, that were probably not in the best interests of the people of this province, and that went to contractors, many of whom operate outside this province.

The member from Port Alberni spoke this morning. I think there's no more eloquent spokesperson than that member, in terms of dealing with the integrity of this Legislature — a long-standing member whom I've seen on many occasions rise to that occasion, defend the rights and integrity of the Legislature and the importance of the process that we're all part of here today.

The second member for Victoria has certainly outlined the difficulties and problems of mismanagement of the government and the litany of these kinds of problems that are very similar to the one we're concerned with today.

I've never stood here and felt more sure of the rightness of the position that there should be a legislative committee to look into this whole matter. I know I'm speaking on behalf of the vast majority of British Columbians, who do want to see an opportunity to have some sunshine enlighten us in terms of what happened during that very heady period of the Coquihalla.

The public does want to know. In a recent survey done by United Communications Research, the public was asked a number of questions about Coquihalla. The first question was about the importance to the individual citizen in terms of this question. It was at the time of the MacKay commission. The question read: "A public inquiry is being conducted concerning cost overruns on the construction of the Coquihalla Highway. On the whole, how important is the Coquihalla inquiry as a political issue in B.C.? Would you say it's an important or unimportant issue for you?" Two-thirds of those surveyed considered it an important issue. It's an issue that's a couple of years old. It's an issue that took place at the time of a number of other critical issues in the province of British Columbia. Yet after the fact, two-thirds of those surveyed indicated that it was an important issue to them. When you consider all the other issues that we've been concerned about in the last year....

AN HON. MEMBER: Watergate.

MR. JONES: Well, I don't particularly agree with Coquihallagate as an appropriate metaphor or symbol for....

[ Page 3411 ]

I think the member for Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out that we need a Canadian metaphor, and I think Coquihalla is the metaphor. I think Coquihalla is the symbol for government mismanagement, for abuse of authority, for deceit in the Legislature, for inappropriate action on the part of government unbecoming for even the most devious government. I think Coquihalla is that symbol. I've noticed in this Legislature that whenever members on this side were motivated to mention the word Coquihalla to members on the other side, there was a strong response. I think that strong response was there because the Coquihalla is a symbol of government mismanagement, coverup, behaviour unbecoming for even the most devious government.

Going back to that survey and why I feel so confident that the people are strongly behind the opposition's request to look further into this case via the form of a legislative committee, there were three or four questions. The second one asks: "If it is true that the government hid the cost of building the Coquihalla, then criminal charges should be laid...." I don't know whether that's appropriate or not, but I think it's an appropriate question to ask the public of British Columbia.

When they were asked that — and I see that as a difficult question to answer — almost 80 percent of those surveyed felt that if the government did hide costs, criminal charges should be laid. I find that quite amazing, and it convinces me that the public of British Columbia very much want the opposition's motion to succeed. They very much want an opportunity to have an uncovering of the coverup that's going on and that the government hopes will continue on this issue.

The third question in this survey asks members of the public: "If any elected or appointed officials are shown to have lied to the public or the Legislature about the costs, they should be forced to resign...." Again, I think that's a very demanding question, a very difficult question. The public was asked whether they disagreed or agreed with that statement, and an incredible 93.2 percent agreed that if there had been lies — and we've already seen the Speaker establish a prima facie case that there have been misleading statements made to this Legislature — then those who were guilty of lying, either elected or non-elected officials, should resign.

What's important to me in this motion is that there be an opportunity to investigate, and I don't know how I would have answered those questions. It seems to me that the matter of privilege is a very serious one; certainly there should be repercussions for any member who lies to the Legislature. Whether or not they should resign the mandate given to them by the public over that issue is something that I think needs more consideration by me and perhaps by other members.

[3:30]

I'd like to mention the fourth question. Although I don't think it's as germane as the other three, certainly it is an important aspect of honesty and openness in government; that is the question of cabinet confidentiality, which I think is a principle that we all ascribe to. Yet it's one that the public does not ascribe to. This question asks: "Cabinet confidentiality is essential to our form of government. This confidentiality must be maintained, even if...the public never finds out the true story behind the Coquihalla costs." On this survey, done by United Communications Research, 87.4 percent of the public disagreed with that, and I assume in that they're saying: "Okay, cabinet confidentiality may be important under many circumstances, but when there is a serious abuse, a serious mismanagement of public funds, then the public's right to know supersedes cabinet confidentiality in these circumstances." I think we know that cabinet confidentiality is one of the measures used by members of the government to not come forth and enlighten the public about the true story behind Coquihalla. So I feel very strongly, in speaking on behalf of the public of British Columbia on this motion, that we do need a legislative committee so that the public can find out the true story behind the Coquihalla costs.

Almost exactly a year ago I read my first throne speech. My understanding was that the throne speech was a statement on behalf of the government to indicate to the public of the province the beliefs and principles and the goals and aspirations of the government of the day. There were many statements in the throne speech. and it's interesting to reread it a year later, particularly when we are going to be facing another throne speech in a couple of days that speaks to the problems of government, the difficulties of government, and also to the inability of government and perhaps even the dishonesty of government in stating intentions which are not lived up to and may not ever be lived up to, because there was never any intention of living up to them.

I'd like to mention a couple of those statements from the throne speech which I think are germane to this motion suggesting that there should be a legislative committee to look into the Coquihalla fiasco and to clear the reputation of this House and the government and members of the day so that the public can judge fairly and honestly, based on the true facts. Any desire on the part of the government's side to thwart the implementation of such a committee that would give the public that right to know completely contradicts the kinds of statements made in the throne speech on March 9, 1987, a year and one day ago.

There are statements in that throne speech such as: "We promised an open and accessible style of government that responds to the needs of people." I think I've already indicated what the needs of the people are, with respect to information on the Coquihalla. Very clearly the public, in overwhelming numbers, want an inquiry, want the sun to shine in, want the information that will allow them to make up their minds on the facts of the case. Any desire on the part of the government not to allow this committee to happen completely contradicts that promise on the part of the government of British Columbia: open and accessible style.

Another statement on the part of the government was: "We will listen, consult, and lead by example...." If the government had been leading and consulting on this question, we would not be debating this issue. The government would have agreed to such a committee; that committee would be in the process of being set up now; we would be assured, and the people of British Columbia would be assured, that the facts on the Coquihalla scandal would finally come out.

From the throne speech again: "Good government does not work behind closed doors." It seems to me that what we see here and what we've seen so many times is that decisions are made in the back room — and the back room may be only the Premier's office; it may not be a meeting of cabinet: it may not be a meeting of the government caucus — and decisions are made that run counter to the interests of the people of British Columbia, and for expedience and political reasons rather than for the desire to give good government.

One of the other statements from the throne speech was: "Our words and intent will be matched by action." I think the

[ Page 3412 ]

words and the intent in this case have not been matched by action. We've seen half an action. We saw the MacKay commission established, and that was a good thing for the government to do. It was at least half a good thing, because the MacKay commission was established with a very narrow mandate, not a complete enough mandate to do a thorough job: to serve the best interests of the public knowing what was going on. There seems to be a schizophrenia. I think there is that desire on the part of government to do good things, to be open and fair, but then the expediency comes in, and the politics. So we see the MacKay commission not being allowed to do its job. In order to complete that task the suggestion of a legislative committee is made, and again the government tries to thwart that. Clearly the words and the intent of government are only half matched by action at best.

Probably the statement in the throne speech that most applies to the matter being considered before the House at this time is a statement on behalf of the government: "As a priority, my government will expand the number and roles of the all-party committees of this assembly. I will ask all members to become more involved in the business of our parliament." Well, this is one member who has not had such an opportunity. I know that particularly in the last little while committees — a small number — have been established and are functioning, but I myself and, I assume, the vast majority of members of this House have not seen the light of day in terms of all-party committees being established and functioning in terms of the business of government.

MR. LOENEN: Stick around. You'll get your turn.

MR. JONES: Oh, I expect I'll be around some time. I don't know if I can say the same for you.

"As a priority, my government will expand the number and roles of the all-party committees...." Well, what a perfect opportunity. Here you go, folks. Live up to the suggestion made a year and a day ago in the throne speech, a promise to the people of your commitment to a style of government that is open and accessible and does involve members of the Legislature.

How could you make that statement in the throne speech on March 9, 1987, and vote against this motion? What could your motive be for doing such a thing? This is a statement of the intention of the government. Did you mean what you said on March 9, 1987, about establishing all-party committees to have members work on legislative business, or didn't you mean it? Were you telling the truth in the throne speech, or is your behaviour in thwarting this committee — in terms of finding out the truth in the Coquihalla situation — the position of government? What is your position in terms of open and honest government? I think the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) expressed it best when he indicated that everybody loses. The government side loses, the Legislature loses, the public loses, the opposition loses, if this motion does not go through.

It seems to me that if the business of Coquihalla is left half done when the questions have been raised by the MacKay commission.... The commission states: "The Legislature was avoided; the Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it; the true costs were not reported in a forthright way.... These deliberate and planned actions were politically motivated and were designed to give the impression...that the Coquihalla Highway was on budget." When the MacKay commission makes statements like that and raises those questions, when there is a prima facie case established by the opposition and accepted by the Speaker in terms of a breach of privilege and a member of this Legislature deliberately misleading the House, to leave that question unanswered by not pursuing it through a committee, to have these kinds of things happen to impugn the integrity of that individual without really giving him the full opportunity to defend himself, is a disservice to your side, to our side, to the traditions and history of this Legislature and, probably more importantly, to the public of British Columbia, who deserve better from this government, this government that has those kinds of accusations made in the MacKay commission and does not respond to them. That government has one member of cabinet and four other members sitting in the House on a debate on probably the biggest cost overrun in the history of the province. It's a huge sinkhole of dollars trickling down the sides of roadbeds. We have four members of the government and another member of the cabinet working on their correspondence.

I hope my arithmetic is right, but I see that as $170 for every man, woman and child in this province. For some of us here that may not be a lot of money. Maybe that was even a good investment. But for many others in this province, that's too big of a bite out of their annual income for something that I think is hard to sell. To sell cost overruns, to sell that kind of mismanagement, can't be done by government. I assume that's why the government side is not supporting the idea that we have a committee.

[3:45]

If we were a fair and impartial government, if we were open and accessible, we would not be afraid to have a committee look at these facts and come to some conclusions, conclusions which probably would not damage the government. It seems to me that the government would enhance its image in the mind of the public if it started acting in an open, accessible way. Rather than losing points, I think the government would gain points.

I'm not saying that anybody should be punished; particularly the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), who has given long and valued service to this province. But if in fact he did mislead the Legislature, then that should be known and I think his long-standing reputation in this province could probably withstand that, even if that were determined by a committee.

It seems to me that all the processes that surround the events of the time are important to be reviewed. Why? So the opposition can score points against the government and make the government look bad? We could have ended this debate a long time ago, because the government, by the kinds of polling results that I indicated earlier, already looks bad on this issue. I think it behooves the government, if they're concerned about their image, to show some leadership, to show the people of British Columbia that they do care about good government. Their deeds are supposed to match their words. But if we were a good government in British Columbia, we would have such a committee. I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) pointed out earlier the motivation for such a committee. We have to fix up these kinds of problems; something's broken in the land when a royal commission of the government suggests that the Legislature lost control.

[ Page 3413 ]

The highest elected body in this province was out of control in terms of financial responsibility around the Coquihalla. How would a good government respond to resolving that problem? Something's broke; something's out of control; we have got to fix that. Do we fix it by covering up, or do we fix it by having a committee? I suggest that the only way we can fix up something that's broken in this province is to have this committee. We've got to plug that incredible hole in the financial control mechanisms that allowed a $500 million overrun. I suggest to you that an all-party committee is the fairest, most reasonable way of achieving that.

If we don't, what's to suggest that this kind of thing won't happen again? Are the five members opposite who are working on their correspondence going to stand up — four of them aren't in cabinet — to the government and suggest that we follow proper procedure in the future, or do we not care? By sweeping it under the rug, by thwarting the efforts of the opposition who strongly represent the public in this case in terms of getting to the root cause of the problem and establishing some responsibility, how can we ever achieve good government? If we sit on our hands, and "cluck, cluck" and "chirp, chirp" according to what the Premier suggests, are we really being responsible? Do we care about the largest overrun in the history of the province of British Columbia? Do we care about that? Are we willing to sweep that under the rug?

The use of public money is an incredible responsibility that all members, particularly on the government side, have the responsibility to ensure is well handled. If we don't care enough at this point in time to appoint a committee to look into ways of improving the fiscal and financial management of the affairs of government, I think we've got a real problem. What's going to prevent the Legislature from losing control again? Certainly the members working on their correspondence on the government side are not going to make a contribution towards good government.

