1988 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ 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

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

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

[ 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 meta