MR. LOENEN: Tell us something new. You're putting us to sleep.

AN HON. MEMBER: A half-truth is better than no truth, is it?

MR. JONES: Well, I don't think there are any half-truths here. I think what's been halved is the action of government. We've got a MacKay commission that established that the House was lied to, that government documents were falsified, that the Legislature was misled, and yet we've never really established any particular responsibility for that. We've never suggested that there are ways of overcoming these problems. That's what's happened with a half measure. The only half measure that's happened is the MacKay commission. A good half attempt, but we need a further attempt.

It would be like having a trial and finding out after many, many days and years of trial procedure that yes, there was a crime committed. But the MacKay commission had its hands tied. The MacKay commission had indicated to it that it could not proceed any further. It could not find out who the guilty party was. That would be a half measure. Not finding out is bad enough, but not being able to assign any blame or responsibility or even suggesting any punishment for that crime is, I think, a tremendous disservice to the people of British Columbia, and we have to have an all-party committee to prevent this from happening again.

MR. BARNES: I am pleased to participate in the debate arguing for an all-party committee to study this issue with respect to the Coquihalla Highway. I say though, with regret, that it shouldn't be necessary. We've listened for the past few days and the evidence has been placed before this House, I think, in a pretty clear, concise fashion by our debate leader and critic, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), and others have elaborated on the details. The question now is that the rest of us want to get the message through loud and clear that this is a serious matter, one that cannot be put aside lightly, in fact should not be put aside at all.

As often is the case in this House, trying to make an issue out of something that we feel strongly about is quite a challenge. There are quite a few limitations on us as parliamentarians. Our greatest weapon often is our tenacity and determination and will-power to push ahead and hope that we can break the defences of the government, which seems to be inclined to take the defensive attitude regardless of what the evidence appears to be, how impressive it may be and how believable it may be, even to the extent that it is rejecting the report of a commission which it itself appointed and which brought back recommendations and asked questions that one would think the government would be inclined to accept, if for no other reason than to assure everyone that its motives were sincere and it wanted to remove any doubt that may exist, That hasn't been the case.

We're going about our task with the limitations that are placed upon us. Quite frankly, I feel sometimes that you have to find the outrage and force it to make a point. It's too bad but that's just the way it is. I'm sure that Mr. Speaker will remember a few years ago when the former Premier of this province, Bill Bennett, who has been mentioned as having been a beneficiary as a result of the Coquihalla construction, stood in the opposition when Dave Barrett was the Premier. At the time we had a limitation on the rules and a limit with respect to how long a debate on budget could go on. We had reached the end of the budget debate time allotted, but the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bennett, made quite a point of saying: "Not a dime without debate." He was expressing the opinion that this was a democracy, that the people's business should not only be done but be seen to be done and that his members in the opposition felt very strongly that they should have a right to scrutinize every aspect of the budget as long as they felt necessary and in as much detail as they felt necessary. He received headlines right across the province and the country, and most of the population agreed with him that a budget was a serious matter, and if taxpayers were going to have to support government initiatives and programs, they should know what was going on. The government of the day capitulated and recognized that principle. Mr. Bennett became well known for that simple statement: "Not a dime without debate."

We do rely on principles. They are fundamental things that we all have to rely on, and we've talked about a number. We were talking about the right to vote, for instance, on election day, and we were talking about the right to perpetuate a parliamentary right in terms of Bill 1. The first bill that we have introduced every time there has been a throne speech is the parliamentary right. In other words, parliament must exist first.

There is a reason for that. Those of us in the Legislature are duty-bound to recognize the cornerstone of the whole system and wherever possible to ensure that these principles are not violated in any way. The problem is that if we don't

[ Page 3414 ]

have the vote, the strongest point we can make will be subjected to a show of hands or a vote of some sort and it is difficult to sustain that momentum.

How can it be that a commission, unbiased with respect to the politics of the day, appointed by the government, undertakes the responsibility of investigating the reasons why the government was unable to construct that phase of the Coquihalla Highway that had been allotted through the votes without running into a need for extra funding? It raised a number of questions, such as the question of authority to spend that money.

Those of us who have been through a number of budget debates know and believe that what we decide upon as a body in terms of approving of expenditures.... The reason we come to the Legislature with a budget and allow all of the members to participate, requiring that the minister answer all questions vote by vote, detail by detail, department by department, agency by agency — every aspect — is that the government is bound by that. When each department gets its estimates and has approval to spend money, it leaves and goes about its business and spends those moneys. There is no exception — none whatsoever.

That's the point. That's the one thing we do have. It's in the form of a contract that we all agree upon, that when we all stand in this House and vote for the approval of the budget, that is a commitment on the part of everyone in this Legislature to abide by. There are no exceptions, no excuses, no caveats, no other arrangements, no unilateral decisions to do something else other than what this Legislature has approved and agreed upon.

[4:00]

I can say that as a member I am offended — so much so that it's difficult for me to contain myself. I have to ask the question, as other members have asked in this House before: by what authority, by what means, were funds transferred from vote 74 to 69? By what legal process did that take place? What are the regulations that allow that to be done by some phantom bureaucrat or some minister who doesn't have to be named? Why can't we get an explanation for how that happened? Is that to suggest to the members of this House that in the future, in another week or so, or on the 24th or 25th when we begin to deal with the budget debate, we're going to come in this House and be presented with a budget and debate each vote, asking ministers their plans — have the dialogue take place — only to realize that that minister may at any time change anything, that the cabinet can rearrange anything it cares to, and that it has the authority to do so without any coming back to this House, without any notice, without any reflection to this House, without any amendments? The question we're asking is: who did this and how did it happen and why did it happen?

That's notwithstanding what the auditor-general suggests about the cabinet having the authority to do so and it being within its rights to do so. If that is the case, then I think it should be understood in this House that although we pass budgets, although we debate budgets, they are somewhat academic. Because they sure are not binding. We have a clear case of a government being able to spend half a billion dollars for a purpose for which it was not voted it — a tremendous amount of money by any stretch of the imagination, far more than I'm sure most of us could relate to, in terms of our normal activities. I certainly can hardly fathom or imagine what that amount of money would do, in terms of buying services and supporting programs that are really needed in this province.

I'm not suggesting that we don't need a highway, or a number of highways, or quality highways — or the Coquihalla, for that matter. In fact, the issue is really not the Coquihalla; it's not whether or not we do need the Coquihalla. That's a debate, I'm sure, that could go on indefinitely. The point is: by what means should it happen? We're talking about integrity of government. We're talking about government accountability. We're talking about respect for the parliamentary process and for the members of this Legislature. We're also going a step further: we are challenging ourselves. If we let this matter go lightly and just disregard it, I think we are doing a disservice to the system. We are doing a disservice to ourselves, to the public, to the parliamentary process and to future generations and future legislators. This is a precedent.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Bill 28, you say? That will come up later. We'll be dealing with that later.

I really don't understand the government's motive. I don't understand the cabinet's motive. I can't understand why the government can't agree with the opposition.

You'll notice that we're not really saying that there is a criminal over there, that there is somebody over there trying to profit personally, that someone is stuffing their pockets. No evidence has indicated that that is happening. We're not even suggesting that it's happening theoretically. But it seems strange that the government would deny the obvious fact that there are no answers to all these questions its own commission has put forward. The commission has been much stronger than I am being right now, in terms of whether there have been deliberate attempts to mislead this Legislature, whether members have made statements which were incorrect, whether we have been given assurances in this House by some ministers during question period that the project was on budget, whether no overruns had taken place while at the same time we now find that indeed there were serious overruns.

So what can we do? What are our alternatives? Why is the government refusing to open its books? Why is it refusing to respond to a very rational and reasonable request? Who gave the orders? By what method or process were those funds removed from one vote to the other — what authority? Is this the first time this has happened? Does it happen all the time? Are we to expect that this will be happening in future? Are we to expect that there'll be no notice that even though we may debate the votes, as we will be doing very soon on the new budget; even though we may think we know what the government's authority is, it can be changed unilaterally by some abstract means which no one knows about and that there will be no reporting back to the Legislature? I would like to ask the government to respond. What's the point? Well, it's a charade; it's a shame, really. It's a very sad time for us.

Mr. Speaker, I was just looking at an application brought forward by the multicultural community in the province. They attempted to meet with the government's social services committee, which considers applications for funding to provide programs in the local community. Most of us on both sides of the House realize the need for ongoing funding to support programs for new Canadians and for English-as-a

[ Page 3415 ]

second-language programs to help in the settlement of citizens who are recent arrivals, etc.

But do you realize what just a small portion of $500 million could do to begin to encourage new Canadians, youth, street children, people dropping out of the public school system, people suffering from abuse in their homes and whose homes are breaking up, unemployed people — the tragic side of society where people are basically working as volunteers because they can't get the support of the government to assist in these non-revenue-producing programs that drain the revenues of government? We wonder why the government is not addressing these kinds of things and is saying it doesn't have the funds. Yet at the same time, time after time, we find that the government does find money, even money that hasn't been appropriated, to spend on projects.

When we think about things like the northeast coal, for instance.... The government negotiated a deal that it thought was going to bring revenues for decades on end from the exploration of coal in the northeast coal that we now find is — as the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) likes to call it — the "black hole." It's like the government has all kinds of money to throw away, but it has no money for human services or health care. Or if it does, it's to sustain the status quo; it's not to recognize the need for growth and change or the need to deal with programs in a qualitative and effective way. This money, by the way, is not lost; it is used in the community by local people and sustains the economy. It's sort of like the concept of helping small business — that's good business. The money is usually used locally and keeps activity moving.

This is a very sad time that we're faced with now, and I think of the Coquihalla Highway project.... You go to the public and talk to people, and they say: "Well, what's going on with this government that's spending this kind of money? How do you get a handle on it?" One of the largest overruns in the province's history — and we don't seem to be able to get the government to capitulate, to come clean. We are bound to focus all our questions and attention on one minister, who is a senior legislator here, operating with an exemplary performance over many years and clearly not in any position to answer the kinds of questions that we've been required to raise in this House.

I think it's a sad day for democracy. There's a long history behind what we're talking about today, Mr. Speaker. We're talking under great stress because of the ruling that the Chair has placed before us, limiting our debate, cutting off our ability to really get at finding answers to the questions. It seems to me that, although the public is concerned, the government is not concerned. It seems to me that the government has changed its policies drastically since the days of Bill Bennett, the former Premier, who said: "Not a dime without debate."

I nonetheless want to emphasize that, limited though we are, there is no question that this government's integrity and credibility are on the line; that the persons involved whom we've been unable to call to task, the cabinet ministers who are involved, those who are inside the House and those who are outside the House, who are being protected by virtue of a technicality, are nonetheless having to live with their responsibility.

I think what we have done with this ruling, unless we can have an investigation, which it would seem to me is a very unlikely possibility.... Unless there's going to be a drastic change in the government's position, we're not going to get the government to agree with the opposition that an all-party inquiry should take place to investigate. If the government is going to refuse to do that, then it's on the government's shoulders. The precedent you're setting is one that we're all going to have to live with in the future; I can't see any other way around it. There's a very dangerous precedent being set.

I think we're going to have to ask ourselves over and over again: should the cabinet in fact be able to amend a budget on its own without notice to the Legislature, without any enactment whatsoever? Because that's what we're dealing with. If the government has the authority to operate in this way, why do we even bother to bring in interim supply? Why can't the government just move an order-in-council?

The obvious reason is that the government has no money until it is approved in this Legislature. It has to account for whatever it expends. It has to be able to show it in some way and there has to be some authority behind it, and there has to even be somebody who gave that authority. But it seems to me as though everybody on that side of the House has disappeared. There is no one in charge. There is nobody who has the authority; no one takes responsibility for any of the things that have happened. They are trying to blame one member who is no longer in the cabinet for the whole works.

[4:15]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair]

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) says: "We didn't bring in the motion." It's pretty clear that the opposition is bound by rulings, and the opposition, through consultation, was left with no alternative, based on the final ruling of the House. If we intended to pursue this matter at all, we would have to pursue it on the basis of the findings of the Speaker, and there were no other options.

The parameters were extremely restrictive notwithstanding that we had the commissioner's report, which used some pretty strong language in describing the situation and the questionable conduct, going so far as to suggest that there had in fact been some lies and falsification of documents and some deliberate misleading of the House.

We are left to try to prove that without an opportunity to call witnesses, without an opportunity to cross-examine those people we feel were involved. The government sits there and says: "Forget it, it's not a big thing." I think we'll find as the months pass by that the government has dug its own grave, because everywhere you go in this province the question will be asked: explain to us how that overrun took place without any knowledge of the Legislature? Explain to us how you can transfer that much money over a period of time from one vote to the other without reference to the Legislature, without any authority whatsoever other than the fact that you're the cabinet and that by virtue of that executive position, in managing the government's affairs, can proceed and leave the opposition without any recourse whatsoever to ask questions.

Can you imagine yourselves behaving that way if you were in the opposition? Can you imagine the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, allowing such a situation to go unchallenged? Can you really imagine that, Madam Speaker? No way. I'm sure that for some.... All of a sudden we'd have a completely different attitude because the good guys would be doing it — the establishment friends — not the freedom fighters; not the ones who are defending democracy, the ones who are out there trying to protect parliamentary rights, trying to protect the citizens.

[ Page 3416 ]

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: No, it's always the other way, and the day will come when you people will have to change your tune.

MR. CRANDALL: It's hard to imagine us in opposition, Emery.

MR. BARNES: You should imagine yourself in opposition in order to do your job better, because you are now offending the parliamentary system with your behaviour. You're not just offending the opposition; you're offending the people of British Columbia.

I would bet you that there is probably not a single member on that side of the House who would stand in his place and explain how the money was moved from vote 74 to vote 69 by authority and say that that is all right, and at the same time defend the debate we're just about to get into on the budget, in another week or so, and say to us that whatever we do in this House really matters, that we're bound by it. We're not bound by it, obviously. We have set a precedent. Things can happen in this House that we don't have any authority to control, and this is the part that disturbs me.

Sometimes I think we should go out in the hall and maybe have a little debate among ourselves, so we can get down and dirty and deal with this matter the way most people settle things on the streets, because I tell you, words are not very good right now. What is happening on that side of the House is tantamount to a serious criminal offence that we can't quite make stick.

I would go so far as to say to you, Madam Speaker, we have been using words in this House that we've never used before, and not one of you people has stood up to defend.... We've been accusing members on that side of the House of misleading the House, of lying, and no one has stood up and said: "We're not lying. Withdraw." Why not? For the first time in this Legislature we are saying, "Lies, lies, lies," and not one of you has stood up and defended it, because you don't want to be identified; you may have to start asking questions. Every other time we've been ruled out of order. Every time we even come close to suggesting that someone is misleading the House, any time we come close to talking about someone being a stranger to the truth — "I have some difficulty with finding the facts or relating to them" — we are ruled out of order. But not today on this issue, not on the Coquihalla. You can say anything you want; nobody wants to talk. Where are you? Half a billion dollars and nobody wants to stand up and explain it.

I can assure Madam Speaker that this matter has just begun. Handcuffed though we may be in the opposition, limited though we may be to expressing ourselves verbally, it is a clear signal that democracy is on the erosion trail in this province. We have talked about that on other initiatives by this government. This is another one. Bill 1 is introduced as the first act of business in every parliament, to perpetuate a parliamentary right. That means that this Legislature is supreme. That means that all matters come before this Legislature. The budget is one of the most important, so important that governments can fall when they don't get the vote on a budget. That's how important it is, and just recently in Manitoba we've seen an example of what can happen if you lose the vote.

Yet in this Legislature we voted in favour of a budget passed in this House by all of the members, and we all thought we had a contract and a deal made about how much money would be spent on what terms in every detail. Yet we have to sit here and swallow this garbage about the cabinet having the authority to transfer money from one vote to another without notice, without telling the opposition what's going on — no enactment of new legislation; secrets. In fact, we can't even find out who gave the order.

I can tell you that this cannot be the end of it, regardless of how the vote goes in this House. You are going to have one hard time defending that position, because it is a scandal. We don't know what the real story is and we don't know who is benefiting. We can't even ask the question, and I think it's a shame and a sham. You have, in my view, offended this House. You have made a mockery of the process that we all rely upon, the cornerstone of this whole system that three million people in this province rely on, and you are beginning to make it a sham.

With that, Madam Speaker, I certainly hope that by some means we will find a way to come up with another motion to force this point, even though I know it's going to be difficult with the strict limits being placed on us in terms of trying to fight back.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I was hoping that with some of the heckling that was going on earlier by some of the backbenchers, there would be someone from the government side who would get up and cast some light on the debate before us. Some of the members were having some problem having to deal with this issue for two days in a row. They either do not understand the magnitude of the problem, or they want it behind them, under the carpet, out of the way, so that they don't have to look at it.

I can imagine, after listening to some of the speakers from our side, how difficult it must be, in particular for some of our senior members who were there during the debate; who asked the questions and didn't get the answers; and who were met with blank stares and perhaps heckling. As a new member, having gone through only one debate on one budget in this House — one year, 15 months now — I come back to this House and wonder where the real world is. Clearly, with this government and some of the issues that have been before us and the government's reaction to those issues, I again and again must leave this House and go back to my community to find out where the real world and the real lives with the real people are.

I don't have to remind any of the members on the government side about some of the serious issues that we have dealt with in the past year or about the government's response and their so-called commitment to justice and democracy. I remember ministers of the Crown using those words, and I wonder what it means. I wonder what it means when a serious issue like this that attacks the very underpinnings, not only of democracy and the parliamentary process.... The very credibility of a government to manage, and the very credibility of a government as the caretakers of this province and as the spenders of taxpayers' dollars is at risk here.

This is the government that purports to be the managers in this province. But we are seeing, not only with the Coquihalla, as pointed out by the government side, overexpenditures of money on many different projects. I suggest to you that you, as a government, have a bad record, and if you want to face the people of this province on that record....

Interjection.

[ Page 3417 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD: The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) says he does it every election, and it works out well. Well, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The people of this province are calling for you to be accountable. They are calling on you to stop hiding.

The government side is saying is that only the socialists are calling this government to fiscal responsibility. Again you insult the people of this province. You are spending taxpayers' money, and the taxpayers of this province have the right to know. They have the right to know. It's not your money you're spending; it is our money.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, would you please address the Chair.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Madam Speaker, your point is well taken. I think this debate is a serious one, and whether members of the government back bench feel it's humorous, the people of this province do not.

I think it is important that all of the issues get out on the table, and the government continuing not only to stick their heads in the sand but also to deny reality will not only not do them well, it will not do the people of this province well. I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the people of this province, and I believe this government will be held accountable. I think what the people of this province and the motion before us says is that the New Democrats, the people in opposition in this House, demand and expect nothing more than straightforward, honest treatment and that we expect it not only for ourselves but for all taxpayers in the province.

[4:30]

I think back to the time when the Coquihalla was being built and to the subsequent election campaign that was fought. Ironically, a community group in my constituency printed a bumper sticker that looked a lot like the "I drove the Coquihalla" bumper sticker, only instead it said: "I drove the King George." That was a message from our community to the government that they would have liked to have had something to say about how their own taxpayer dollars were spent. They were saying to this government that the King George Highway — a provincial highway — has got potholes. Couldn't you have used some of that money, that massive overrun, to fill some of those potholes? I suspect there are more people who drive the King George than use the Coquihalla. We're just asking this government for fairness, for justice. Instead, the back-benchers laugh and carry on. They ignore the requests. They say: "It's all right. Wait till the next election. We'll get it too. It doesn't matter if we're not being fair. It doesn't matter if we're not being just. We'll pull it off."

I come to this House with some political experience, and I have never before seen such blatant disregard not only for the institutions that our forefathers and foremothers fought for, but for the very people who pay the taxes to provide the money that allows this government to pick and choose and decide how that money should be spent. They said no to the King George Highway, and they spent double on the Coquihalla.

Like many issues before us as we try to sort through all of the verbiage — and certainly the lack of verbiage from the other side — I think this issue is the very basic commitment to morality....

Interjections.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'm pleased to see that so many members have joined the House. I think the invitation should be extended to those members through you, Madam Speaker. They've got a lot to say from their seats. They should be on record. Even though their own government spent double what they said they were going to spend and the commission themselves said this House was misled, I want them up on their feet defending the government. It's a challenge. Put yourself on the record and be accountable. Let's hear what you have to say about the massive overspending, the lack of fiscal responsibility.

This is the government that went to the electorate time and again as the fiscal managers. I believe very emphatically that this province has never had such bad managers. The last two administrations in this province, including this one, are on record, and that's what we're talking about right now: that abysmal record.

What we are asking for on behalf of the people of this province is full accountability. Time and time again as the estimates in this House have been debated, the ministers sit there and they say, with very drawn faces: "Believe me, I've fought for those people. I've fought for the health care system. I've fought for the education system. We'd really like to feed hungry children, but we don't have any money."

MR. LOVICK: Why not?

MS. SMALLWOOD: Why not is because they are fiscally unaccountable; because they have done nothing to try to fix the problem. When the New Democratic Party was in government and was dealing with the needs and the lives of human beings in this province, the members opposite had the nerve to suggest that we were shovelling money off the back of a truck.

What this government is doing is not only shovelling money off the back of a truck, but that truck is a convoy. It is a convoy of huge trucks traveling down the Coquihalla....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: How big are they?

MS. SMALLWOOD: I think that what this province is witness to with this government will go down in history. I say to you, Mr. Member — through the Chair, Madam Speaker — get on your feet and explain to the people of this province how that money was spent; how it was not accounted for; how the House did not have the opportunity to debate it; and through the House, how the people of this province did not have the opportunity to say yea or nay, when there were people at the same time being evicted from downtown hotels, who didn't have a home. This government, which initiated these projects and initiated the celebration which was happening at that time, couldn't find the money to house those people. Yet — and I see an awful of heads down over there — you're saying to this House and to the people of the province once again — because this is the second time on this issue alone — that you have nothing to say.

Maybe if you keep your mouth shut, if you don't get on the record, at a future time our children will look at this moment in history and say: "Now why was it we're supposed to be involved in the political process? Why is it we are supposed to give any credibility to the House, to the parliamentary process, to democracy?" Do you understand what

[ Page 3418 ]

message you are sending to the people of this province, to my children, to your children? I think that is a horrendous message, and if I were you I'd have my head down too, because it would be a heck of a lot to try to swallow — a real black mark on the history of this province, but unfortunately not the first for this government.

I think it's important — and this is why I stand in support of the motion before the House — to strike a committee and try to deal with the information, and clearly if this government is not afraid of what that committee might find, then support the motion yourself. We'll be watching to see if there is anyone over on that side who cares about democracy, about the democratic system, about this House.

MR. PETERSON: I do.

MS. SMALLWOOD: We have a member back there in the comer who does. We'll be waiting for the vote and we'll watch to see if he finds his feet.

MR. CRANDALL: He will, to vote against it, and we will defeat it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The members on the government side that say they will vote against this motion, they will defeat this motion.... I suggest that they find their feet, that they get up, that they speak and put themselves on the record in this House, and explain not only to the opposition but to the people of the province why your own commission said there are some very serious problems here. Your own commission said that this House may have been misled.

You find your feet and you tell us. You tell the people of the province why you will vote against this motion; why you don't want the information before the House; why you do not want the people of this province to know what really happened; why you do not feel, as individuals, as members of a government, that people of this province have a right to know how their money is being spent.

Your government is the same government that has increased taxes by its policies at the school board and municipal level. You've got your hands in their pockets, and yet you members of the government are not prepared to come clean, not prepared to be accountable to the people of this province, not prepared to stand up and be counted. That's what this motion is all about. It's about honesty; it's about being accountable. The challenge is there. The members of the opposition offer themselves as accountable elected people in this province, and I hope the members of government will do the same.

I will be supporting this motion, and I challenge the government to do the same.

MR. LOVICK: Madam Speaker, probably if you were attentive, as I am sure you are, you noticed a moment ago that I had brief chat with the Deputy Clerk of the House. I was talking with the Deputy Clerk about a matter I raised with the Speaker's office some moments ago which I think is very germane to this debate and which I would therefore like to share with you.

I spoke to the Speaker's office earlier today, asking whether it was possible to get an amendment to this motion. Obviously, everybody on the other side will know that one way of construing that request is to say that what we were trying to do, of course, was to buy a little more time — and I confess to that, Madam Speaker. I confess that yes, indeed, we wanted to keep this issue in the public eye for a little longer than the normal rules of the House allow. We wanted to do that, and I make no apology for that, because I think the gravity and the seriousness of the situation we are presently discussing are such that we ought to spend as long as we legitimately and honestly can on that subject.

[4:45]

We have some things to expiate; we have some things to atone for, and that is the purpose of the motion. The predicament, however, was that when I chatted with the Clerks I was told that really this particular motion before us wasn't amendable. Of course, we all understand the rule of thumb for debate, which is: if it's debatable it's amendable. But in this instance, it wasn't amendable.

I went and pursued the matter with the Clerks, as I said, and they informed me there was very little jurisprudence in this area, very little case law. In short, they had little to go by, and they were struggling to find grounds for their ruling. But what they told me was extremely important, and there's a moral to the story that I want to share with the House, especially with members opposite, because it seems to me that it's a moral they would do well to heed and that, sadly, to judge from their comments thus far, they neither comprehend nor care about.

The moral of the story from the Speaker's office is this: this kind of motion is not amendable precisely because it is a privilege motion which is considered to be of urgent and pressing importance. Therefore any amendment, unless such an amendment were based on absolutely startling new evidence and new circumstances, would not be allowed, because it would detract from the urgency of the motion itself. Think about that, Madam Speaker — not you, Madam Speaker; I know you are. But I ask others, through you, to think about that.

The simple point, if one has any reverence for this chamber, is to recognize that indeed the motion we are debating is in every sense of the term a motion of privilege. We are privileged to have the opportunity to have free and full debate. Privilege is something that we, the members of this Legislature, have and must cherish, and which this Legislature collectively must cherish, because we are talking about the privileges of this House and of this branch of government.

Sadly, Madam Speaker, the rather cavalier comments that have come from the other side, the rather frivolous and in some cases fatuous comments from the other side, lead me to believe that perhaps, sadly, there are large numbers of people over there who are not yet persuaded that what we are debating matters. It strikes me as a sad, sad day for this assembly. If we can't recognize the importance of a privilege motion, and why it takes precedence, why all other business of the House is suspended until such time as the matter of privilege is dealt with.... If we can't understand that principle, Lord help us, because it's one that people have literally fought and died for. I'm not trying to be melodramatic. I'm not engaging in any histrionics. Rather, I'm describing what seems to me an obvious, compelling case as to why even if members opposite disagree with the proposition in the motion, disagree with the need to have a committee, they ought at least to recognize their obligation to participate in the debate and pay attention to what is being said. Sadly, Madam Speaker, I don't see much evidence of that, as I shall have occasion to demonstrate.

[ Page 3419 ]

I want to begin, I think appropriately, given that we have been engaged in this debate for some time.... As we know, as these things proceed and unfold, sadly, the purpose and intention tend to get lost in the shuffle. Indeed, for the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall), they seemed to get lost within the first utterance he made; however, I'll let that pass.

The motion, of course, is to establish a committee of privilege to be charged with considering the facts surrounding the prima facie evidence that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) deliberately misled the House. As the Deputy Speaker the other day pointed out quite correctly and in his usual, inimitable gracious fashion, we who were involved in the debate were perhaps not paying sufficient attention to what is incumbent on the participants in that kind of debate. The Deputy Speaker the other day reminded us that we weren't really so much concerned about the kind of evidence that ought to be brought before a committee of privilege; rather, what we should be considering and focusing on was the desirability of having a committee of privilege.

Sadly, Madam Speaker, it seems to me we have not necessarily done that very well. The point, though, is that both sides in the debate thus far have contended that their particular case is a good, solid, substantial and valid one. Both sides have done that with some passion. Both sides apparently claim that.... There was clearly no such thing as prima facie evidence to suggest any misleading of the House; so clearly, we don't need to have any further debate on this subject. We on the other side argue the contention that of course, if there is indeed prima facie evidence, that says in effect that there is very good reason to have a committee. In fact, the prima facie conclusion is itself an argument in favour of supporting the committee of privilege. That's just logic, for those who are unfamiliar with it on the other side.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I do that just to ensure that members opposite are awake, Madam Speaker. I hope I'll be allowed that.

The obvious conclusion, then, to the fact that we have had a debate thus far, that indeed there has been a difference of opinion manifest, that there has indeed been some passion and some fire to the remarks made from both sides of the House.... If there is a difference of opinion; if there is dispute over the facts and evidence surrounding the case; if there are indeed different conclusions to be drawn based on the facts and the evidence, then it seems pretty clear to me.... I make my appeal here to logic rather than to anything else. Given, as I say, a difference of opinion, given dispute over the facts and the evidence, given different conclusions about the evidence, surely that in itself presents a pretty compelling case for having a committee to look into the matter.

The fact that we have had this much debate and that there are different sides in the debate leads me to believe that that's a very good argument for pursuing the debate by way of committee. I would certainly be more than willing to say, without being too obstreperous about it, that I would love to hear members opposite respond to my argument and show me what's wrong with the logic of that argument. Of course, I do that fairly consistently in this House, and thus far, it pains me to point out, nobody on the other side has responded to any challenge I have presented regarding logic or error.

However, I guess it is true that qui ne dit mot, consent — silence is in fact consent. I guess one has to accept that.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: "A matter of perception," somebody opposite says. Another says: "We don't like to waste time." My friends, I am going to deal with those things that purport to be arguments, and I hope you will listen in, because I want to challenge the assumptions you make and the case implicit in those utterances.

We should have a committee, clearly. There are lots of good reasons for it. We need to put to rest the ghost of Coquihalla. What we need to do, paradoxically, is cover it up. We need to cover up the ghost of Coquihalla; only we need to cover it up by giving it a decent burial, whereby all of us as individuals become confident that the Legislature in fact is doing and has done the job it should, and whereby the government removes the last stain on its escutcheon. We need to give the government an opportunity to demonstrate that it is nearly as squeaky-clean as it loves to pretend. We need to give it that chance. Let us then cover up the Coquihalla, but let us do so first of all by exhurning the body and finding out what really happened and who was responsible for that debacle we are all now paying for.

That's the problem. There is a widespread perception, though members opposite don't want to accept the proposition, that something wrong has happened, that something is wrong and something is also dirty. We have editorials talking about smells, about bad odours.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: If the Minister of Forests and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) is going to presume that I should do some research, I would challenge him to stay in the House for awhile and he may hear some.

If indeed we are confronted with, as I submit we are, a perception of wrong and a perception of dirt, then we have an obligation to right the wrong and to cleanse the dirt; there is no question of that.

I have written and spoken on the Coquihalla a number of times. My involvement was, of course, that shortly after the MacKay commission began having hearings I was given the critic's role in our opposition caucus as Transportation spokesperson, and therefore had to pay attention to what was happening and get involved rather quickly and try to familiarize myself with that background rather quickly.

Accordingly, I have written a number of things, and one of the lines I used.... And I want to make this a starting point for yet another argument in support of having a committee. The title and the theme I used for an argument was that the system must be purged. My reference there was simply to the perception of scandal, the perception of government and the perception, moreover, by, sadly, larger and larger numbers of people: "Not to worry too much about this, friends; it's what politics is really all about. It happens all the time." That perception, I submitted in my arguments and I submit to you today, is incompatible with the fair and full operation and functioning of a democratic system: the perception that politicians are predisposed to be crooked, that governments are out to serve themselves. I suggest to you that the Coquihalla simply encourages that perception. Understandably, we're talking half a billion dollars. We're not talking, I hasten to

[ Page 3420 ]

point out, about somebody necessarily getting rich on the side. We're not talking about whether the highway was good, bad or indifferent. Those things, by the way, may merit some debate at some point. I think people have, perhaps, too cavalierly accepted that everything was rosy and wonderful in those areas, but we're riot talking about that now.

What we're talking about isn't even so much the fact that there was an overrun because, you see, if members opposite had had....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: The Clerk, Madam Speaker, is giving me signals, and I would just inform the Clerk that I am, indeed, designated speaker.

[5:00]

I'm going to have to pause for a moment now. I recognize that that threw me off just a touch, so with your permission, Madam Speaker, I will search briefly. I am arguing that it isn't even necessarily the matter of an overrun of half a billion dollars that is the fundamental issue. I kind of think it is in certain respects, and I also would argue that that is certainly the perception out there. What we're talking about is half a billion bucks and where did they go? Why did they go that way? You guys on the other side want to tell us that "everybody loves the Coquihalla" and "Coke adds life," and all of those kinds of nice vacuous comments that you are prone to make. I want to suggest to you that rather the case is that a whole bunch of people — perhaps, indeed, an increasing number of people — are starting to say: "Well, yeah, but half a billion dollars, when we're talking about hungry schoolchildren and we're talking about a nine-month waiting-list for elective surgery at Nanaimo Regional General Hospital?"

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, they're saying that. You bet they're saying that.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: Isn't it wonderful to discover that with even slight stimulus you can get response. Wait until we get to some real stimulus, Mr. Member, and let us see your reaction, because I promise you I will give you some.

The argument I'm suggesting is that it isn't even the case that we are here complaining and talking primarily about the fact of a half-billion-dollar overrun. You see, if members opposite had had the decency and the temerity and the intelligence to come before this House or to the people and say: "Because we're fast-tracking, because we have decided to add some new bits and pieces, because we have to get this done in time for Expo and are therefore building it at not the best times in terms of weather, that it's going to cost more...." If people on the government side had done that, who knows? Perhaps, indeed, members of the public would have said: "Well, you know, in for this much, maybe in for the whole bunch." The problem is that they didn't do it.

The enormity of half a billion bucks is not — the mind boggles to say — the fact of all that money but the fact that we didn't know about it. Nobody was telling us. Indeed, it was worse: they were misleading us. When we asked questions, the answers we got were not straight. That's the problem. That's what is so frightening about it.

The argument about the system being purged, I think, stands. I think it's a valid one. I think we have an obligation to do what we can. What scares me is that the response to the MacKay commission report by government was effectively to say: "Let bygones be bygones. After all, if you start demanding accountability here, where do you stop? Do you have to go back 20 years, etc. etc.?" All of those other red herrings that frequently come from the other side.... What happened I think is that members opposite decided there was a scandal, and the scandal was fairly well documented in MacKay's report. They were apparently scandalized by that — some of them at least — but what they said was: "We have gone through the ritual purging; in other words, our dirty linen" — if I can mix metaphors — "has been exposed to the public, and we need do no more."

But I want members opposite to recall the crucial point in all of this: namely, that the MacKay commission's terms of reference were very much circumscribed and limited. The telling point made by MacKay in his report, it seems to me — one of the more telling points — is: "We can tell you that a lot was wrong. We can tell you about irregularities. We can use words like 'deceit' and 'prevarication' and 'deliberately misleading,' but our terms of reference preclude our assigning names to the actions." And that's the problem, Madam Speaker: that MacKay's terms of reference were limited to the point where clearly he couldn't do what we then must do. So to argue, even for a moment, that we have already solved the problem because of the MacKay commission report is — I think I'm going to say this just to see if there's any response — fatuous, flaccid, facile and foolish. It just doesn't, quite frankly, hold up.

That's why, when MacKay's report came down, I responded by writing a letter directly to Commissioner MacKay, and I asked the commissioner to please consider expanding the terms of reference. As we all know, that was of course not possible, that was not done. Happily our motion was allowed, to have some opportunity at least to pose the kinds of questions that must be posed.

What I want to introduce for your information here is the fact that when we talked about what MacKay's report had said and what then seemed to be incumbent upon us as legislators — what we should do in response to that report — I had a couple of radio station interviews, and do you know what I heard coming across the airwaves from the open-line talk shows? I heard some hostile kinds of sounds, some pretty ugly stuff. People said: "Do you mean to tell me" — and I'm quoting now — "that half a billion bucks can go that way and nobody's going to be blamed for it? In other words, we're just going to say it disappeared? We had actions, but we didn't have actors? Is that what we're being asked to do? Is that what we're being asked to believe?" I'm talking about the perception out there that I heard — and, I might add, not just from the callers to the open-line shows, but also from the open-line show hosts. Those are folks who aren't necessarily known to be exactly adversarial in the perception of their roles with government, to put the matter graciously.

The point I'm suggesting then — not to belabour it, because I have a lot of points I want to make — is that the system does indeed need to be purged if government is perceived to be carrying on the same games of callous regard for the public, callous regard for the Legislature, spending what it wants and then saying: "What the heck. We made a

[ Page 3421 ]

few mistakes, but let bygones be bygones. After all, it's over, it's done with. Let it all go."

MR. BLENCOE: What's a million?

MR. LOVICK: Yeah, what's a million? What's half a billion? Whatever. Let it go. I'm suggesting, Madam Speaker, that if that perception is indeed alive and well, then clearly we have an obligation to do something to purge the system.

I hope members opposite will note that thus far I am not talking about the Legislature; I am talking about the executive branch of government. But there is another area that also needs purging, and that's the system of the legislative branch, the legislative function of government. That too, it seems to me, requires purging, and I want to argue that it is only we, the politicians, who can do that. Nobody else can. We, the politicians, must defend the integrity of the Legislature and the legislative process. We must do that.

With all due deference to members opposite, I don't think they have quite grappled with that problem. Rather, it strikes me that what is happening is that this is perceived to be nothing more than a little partisan politics in that we're out to get you, we're out to embarrass you, and all of that. That's probably true to some degree, because we are; that's the nature of an adversarial system. Obviously we want your jobs. You don't want ours — that's clear. No question. But you know, there is something more, because if that were all the game was about, let me suggest to you that when the MacKay commission report came down, what we in the opposition could have done very readily was simply to have said, "See, we told you," and accepted the fact that we had won the battle, because there was a paradigm case against a Social Credit government. That's what MacKay presented clearly. It's not even debatable.

We had another opportunity to declare victory and call a halt to the war when the Speaker allowed my colleague's motion of privilege to stand. The very fact that there was, as the Speaker concluded, prima facie evidence to set up a committee to examine whether in fact the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) deliberately misled the House and the facts surrounding.... the very fact that the Speaker did that made history. That is not a small moment. That's a very significant achievement, a triumph for the Legislature. And again we could have said: "Wasn't that wonderful. We've succeeded. We don't need to carry on. The very fact that we have the motion is a victory." We didn't do that, and we didn't do that because — and I say this in all sincerity — we believe there is indeed something at stake here. Certainly I believe there is something at stake here.

What the committee of privilege is about is protecting a branch and a function of government. We're talking about the nature of the legislative branch of government and the role of legislators. I said it seems to me that government, in its own self-interest, ought to be out to purge the system simply because government is so badly perceived, so negatively perceived by so many people; but also we need, I think, to purge the legislative branch. That's certainly the theme that has been taken up by editorial writers. Certainly that's the position of B.C.'s major daily newspaper, which doesn't exactly always attack the government and doesn't too often deal with arcane and esoteric matters like legislative privilege. Let me read you what that paper had to say. I'm quoting from an editorial dated Monday, December 28, when the MacKay commission first came down.

Listen to it. Please don't shake your head, Mr. Member. Listen to the argument, and ask yourself, as a duly elected member of this Legislature, whether you aren't offended by the suggestion. Let me quote to you, and I promise you, if there are too many multi-syllabic words, I'll translate: "The Legislature itself," opines the editorial, "has been greatly offended. It has been circumvented, misled and uninformed on the true story of a public project for which it is responsible in the allocation of funds. The Legislature is dragged into disrepute by this affair. It needs to raise its head and seek the respect it must claim in a democratic society."

MR. RABBITT: Author?

MR. LOVICK: It's a Vancouver Sun editorial, and it's a good editorial.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: No, I don't go straight for the Vancouver Sun, but I will tell the member who made the suggestion that I would be proud to have written that because I think it says, elegantly, eloquently and effectively, precisely what the principle is that we are talking about.

I am not going to quote at great length from a number of different sources, though I could. As a matter of fact, I could probably quote from memory enough to keep me going for a few hours, but I won't. Instead, all I want to do....

MR. RABBITT: Let's hear it.

MR. LOVICK: No, I have some....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I want to thank members opposite, Madam Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to take a drink of water.

[5:15]

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly, for the record, quote another statement — and I think it's an important document — of the same theme, this one different only insofar as it was after the fact of the motion of privilege being introduced. The same theme: namely, the integrity of the Legislature. The same source, by the way: a Vancouver Sun editorial, this one dated Thursday, February 25. I wish members opposite had read this; they might have been moved. But maybe they'll be moved now. Listen to it. I think you'll agree with me that there is something pretty serious at stake here. It says: "The Legislature has been grossly offended in the accounting for the Coquihalla Highway and" — here's the point — "the Legislature itself ought to seek amends." It goes on — and take note, members opposite, because here's what you're grappling with: "...but advance reports suggest that the...government, which was not accused of anything by Mr. MacKay, will try to block" — the committee. That editorialist was sadly prescient, indeed perhaps psychic — he knew what the government was going to do. I say sadly, because that principle is so important, though members opposite clearly aren't prepared to accept that.

[ Page 3422 ]

Madam Speaker, my main reason for arguing at such length — and I know I have gone on for some while on this theme — is because....

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I have other themes, I hasten to point out.

My main reason for arguing that what we need is a cleansing process is simply that what I think is so crucial in the struggle we as legislators — and governments around the world — have is not so much the threat from without, but rather the threat from within. And the threat from within is what I have previously spoken of and called the battle against growing cynicism. If all of you gentlemen opposite — and I see there are only gentlemen here, except for the Speaker — would look about you and above into the galleries, I wonder what all of those people watching your antics right now, watching your cavalier dismissal of privilege and the rights and roles and responsibilities of a legislature, would conclude. I am trying, friends, to give you some information that, sadly, you don't seem capable of gathering on your own.

MR. SIHOTA: Of comprehending.

MR. LOVICK: Of comprehending, perhaps, as my colleague says.

Madam Speaker, the issue, as I say, that I think subsumes and perhaps surrounds this issue is that perception of cynicism, and we as legislators, I think, are derelict and delinquent in our responsibilities if we don't try to fight that perception.

Sadly, I don't see the government making any effort. It seems to me that what we ought to do, all of us in this chamber, is embrace this motion and say that we have nothing to hide; rather, we want to get to the bottom of it. We want to find out what happened. We want to find out who is responsible, so that it will never happen again. That seems to me to be the only response to an allegation of the kind expressed in the MacKay report.

I want to turn now a little bit to arguments from the government side against our motion. I want to be very careful how I say this. Let me start by saying that I have made an effort either to listen to or read every word from the government benches, and I have decided that I would like, in the time allowed me, to look at the arguments that have been enunciated and elucidated, with a view to considering whether they are germane to the question, or whether they provide any kind of evidence that could fairly be construed to be an argument against this motion — the advisability of establishing a committee.

Not to put too fine a point upon it, Madam Speaker, some of the arguments we have heard — and members opposite will know who you are; and I hear one now — have been specious and supremely silly, in a word. They deserve to be treated as such; I propose to treat them as such. Other arguments, it seems to me, are indeed thoughtful. They are honest efforts, perhaps, to grapple with the problem and they are worthy of some more serious consideration. I intend to deal with both sets of arguments, with both kinds of arguments. I want to emphasize that what I'm about to say will be perhaps a little unpopular in spots.

But you know, I don't feel very defensive or a need to be apologetic about the course I'm about to embark upon. Let me tell you why, Madam Speaker. The reason is that I feel moved to fight back, and to fight back hard, against some of the pretty ugly and, frankly, scurrilous remarks that have come from the other side. I feel moved to fight back hard against the arguments, or against the strategy — let me put it that way — of the other side, which is to trivialize this issue; to consciously and deliberately turn their backs on speakers coming from this side of the House; to get up en masse and walk out at one point in the debate, when what we were saying was apparently striking rather too close to home; in short, to do what I would conceive and consider to be in virtual contempt of the Legislature. I therefore make no apology for the comments I am about to make to members opposite for what they have said.

Let me begin, then, with the first of the stars in the firmament. You know, that's an appropriate metaphor, I think, because they began with a tremendous burst of energy. Meteorlike, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) rose in his place and in his own inimitable and ineffable style dazzled us with his bombast and his power. It was wonderful to listen to. The problem was, it didn't have a lot of content that dealt with the motion.

Madam Speaker, the first point made by the Minister of Finance was: "Why are members on the other side concerned about asking for this committee? We have done what you want. You've got the MacKay commission. Isn't that wonderful?"

I can only conclude from that kind of argument, given that it did come from the Minister of Finance, that the Minister of Finance hadn't got even four pages into MacKay's report. Because you only had to read the introduction to MacKay's report to discover that the mandate was limited. MacKay says very clearly that investigation concerning who made the decision, and when, was beyond the mandate of the inquiry. Pretty clearly, that is an argument by MacKay that tells us: "We didn't go far enough. There is lots more we should talk about." It seems the Minister of Finance, however, is convinced that MacKay's report is all that needs to be said on the subject. I wonder, then, about whether the minister has done his homework.

The other argument that the Minister of Finance presented to us was that nobody benefited personally, and he then went on to suggest: "So why is the opposition upset?" I am a little chagrined to discover that a Minister of Finance, a minister of the Crown, doesn't appear to have any greater perception of the worth and the value and the function of the Legislature than that he can actually pose that question. There are other kinds of corruption. You can corrupt a process. In fact, it is now in question as to whether this House has been corrupted in a profound way. For the minister to suggest — and not spontaneously, by the way; he apparently had prepared notes — that, after all, nobody had his or her hand in the till and therefore nobody should be upset is, it seems to me, a sad commentary.

We also get arguments about job creation: Coquihalla was a great job creator. Of course, anything that you spend half a billion or a billion dollars on is a job creator — no question of that. It's irrelevant to the question.

Similarly arguments about safety: we needed to build the highway because of safety, and we have fewer accidents because of it. With all due respect, the only response to those arguments is: so what? That's irrelevant to the motion before us. Unfortunately the minister, either malevolently or as a result of ignorance, it seems to me, chose to carry on in that vein and did nothing else.

[ Page 3423 ]

He also suggested that we're having this debate and we are all here in the Legislature going through this because of headline-grabbing. That's what it was about: headline-grabbing. Let me suggest that the headlines were created by a Social Credit government. The investigation produced the headlines. What we are doing is saying let's find out whether the allegations that have been presented are as serious and as substantiated as we think they are. Somebody else created the headlines. Through you, Madam Speaker, I would put it this way: you guys created the headlines, not us.

The other argument that the Minister of Finance made quite a point of addressing was that somehow my colleagues and I were.... I'm trying to think of the right terminology, because the minister's language was quite strong at the time. He was suggesting we had done something that was really quite wrong, because we had omitted to consider in our submission the late submission via a letter from the acting auditor-general, Mr. Hayward. The argument presented by the Minister of Finance was, of course, that the Hayward letter changed everything. Well, we've already begun to see the kinds of pressure that has been and must be put on that letter, that entire correspondence. What one concludes from all of that is that it in no way effectively repudiated or undermined the case we had presented. The minister suggested that if we looked at that — three lines in a three-page letter — then we would have used it. My colleague looked at that letter and said: "So what? It doesn't matter" — I agree with his conclusion, by the way — and therefore we didn't. Unfortunately, as I say, the Minister of Finance accused us of some kind of effort to mislead the House and some kind of ignoring of evidence. That is simply reprehensible, uncalled for and certainly unsupported by any evidence.

As well, we got an argument about my colleague, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), and what was alleged to have been his attack on the Speaker. We were accused of attacking the Speaker, the auditor-general's office and the auditor-general because of the comments we had made thus far. I want to just clarify as clearly and crisply as I might that we have never said anything to impugn the integrity or the motive of either the Speaker or the auditor-general. What we have done is present arguments to suggest that those arguments are not necessarily convincing and persuasive. To ask us to do anything otherwise is to suggest that there will be no debate about substance, that we cannot talk about substantive issues. Again, I'm suggesting that the argument presented to us by the Minister of Finance doesn't hold much water and doesn't bear much consideration.

[5:30]

Finally, I want to touch briefly on the great outburst of righteous indignation on the part of the Minister of Finance, who was concerned that what we on this side of the House were doing was attacking a man who had provided good service to this House. He drew to our attention the long service record of that individual and said implicitly that we were somehow to be ashamed of discussing what we did, because that individual had done good things in the past which all of us can admire and appreciate.

That, quite frankly, is the cheapest and most tawdry.... I'm searching for other words, but I have to be careful, given where we are, Madam Speaker. That is a crass, craven and blatant appeal to sentimentality, to cheap tricks that, quite frankly, shouldn't he allowed in this chamber. It is so totally and entirely irrelevant to the issue before us that it ought to be left out of the chamber. Sadly, none of us dares laugh because none of us wants to be perceived as heartless, cruel, unfeeling, and because all of us want indeed to recognize that the first member for Cariboo has made a tremendous contribution, by his own best lights, to this province. Nobody's arguing that; nobody's ever said that. For the Minister of Finance to suggest that what we were doing really was nothing more than an attack on this individual and was not acknowledging the fact that he had performed good service in the past.... I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I find that, quite frankly, despicable.

I want to turn now to another defence, so-called, of government, another reason alleged why this committee should not be allowed. The argument was presented by a former Minister of Highways, a gentleman with whom I had the privilege of some contact and by whom I was always well treated. He was a conscientious minister during his term, but what he did was give us some arguments that I think, with all due respect — because I don't think they are malevolent — don't really constitute evidence at all. What the minister did of course was to suggest — and I'll get to the conclusion of his argument — that we the opposition were really to blame for the predicament we were in with the Coquihalla, because we didn't draw the government's attention to it as quickly as we ought to have.

There's an old technique in argument when one is losing and taking a beating to simply start name-calling the person who is attacking, except that in this case the former Minister of Highways went even one better. Not only did he turn the proposition around and start calling us names, but what he suggested by his comment was: "You bet there was incompetence; no question there was incompetence, but you guys let us down because you didn't tell the world we were incompetent." That's what that argument cashed out to mean. Again, I don't think there is anything malevolent there; I think it's just faulty reasoning.

I'm also a little concerned — and here I am going to be less kind — because my honourable friend, the former Minister of Highways, also suggested something pretty nasty, namely that we responded to the Coquihalla only insofar as the Great Bear snowshed was concerned because, in fact, we were getting our orders from somebody else. This was, in fact, the B.C. Federation of Labour's campaign, and we were some kind of stalking-horse for the B.C. Fed.

MR. MICHAEL: Not the B.C. Fed.

MR. LOVICK: The member says, "not the B.C. Fed." I don't doubt he is correct. He did, however, make reference to organized labour and our friends within organized labour. I see he is agreeing with that. I will clarify for the record that his reference is to labour.

However, the point remains that it's a little off the subject to say that. It also is a technique, obviously, to call into question the credibility of the witness — not to argue the case, not to suggest that here's what's wrong with your motion, and here's why we shouldn't have a committee, but rather: "Well, those people aren't very nice, so you shouldn't listen to them."

The argument is also a little bit more sinister than that, because what it suggested we did and we were doing was only taking our duties as legislators seriously because somebody gave us particular instructions. I find that offensive, and I

[ Page 3424 ]

think my colleagues on this side of the House find it offensive. More to the point, though, is that what that allegation does is ignore some pretty brief history.

We responded to concerns. We were given information that there was a problem. We therefore investigated that problem as members opposite would do. We did our duty, and we brought questions to the Legislature accordingly. That's not because of our so-called relationship with labour; that's a response to the evidence brought before us; that's called doing your legislative duty. I am surprised that the minister would try to make something more of that. I am disappointed he would try to make something more of it than that.

I now want, apropos.... It seems the House Leader on the other side has spoken, and I clearly want to touch base with some of his observations and alleged arguments against the motion to establish a committee. He accuses us of political voyeurism. You know, it's awfully difficult to respond to that kind of statement with equanimity and without passionate indignation. I'm sure that the hon. member opposite wasn't suggesting that we on this side were kinky or any such thing. Rather, I think, more is the pity, he actually believed it. I think he actually believed that what we on this side of the Legislature were doing was simply engaging in some games for political points — and nothing more.

Of course, what I've tried to do thus far is point out what those things called principles are, what the nature of the legislative branch is, what the function of the Legislative Assembly is, what we as legislators ought to do. That was my point. I've been doing that now for at least 40 minutes — I think I've spent that on those areas.

Instead, he suggests that what we're doing is simply engaging in some kind of cheap politics. All I can say to the government House Leader, as he is fond of being literary — he doesn't quote very well, but he quotes.... Just in passing, let me, for the record, tell the government House Leader that the line he wanted the other night — and I didn't want to interrupt him — is not, "Methinks she doth protest too much," but rather: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." It's from Hamlet, the member might like to know.

What I want to quote him is not that kind of quibble.

That's for the sake of art and culture and all that. Rather, what I want to quote him is a line that I think he would do well to remember because.... It's two lines, actually, that explain his behaviour and his allegation of political voyeurism. The lines come from Alexander Pope, a great eighteenth century writer, who said — are you ready, Mr. Government House Leader? This is your chance to double your total knowledge of literature; I'm giving you two new lines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Condescending.

MR. LOVICK: Well, it is condescending, but it's only condescending, Mr. Minister, because you guys don't even have the decency to listen at any time. The line is, and it's good:

All seems infected that th' infected spy.
As all looks yellow to the jaundic'd eye.

That, I would suggest, perhaps explains the minister's response. Perhaps the minister's response to the political realm, to the legislative realm, is to see it as nothing more than one-upmanship or gamesmanship.

Well, I don't want to be unkind, but I must respond to a couple of other comments. The minister says — I think I can quote him: "What we're trying to do is to catch up with public opinion." We are going through this process, Madam Speaker, because we are trying to catch up with public opinion. I'll just remind members opposite of what they know as well as I: our job is to respond to public opinion; if public opinion is the result of misinformation, to correct that opinion. If it's information we disagree with, we ought to present the reasons for our disagreement, and if it's information that we agree with, then we ought to explain why that is the case. But to pretend for a moment that government's job is in any way to function irrespective of public opinion, it seems to me quite unacceptable and, frankly, foolish.

I don't know beyond that whether the minister had any other point in making that point, or whether he was simply suggesting that we are just taking advantage of the rather bad perception in which this government is now held. If that's the case, we plead guilty to the charge.

Again, Madam Speaker, I don't want to dwell any longer on that member. I'm going to turn to another. I approach this one with some trepidation. I'm referring now to the first member for Cariboo.

The member said that he consciously, in his mind, made no deliberate effort to mislead the House. I accept that he believed that, because I think he is an honourable man. I don't challenge that. The question, though, is not whether he intended to, but whether what he did was mislead, because perhaps he didn't have all the information or all the correct information. Perhaps that's the case. Perhaps he wasn't kept as informed as he ought to have been. Perhaps in fact he could have made the error and in all honesty and all sincerity said, "I did not set out to deliberately mislead," but may still have done so. So I'm not challenging what he said, but I'm saying that perhaps what he said is not borne out by the facts. I think that's fair. I think that's a legitimate conclusion to draw.

[5:45]

There is, remember, prima facie evidence to support the motion. We know that prima facie evidence isn't conclusive evidence, but nevertheless there is evidence prima facie — on the face of it — to suggest that the member did indeed deliberately mislead the House. That conclusion was brought forward by the Speaker, based on the examination of the evidence we've presented. We have, then, an obligation to pursue the matter. We had no choice in the matter.

I also note — and I'm quoting now from the Blues, Wednesday, March 9, when the hon. member spoke — that his final statement was: "I have the highest respect for this institution and its members." So do I, Madam Speaker, and that's why we're having this debate. That's why we're having this motion. That's why we want the committee. I would argue to the first member for Cariboo that given his long reputation in this House, given that long — record of good service, he — it seems to me — would want a committee, because he would not want there to be any suggestion of a blot on his record. I'm surprised, frankly, that he hasn't come to that conclusion. It seems to me, then, that his arguments would support the conclusion that we ought to have a committee of privilege.

Let me touch briefly on the submission of my friend the current Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I don't say any of this with malevolence, because I think that probably he was called upon to offer some arguments allegedly, ostensibly, in support of the government's position to speak against the motion, and didn't have any, it seems, and therefore came up with some other arguments. The other arguments are

[ Page 3425 ]

essentially three. No. 1 is that the scope and the scale of the project, the "magnitude of the project," to use the minister's words, were sufficient justification for an overrun. Maybe he's right. But the scope and the scale and the magnitude of the project have absolutely nothing to do with the issue that we are debating, which is whether the House was misled. That's the issue. It's absolutely irrelevant to talk about the scope and the scale and say that those perhaps resulted in the overruns. As I said earlier, if the government of an earlier day had argued the case with, "Yes, we can't complete this project without significant overruns; we therefore want legislative approval to do so," they may have got it. There may not have even been a fight back on that subject. The problem is that the overruns occurred and then we heard the news of those overruns.

Similarly, the minister tells us about the heroic efforts of the highways workers in building the Coquihalla and what a marvellous engineering feat it was. Sure; no question. But whatever does that have to do with the question of privilege? Whatever does that have to do with whether we were misled or not? Nobody is arguing that the highway is not an engineering achievement of some great scope and we can’t all look to it with some pride — perhaps; there is probably some debate on that, but I think, broadly considered, most of us will accept that. But that is entirely beyond and beside the point of this debate.

The other argument was, of course, the problem with fast-tracking the Minister of Highways alluded to: "Sure, we got overruns because we decided we were going to get it done in time for Expo." But again, Madam Speaker, the only argument....

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'm watching closely, because I see the Speaker has now transmogrified and is Mr. Speaker, and I will therefore be very careful in my remarks. The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, is just that we don't dispute for a moment that the problem was with fast-tracking and that inevitably that will produce other costs. However, the issue is that we ought to have had the information that it was going to cost more because of those initiatives. And if we'd had a debate on that subject, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we on this side would have said: "All right, we're persuaded by the government's case that it should be fast-tracked, even if it's going to mean that there are additional costs.

Well, sadly, I come to the end of most of those speakers who made an honest effort to deal with the arguments. I note that the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) rises with some alacrity, and I'm sure is delighted to note that he has not taken part in this debate.

I want to refer to the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch). He begins with what we'll call a frontal assault on the problem. Instead of saying: "Well, gee, maybe this House will not be well served by having a committee, Mr. Speaker. Maybe there are all kinds of good reasons...." What he says is words to this effect: "There is no coverup." In other words, somebody apparently made it up. There has been a tremendous investigation, and we get a clean bill of health.

As one who has some training in reading and analysis and who has spent a little time examining the written record, I thought: "Is it possible that one can read this thing and discover that there are in fact two diametrically opposed responses?" The only conclusion I can come to in all fairness, then, is that the member was really trying to use an approach of bombast, manifesting considerable chutzpah. That, by the way, is my first use of a Yiddish word, and I think it's a nice word: it has a nice ring to it.

Instead, all I can assume is that this was some kind of ploy, some kind of dramatic urge being fulfilled by the member, because, clearly, you can't make that claim based on evidence. You simply can't do that. You can't say in any rational universe that black is white and white is black. I'm sorry, some things are true, members opposite, and not even you — despite your considerable majority — can get away with rewriting history. You can't do it. There was indeed a coverup. It's there; it's evidence; it's prima facie evidence, if that helps matters. Instead, the member says to us that we in the opposition are just being — get this — vindictive. We're being cruel, somehow.

The question, of course, is: "Wait a minute. What constitutes cruelty?" Is the converse of the proposition — to put it in those terms — that one should do something else in response to a demonstrated case of negligence, of deceit, of prevarication, of overspending, of coverup? Is one supposed to say: "Well, what the heck, we're all friends. I mean, that's the way government is: we're all pals. So for heaven's sake, we won't say anything"? I How can one possibly make that argument, that because we are doing our duty on this side of the House — just as members opposite should and, I hope, would, do their duty in comparable circumstances — we're being vindictive? Good heavens! That doesn't compute, to use a line.

That member also tried to use that great line: that what we were doing was attacking the auditor-general. Horrors! The reality is, Mr. Speaker, we have not impugned the motives of the auditor-general. Some may be tempted to: I've heard that. But we have not done so. Rather, we have responded to the case presented, and we have argued that there is in fact something in that case that at least merits a response and debate. I don't think we need to be apologetic for that. I think, rather, that's our duty: to point out what we perceive to be an erroneous construction of events, an erroneous conclusion.

The other argument from the member — who, I understand, is indeed an accountant by profession — was that there should be nothing to worry about here because, to use his terms, there were no excessive payments. In other words, because we didn't find anybody who apparently got overpaid for work he or she was doing, we shouldn't worry. Again, all I can say to my friend the accountant, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, is that there are some other rules and notions of what is right and proper that you ought to familiarize yourself with. There is something called the propriety of this chamber. There are rules by which government ought to operate, rules by which this chamber ought to operate.

To suggest that the only kind of sin imaginable is that somebody could actually be getting unfairly and unjustifiably rich in the process seems to me to miss the entire point of what this debate is about, with all due respect to my friend the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

I can't resist ere I leave the member for Burnaby-Willingdon....

MR. WILLIAMS: Edmonds.

[ Page 3426 ]

MR. LOVICK: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I've been making that mistake. Is it the member for Burnaby-Edmonds?

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, the accountant.

MR. LOVICK: The other part of the presentation made is something everybody is familiar with: an argument ad hominem, an attack against the individual rather than the case. You know, the kinds of statements being made to my friend and colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew about his rather sinister motives and what a vicious person he was and how he was out to besmirch his reputation and all those things.... I thought, Mr. Speaker, that if this carries on much longer the next thing we're going to be told is that he is darkly satanic or some such thing. The question, again, is: what does his particular character or personality have to do with the debate? The answer, of course, logically, is nothing.

However, by those people who argue the case, we are told we are going beyond the bounds. My heavens, what an irony! We are going beyond the bounds, say the people responsible for half a billion bucks of public money spent without public approval. And they are talking to us about going beyond the bounds! The irony is indeed mind-boggling.

We come now to my hon. friend the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt). The member for Yale-Lillooet will be happy to know that he has acquired a certain fame and notoriety. Indeed it is my pleasure to inform that member that somebody in the press with considerable experience said: "Hey, that was a pretty good speech made by the member for Yale-Lillooet." I feel it appropriate to share that with the member, because I know he is unused to those kinds of comments. When pressed and pushed about what constitutes "good," the reporter said: "Well, he really attacked you guys." I thought: "That's true. He did attack."

Let's consider how he attacked us. Let's look at the goodness of that speech, Mr. Speaker. He began by taking us to the great testimonial for his friend, understandable in human terms, and by making a declaration: "I'll defend that member's honour and integrity." I thought that was pretty nice. Of course, members opposite all broke into their usual outpouring of applause. They so seldom have occasion to, I guess they grab the chance.

[6:00]

They applauded. And what suddenly struck me as I listened to the member is: why is he telling us that? What's his reason? What's his motive? Have people on this side of the House been saying something other?

MR. SPEAKER: I see it's 6 o'clock, and I understand the member is going to move a motion.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I gave you a note, Dale.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, I'm sorry. Is it my role, then, to simply move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Until later today.

MR. LOVICK: Oh, I'm sorry. Until later today. Thank you, Mr. House Leader.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by agreement I move that this sitting be extended until 10 o'clock this evening, unless otherwise ordered.

I now move a recess to 6:05.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Two votes. That was on the first. Second motion.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 6:02 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:07 p.m.

MR. LOVICK: I was having a little fun, and I heard somebody opposite — I believe it was the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) — say that I was being condescending at one point. I recognize that that perception is a legitimate response on occasion, but I would just remind the minister that, after all, what we do in this chamber is supercharged and very special. Inevitably, therefore, we engage in a kind of theatre. If I have opportunities to provoke members opposite by a particular choice of phrase, I will do so, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

In any event, I wanted to just say a few other things about the member for Yale-Lillooet's references to our attacks on the first member for Cariboo, suggesting that we were being unkind because, after all, the minister wasn't — get this — 11 even there to defend himself." Well, the point of fact is that we can only debate in the House for the time allotted to us, and it is not always going to be the case that members opposite are going to be able to sit in the House — certainly not that member, who was not feeling well. To suggest that we were somehow being unkind or unprincipled by talking about this motion when the member was not there to defend himself is absolutely silly. It's entirely unfair; its entirely unsupportable by any kind of logical construction.

We also had the reference again to our attacks on the Speaker and the auditor-general. I want to repeat again, because it is important to me and to all of my colleagues, that we are not attacking the integrity of those individuals. We're not suggesting their motives are somehow wicked or any such thing. We are rather saying that the cases presented can be evaluated and examined, and we suggest that there are other constructions that one can put on the evidence. I'm sure that any reasonable person will accept that that is a fair and legitimate argument.

The member for Yale-Lillooet also wants to suggest that this is all a devious plot, that we're simply Machiavellian, that what we're doing here really has another agenda. There's another agenda out there somewhere. You know, the obvious question to pose to that member is: why could we possibly need another agenda, given that the one the government has given us is so marvellous? The government created a monumental scandal. From the point of view of crass politics, we couldn't ask for better ammunition. The conclusion is that we don't need any other agenda; you gave it to us. You gave us a good one. You gave the people of the province a good one.

The other notions, or arguments, that have now become pretty depressingly regular from the other side — none of them yet, notice, germane to the topic; none of them yet really answering any of the concerns about whether we ought

[ Page 3427 ]

to have a committee.... There was the notion that what we were doing was simply stirring the muck.

Well, I remember vividly, from a little history, that there were some who said that people were just mucksters. Those who pointed out wrongs, illegalities and corruption were called muckrakers. I know a little bit about history, enough to know that the muckrakers were the reason for a tremendous amount of good legislation. I know, for example, that a muckraker novelist in the United States once wrote a book called The Jungle, which was an expose of criminality and deceit and crookedness in the meat-packing industry in Chicago. What that did was produce within two years the first pure food and drug act in the United States. So though the member opposite will have difficulty understanding, I want him to know that I feel proud to be part of what is called a muckraking tradition. Indeed, I would argue that the muckraking tradition is part of opposition's function. So we accept the charge.

The other argument we got — and I see the member for Powell River looking anxiously on....

MR. LONG: Mackenzie. Mackenzie's the word.

MR. LOVICK: Mackenzie–Powell River. Powell River–Mackenzie. Mackenzie.

Is that what we who are arguing for this committee should do — go out and tell the people of the region that the Coquihalla is a bad thing? Again one has to ask the question: why would that possibly be suggested? Why would that possibly be presented to the floor of this Legislature? What does that have to do with the issue we are discussing? The answer, of course, is that it has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing.

I'm not going to deal with the member who is not part of government any longer. Instead I'll deal just with government. We also got from my very good friend the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa) an interesting argument, an argument that I know was not malevolent but which frankly did not touch on the issues we are debating. The argument was that we who were raising this issue, we who were debating, were in fact a bunch of city slickers and we didn't have any appreciation for roads and transportation in the interior of the province. Because the first member for Okanagan South has always graciously accepted arguments and explanations that I have provided, I want to give him another. I want to tell him about something called the romantic fallacy.

It is very true that you don't have to be involved in something to understand it. It is actually possible to read books about particular subjects and to become an expert on the subject, in the same way that one can be an authority on suicide without ever jumping out of a window. I want to say as kindly as I can to the member that what he was suggesting, of course, was that the only people who could ever talk about the Coquihalla were those who had actually walked every inch of it, or some such twaddle. That's clearly not the case, and I'm sure the member will go and sin no more, as it were.

[6:15]

On a somewhat more serious note — and I think it is a serious argument that needs to be addressed — he said that large numbers of people in this province have no sense or appreciation of highways in rural areas and their importance. I suggest to the member that that is simply not true. I would argue that in terms of being able to visit an area, being able to examine transportation as a subject, I don't think it matters a great deal where somebody lives or what one's own experiences are; I think a basic transportation understanding is all that's requisite. If you look at a map and discover that you live in mountainous terrain, and there is a 200-mile stretch — or 350-km stretch — between places. I don't think you have to say: "I'd better have walked through that area and I'd better have lived that experience so I can then say something about the need for highways, and in order to understand transportation systems."

I visited the centre for transportation studies at the University of B.C. last week and looked at various authors and talked to various experts, and I suspect that most of those people who are the experts — also most of the people who are the experts within the Ministry of Highways — aren't folks who necessarily live in those areas. In short, you don't have to live in the rural areas to talk about the importance of highways in rural areas. It's just that simple.

Just a couple more, Mr. Speaker, because I think I'm making my point — I hope. I believe the second member for Okanagan South (Mr. Chalmers).... Putting it delicately, what we heard was a rant, a rave. We heard the forces of darkness being assailed. The member began by saying he could not rise with pleasure because this was a sad day for the Legislature, or words to that effect.

I hope the second member for Okanagan South will listen to the first 45 minutes of my remarks so that he will know that rightly understood it is a proud day for this Legislature: it is an opportunity for this Legislature to seize in its own hands the control that was apparently taken away from it because of the actions on the Coquihalla Highway, in which effective control of the public purse, as MacKay said, was taken from the Legislature. Every member of this House, it seems clear to me, ought to recognize that all of us have an obligation to ensure that that never happens again. We should be proud to be part of a debate and to be witnesses to a ruling that sets out to restore the rights of the legislative branch of this government. I think, Mr. Member, your conclusion is entirely wrong, with all due deference.

The other comments made by the member, I am afraid, were made by others. I have dealt with the others, so I shall not belabour that point. I want just to touch, albeit briefly, on the line given by the other member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) as he did a kind of Alice in Wonderland: "Reality is what I say reality is. If I take out my pocket calculator, and I factor in inflation stuff, do you know what happens, friends? We don't really have an overrun."

MR. SIHOTA: No, it disappears.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, isn't it wonderful? So the conclusion, of course, is: isn't inflation magnificent, because it solved the problem. What a marvellous argument!

MR. WILLIAMS: It wipes out all the mistakes.

MR. LOVICK: Let me suggest to the member that if he wants a job, go and talk to the federal government, because you could solve their deficit problems overnight with your ability to reason. That would do it. You could do it; it's a piece of cake. You could devalue the deficit by 25 percent and say: "That's inflation." It's a marvellous argument, wonderful — genius.

The line I can't resist offering to my friend from Cariboo is that when he says there is no overrun, we all ought to be

[ Page 3428 ]

thankful for him because he provides us with a paradigm case — a perfect illustration of what the financial adviser to the Ministry of Highways once said; namely, that the statement was out of context with reality. We thank him for that.

I'm going to wrap up my remarks here when I can find the third part of my notes. I want to touch very briefly on what I think is, frankly, the serious dimension here that doesn't have any partisan advantage or dimension to it. I certainly understand that my comments thus far have had that edge to them. I want to talk briefly about the auditor-general's opinions, simply because they are clearly pivotal; they are clearly the hinge, if you like, on which everything hangs.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I am treading on dangerous ground in doing so, because clearly when I talk about the auditor-general's ruling I am also implicitly talking about your ruling. I want to stress as effectively as I am able that I am not intending to impugn the integrity or the impartiality of the auditor-general, nor am I intending to impugn your integrity or impartiality.

Rather, I am considering the case as carefully as I can and, Mr. Speaker, I am guided by your ruling in this. I want to quote you to yourself, if I might. On page 3220 of Hansard dated March 1, 1988, in discussing Mr. MacKay's report's conclusions and disagreeing with those conclusions, you say, Mr. Speaker: "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."

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that nothing I say about the auditor-general's remarks or your remarks implicitly is "in any way intended to be by way of criticism or adverse reflection" upon you. That's the spirit of my remarks; that's the context in which I am working, and that's the context in which we in this opposition have been working. I think we have tried to address our remarks to the substance. It certainly is the point, sadly, that members opposite do not seem willing or able to comprehend. Rather, they see us as having ulterior and somehow insidious motives.

I would argue that one of the most compelling arguments for having a committee of privilege is that we can deal with what has proven to be the most debatable and difficult part of this discussion; namely, the auditor-general's opinion. If we had such a committee, Mr. Speaker, we could ask the acting auditor-general to appear before it. We could ask the current auditor-general to appear before it. We could examine that report. And members such as I, who look at the report and have considerable difficulty with it, could say: "I am sorry. With all due respect, Mr. Auditor-General, I do not think that's a logical argument. Please show me the error of my ways." Mr. Speaker, if we had such a committee, we could do that. I think that is a very good reason for having a committee.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sit down and do everybody a favour.

MR. LOVICK: The Minister of Education has appeared. As is typical, it has taken him a grand total of 1.6 minutes in the chamber before he feels competent and qualified to speak. Clearly, his remarks demonstrate the shortness of the time he has graced us with his presence. However, because I am at the end of my remarks, I am not going to proceed further.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I know I have more time, but what my colleagues and I are trying to do is to present what we think are good and compelling reasons for having a committee of privilege. As the Deputy Speaker said the other day, this is not the place to have the substantive debate, and he cautioned members not to try to present....

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: You're attacking your colleague the Deputy Speaker, who is sitting behind you, are you?

As he cautioned us the other day: "Don't try to have the whole debate here; rather the debate in this House is about the advisability." I agree with him. I think there is pretty clearly a case to be made for having the committee. I haven't heard any arguments from the other side that would lead me to believe there are good, credible reasons against the committee. I would dearly hope we might yet hear some, despite the fact the government has apparently decided to take a vow of silence.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew. I advise the House that the member, since he put the motion, closes debate.

MR. SIHOTA: The members opposite have been speechless for some time. I'd be surprised if they want to speak now.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in this province that we've had a debate of this nature. I hope it's the last time that we see the type of contemptuous, arrogant and often, quite frankly, repugnant attitude from members opposite. I want to say that what I find the most offensive thing about the debate that took place is the actions of the Premier. When it was announced, through the vehicle of the Speaker's decision, that there would be a debate, the Premier was asked — and I was there; it was just outside of here during a scrum — if he would support the NDP request to establish a committee of the Legislature to investigate these allegations. Do you know what he said? I heard him. He said: "Well, we'll consider what the NDP has to say, and vote accordingly." What I find of particular repugnancy — if there is such a word — is that that man, and I timed him — sat through 26 minutes of this debate, that's it; and 20 of it was when the first member for Cariboo was speaking. So for six minutes he "considered" what the opposition had to say.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

He said he would consider. Worse still, he did not have the courage to walk in here and speak on this motion. Just like we saw in Bill 19: the total absence of any courage; the absolute desire on his part to ignore what our democratic traditions are all about, to pay no heed at all to the importance of this chamber; to play the games of public relations that go on out there; and then to walk away. Just to walk away. Open government, my foot! Who was he trying to kid?

[6:30]

I find that offensive, and believe you me, I could probably search for stronger language to describe his actions. But no, he didn't see any need to come in here and defend the first member for Cariboo. He didn't see any need to come in here

[ Page 3429 ]

and defend his government's record. No, he chose to remain silent on the matter. I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, as far as we're concerned he will be answering some questions on this issue, and we will be posing questions to him later on.

The debate, of course, is now winding up. We now know that members opposite — and particularly the Social Credit caucus as a whole — have chosen not to "consider" what was being said in here; but they made the decision in advance in terms of what they were going to say and how they were going to handle this debate. It became very clear as soon as we started to hear the minister — as I call him — of huff and puff, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), who blew through here in a 30-minute tornado blast, made all sorts of comments that were totally irrelevant, and engaged in a series of personal attacks which I found....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't like to interrupt your closing remarks, but on two occasions now it appears that, rather than speaking to the motion that's before us, you've chosen to mount what almost appears to be a personal attack against, first of all, the Premier, and now the Minister of Finance. I would ask that you just moderate what you have to say and continue to speak on closing the motion that's before us.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now when you consider what he had to say.... Just think about it. He took attacks at the NDP, he took attacks at myself, and he pretended that there was no coverup; that there was no budget overrun; that the MacKay commission had not done its job properly. To support his case, he relied upon a document which coincidentally had appeared in this chamber on Monday — the report of the auditor-general — supposedly to bolster the letter of the acting auditor-general. I've had an opportunity to take a look at the case presented by the auditor-general, and in my submission that report supports the case on this side of the House as opposed to the other side of the House, if you think about it.

Before I get into that, let me also say this: the minister and the members opposite chose to rely on a report to support their case which had not been given under oath and, more importantly, had not been subject to cross-examination. Whereas, on the other hand, we have the MacKay commission where all of the evidence was given under oath; where everything was subject to cross-examination; and somehow the government would like to believe — and I emphasize those words — that the report of the auditor-general in some way outweighs the report of the MacKay commission when trying to determine exactly what transpired on the Coquihalla.

I want to say that there will be opportunities that we will be taking advantage of to cross-examine the auditor-general on his report. I say that report crumbles, Mr. Speaker, on its own foundation. It had two pillars to it: one supposedly a list that was circulated in the Legislature. That's the first pillar. Well, the auditor-general has already admitted that that list was not circulated at the time the matter was debated in the House. But far more importantly, the auditor-general conveniently overlooked the evidence of the MacKay commission, when one of the people who was involved in the drafting of that list from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways said: "I say under oath, and I say subject to cross-examination, that that list was out of context with reality." So he overlooked the fact that (1) the list was never circulated and (2) the list was out of context with reality. We know as a fact that that list contained misleading, false, inaccurate information — and purposely so. Gone is the first pillar.

Then you have a second pillar, the pillar of debate. One can extract the intention of the Legislature because of what was said in the confines of this chamber. But the auditor-general didn't even take the time to read what was said in Hansard. Hansard reveals that on March 26, 1986, Mr. Lockstead, the former member for Mackenzie, stood up in this House and asked the first member for Cariboo how much of this $118.8 million related to the Coquihalla, and the answer came back: "None of it applies to the Coquihalla." Somehow the auditor-general overlooked that; and somehow he is saying — and members opposite have been saying it as well — that the opposition didn't do its job. What are we supposed to do? We ask a question. We get an answer. The minister says none of it applies. Are we supposed to say, "No, we don't believe what the minister is saying," and go on?

That's not the way this system works. That's not how British parliamentary democracy is supposed to work in this type of setting. Does the auditor-general not understand that? One would almost think — luckily, I would say, he's not, because I know the gentleman — that he's on the same plane as the Premier, who doesn't seem to understand the democratic traditions here in this parliament. So the second pillar of the auditor-general's report crumbles as well — if one had taken the opportunity to examine what transpired in the Legislature.

If the bulk of the government's case is based upon that faulty report — and I know some of you have already quoted me as saying that the letter of opinion from Mr. Hayward was Swiss cheese; I'd hate to try to describe this in a different fashion — then I would suggest that the government's case also crumbles on the basis of that very same foundation. Certainly, to rest it on the basis of the auditor-general's report is, in my view, a wholly inadequate defence.

I listened with some care to what the first member for Cariboo had to say. It was a speech I think none of us will ever forget. That's fairly said. On the other hand, it did not provide any insight into the matter of Coquihalla overruns. The issue over the course of this entire debate we were supposed to have was not whether the Coquihalla is a good highway or a bad highway. That was never the issue. But a whole series of members opposite, particularly those whose ridings sit along the route, were quick to try to defuse the issue, to try to confuse the issue into a matter of support or lack of support for the Coquihalla. We made it very clear during debate on the Coquihalla acceleration act — and I would ask those members to take a look at that debate — where we stood on the matter of the Coquihalla. We supported that bill. That's not the issue. The issue is not whether the highway is a good highway or a bad highway. The issue is: why was the public lied to and misled as to the amount of money expended on that highway? That's the issue. I must say, and I say with a great deal of regret, that the remarks made by the first member for Cariboo did not deal with that issue.

You have to wonder what system of administration and planning the Social Credit regime has set up in this province when they don't factor in inflation, when they rely on cost estimates that were provided ten years before the highway was built, when they don't go over the highway and consider some of the additional problems that would arise. What does that say about the level of competence?

[ Page 3430 ]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you why the public was deceived. I want to flash back to something that just excites the members opposite: the experience of this party in power between 1972 and 1975. The Social Credit Party have tried to pass themselves off since then as the people best able to manage the finances of this province — business people, prudent financial managers, responsible guardians of the taxpayer.

MR. LOVICK: Not nice, but capable.

MR. SIHOTA: Not nice, but capable: that's the image they've tried to portray in this province. I concede they've done it with some success — '75, '79, and again in '83. All the lines about not being able to run a hot dog stand.

In July 1983 — I remember, because I was one of them — 25,000 people were out by the steps of the Legislature. Thousands of people across the province took to the streets to protest the government's restraint policies. People were offended by the cutbacks in social services, in education, in health care; the fact that there would be no more hospitals, that there'd be no more funding for people to watch kids cross streets; the demands that were placed upon municipalities; the absence of programs for low-income people; the cancellation of housing programs for low-income people.

People protested against that, and at the same time this government, the Social Credit government, was building a highway, quietly, through the snow. You know, it started to cost more than they thought it was going to: $100 million more, $200 million more, $300 million more, $400 million more, $500 million more than expected. As my good friend the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said earlier in debate, it would take 69 years to count that money, eight hours a day.

And these people have the gall to say that we can't ran a hot dog stand? These people have the gall to say that they are prudent financial managers? These people have the gall to say that they're responsible guardians of taxpayers' dollars? What gall! How dare they pass themselves off in that way! I've often said that someone perpetrated a fraud with respect to expenditures on the Coquihalla, but perhaps I'm more accurate in saying that in their salesmanship of their image the Social Credit Party has been perpetrating a fraud on the people of British Columbia. Record deficits, $20 billion dollars of debt, Crown corporations in debt.

I don't see the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) or the second member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Huberts) here, nor the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). But the people of Vancouver Island, if you read the Coquihalla documentation, had their ferry rates raised so that government could gather funds for the Coquihalla. Think about that. We're still paying for it today, a $10 million loan.

[6:45]

I want to say that under no circumstances will this debate die tonight. There is a fire in our belly, which will allow us and which will drive us to take this issue across the province day in and day out between now and the next election. And Mr. Speaker, each one of them will be exposed for their contemptuous attitude, for the fraud that they tried to perpetrate. I'm telling you right now that these speeches — like the type we heard from the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) — will be quoted over and over again in the province to highlight the extent of financial and economic incompetence on the part of the Social Credit Party. And there will be more.

We've already seen the level of contempt that this party and this administration have for tax dollars. We saw it on the $8 million on decentralization: "Immediate and urgent. We need it now, so let's get it. How are we going to draft it up, fellas, to get it? Well, special warrants. Let's do it again. We did it for the Coquihalla."

I've noticed since then that the wording on those special warrants has changed. Why is that? We all know why. We saw what came out in the special warrants. We know the differences between the one that came out in October and the ones we're seeing now, like the one in January. Well, we're going to make sure that that type of contemptuous attitude comes to an end.

The other thing that we're going to be doing, apart from taking these speeches around the province and quoting from them, the great mathematics of inflation, is going around this province and telling people about the coverup on the part of this administration, about how it was that these people, this party, chose to vote against a motion that would allow for a proper inquiry into the matter, about what I said earlier on, the 26 minutes of consideration that the Premier provided to what we had to say on this debate. We're going to tell them across this province about the Financial and Economic Review of September 1986. We're going to tell them about the public accounts of March. And most of all, we are going to tell them about what happened on September 14, 1987, when this administration appeared in front of the MacKay commission and submitted its own report — and this is its own commission that it established to find out about what happened. It had the utter gall, the arrogance, to submit a false brief to that commission, which contained the false figures for the Coquihalla. They thought that they could deceive the MacKay commission.

I say thank God for the MacKay commission and Mr. Hooper, who caught on to the lie. How else can you describe, other than contemptuous and arrogant, a government that sets up its own commission of inquiry and then chooses to lie to it, to provide false figures to it? And the Premier, on July 17, when my good friend the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) asked him, said: "All of the details will be provided." And they were given the false figures.

If you believe that that information isn't going to be around this province, you're fooling yourselves. I'm telling you that right now because, like I said, there's a fire in our belly. Come the next election, the jig will be up. That's what will happen: the jig will be up.

There's still a little bit of hope. You can always change your mind on the motion, but I'm sure you won't. I've told you that it's not going to go away. I know that the wish on that side is that it will all get swept under the carpet and conveniently forgotten by the next election. But let's not forget that we demanded an inquiry; we pushed for it and we finally got it. Then we were told it was going to be a two-day inquiry at the end of August and beginning of September. We demanded a full inquiry; again the public responded to what we were saying and we got that. Then down came the MacKay commission and the public was offended; again the government hoped the matter would go away, and it didn't. That's why we're having this debate here today: because the public doesn't want this to go away.

The point I'm trying to make is: (1) if you think it's going to go away, you take a look at our track record; and (2) the public does not want it to go away.

[ Page 3431 ]

I will tell you something else that's on the public's mind. The public does not believe, nor do I, that any of these acts of deception were committed by the first member for Cariboo on his own, in isolation, in a vacuum. Nobody believes that. We don't believe it, the public doesn't believe it, and the MacKay commission didn't believe it. The commission itself said — and I am paraphrasing here — that a lot of this did not emanate from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. I want to send out a signal to Mr. Curtis and Mr. Bennett and the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) that it's not over yet. There will be more. We will proceed in our investigation of this matter until the truth comes out with respect to their approach.

I see my time is getting low, and I want to make just one point which I think in all fairness deserves to be dealt with. I did listen to all of the debate on this matter, and the one point I am prepared to concede is that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. Michael) made an appropriate point in bringing to the attention of this House debate which occurred on July 15, 1987. In light of that there is no doubt in my mind that it does correct and explain my first allegation against him in my original submission. I think that it should be withdrawn for the record. It still doesn't deal with the matter of the September 14 brief, but I did tell the member I would be putting that on the record.

There were a lot of other things I wanted to say. I didn't realize that my time would run out as quickly as it has. I've travelled a lot around this province in the last two or three weeks, and I will be travelling some more this weekend and later on this month. Everywhere I go, people ask me about the Coquihalla.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) and the second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen) can stand up here and heckle all they want. They can personify that contemptuous attitude that I talked about. They can participate like sheep, they can pretend there isn't a problem, they can hope the problem will go away, but that's not going to happen. I look forward to three years from now when we have our own full inquiry into this, and I look forward to all of those matters that we will be raising later in the House to continue to put this offensive government on the defensive when it comes to the Coquihalla.

[7:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 27

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I forgot this at introduction time today, and I've also forgotten the horoscope, but we have a birthday. The horoscope, in part, did mention, as I remember, that this person was sensuous, articulate and also stubborn — it really got that part right. Would you please join in with me, hon. members, in wishing a very, very happy birthday to the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Campbell).

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:06 p.m.