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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3365 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Privatization of highways operations. Mr. Harcourt –– 3365

Mr. Sihota

Supreme Court decision respecting privatization. Mr. Sihota –– 3366

Opinion polls. Mr. Clark –– 3366

Lunch program in schools. Mr. Cashore –– 3367

Tabling Documents –– 3367

Motions

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns

Mr. A. Fraser –– 3367

Mr. Stupich –– 3368

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 3371

Mr. Harcourt –– 3373

Mr. Mercier –– 3375

Mr. Miller –– 3376

Mr. Rabbitt –– 3379

Mr. Kempf –– 3381

Mr. Serwa –– 3381

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3383

Mr. Chalmers –– 3385

Ms. Marzari –– 3386

Mrs. Boone –– 3388

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 1988

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of

pleasure to introduce today seven students from the Kennebecasis Valley

high school in New Brunswick, who are here with Mr. Lawrence MacDonald,

a teacher in Earl Marriott Secondary in my community of White

Rock–South Surrey. Can we make these students from New Brunswick

welcome to British Columbia. as they're on their way to visit China

following their visit here today.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery behind me this

afternoon is a group of students from Nechako Valley Secondary in

Vanderhoof, together with their instructor, Mr. Darrell Cursons. I

would ask the House to make them all very welcome.

MR. ROSE: A student from grade 10 of Arbutus Junior High

School here in Victoria, Miss Katherine Fast, is here. She's on a

work-studies program. She was spending one week trailing the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). However, he is ill, so I am doing

the job.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I was going to suggest that there's no causal

relationship between the fact that she is trailing Robin Blencoe and

his illness. But I wouldn't say that, because it might embarrass

somebody.

Anyway, would you please welcome Katherine Fast.

MR. LOENEN: Mr. Speaker, the newspapers in our community make

a wonderful contribution to our community. I'd like to introduce two

people associated with the community newspapers: Bill Lam, publisher of

the Richmond News , and Phil Ballard, publisher of the Richmond Review . Please welcome them to the House.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I note with pleasure the presence in the

gallery today of a very close observer of our proceedings and a strong

supporter of the Premier and his initiatives, Mr. Martin Olivier, from

my riding.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Leader of the Opposition starts, I

have received a letter from the auditor-general, and I would like to

read it to the House and then table it. He says:

"It has been brought to my attention that certain information

provided in my special report to the Legislative Assembly dated March 7, 1988,

did not precisely describe the sequence of events surrounding the tabling of

a document in the assembly. In my report, page 12, I stated: As mentioned previously,

the Legislature did provide some indication that it approved of the government's

accounting treatment of highway construction costs. During the debate in the

Legislature on the government's request for further funding for highway

construction, a list of highway projects was tabled in the House. This list

was available to all members of the Legislature and is included as appendix

D to this report.

"In reviewing Hansard for March 26, 1986, I find that

the list referred to was not tabled during debate on Supply Act (No. 1), 1986,

but rather, immediately following adjournment of debate on the same day. The

contents of this list, showing off-site project costs as being charged to vote

69, did not, to the best of my knowledge, give rise to discussion in the House

in the days following.

"The conclusions reached and opinions expressed in

my report remain unchanged. I will appreciate you bringing this matter to the

immediate attention of all Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,

George L. Morfitt,

FCA,

Auditor-General."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't believe I'm asking this, but the

motion before us does take precedence. I presume the members opposite

would like to ask leave to go to question period.

Leave granted.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAYS OPERATIONS

MR. HARCOURT: My question is to the Premier on the issue of

highways privatization. We're aware that the deadline for proposals for

privatization of highways operations on Vancouver Island has now passed

as a matter of fact, on March 4. Before British Columbians are hit by

phases 2, 3 and 4 in next week's throne speech, has the Premier decided

to listen to the large and growing number of mayors and councils across

British Columbia who have requested the government to halt

privatization of highways operations?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we always listen.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Yes. If that's true. I'm sure the Premier is

aware that, so far, as many as 70 municipalities and regional districts

have passed resolutions opposing privatization of highways operations.

For example, Richmond municipal council passed a resolution on February

8 requesting the Premier to suspend the privatization of highways

pending a comprehensive review of the impact of such a proposal

vis-a-vis public safety, levels of service and costs, and to consult

with all the municipalities affected. Has the Premier agreed to halt

highways privatization until a cost-benefit analysis like that

requested by Richmond is undertaken?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Everything is being analyzed very closely during the whole of the process.

MR. HARCOURT: That was a request to table the cost benefit as

requested by 70 councils. This campaign to bring the Premier to his

senses was commenced by the mayor of Quesnel, who has taken it upon

himself to gain the support of mayors and councils throughout British

Columbia to tell the Premier to stop this mad scheme. The mayors and

councils

[ Page

3366 ]

who have told the Premier to stop and listen

include: Kamloops, Prince George, Kimberley, Revelstoke, Courtenay,

Fort St. John, Richmond, New Westminster, North Vancouver and Saanich,

to name a few. How can the Premier suggest he's in touch with British

Columbians if he won't even listen to the grassroots elected people in

this province?

MR. SIHOTA: I see the Premier is stumped again and has chosen not to answer the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, there was no question, so I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to withdraw that statement.

MR. SIHOTA: I would suggest that someone wasn't listening.

The question was: how can the Premier suggest he's in touch with

British Columbians if he won't listen to the grassroots elected people

of this province? That was the question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will be meeting with hundreds of

people in Prince George. As a matter of fact, we expect one meeting

alone will attract at least a thousand people this weekend. I'll

similarly be attending with hundreds of people in Dawson Creek. We

certainly communicate. I would suspect that most of these people are,

as you would term them, "grassroots." They're people from the

community. They have their views and they certainly will have an

opportunity to express them. We welcome their comments and we welcome

their suggestions.

We take every opportunity to assure that people are given that right

to give us their views, their thoughts, which is why I had the

open-line program, "Tell the Premier," last Sunday, which received more

calls than we've ever received on any one of the programs — all

extremely supportive, I might add. I am sure that they must have been

monitored by the opposition. I will be happy to meet with all of the

people in both Prince George and Dawson Creek during the next number of

days, and I look forward to that opportunity. Certainly that process

will continue.

SUPREME COURT DECISION

RESPECTING PRIVATIZATION

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier. I am sure that the

Premier is aware of the Verrin decision as it relates to privatization.

It, like the abortion decision, is a decision of the British Columbia

Supreme Court. Would the Premier advise this House, in light of that

decision, what steps the government has taken to assess the economic

implications that the decision has for its privatization plans?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There are two observations I must make

before answering. I understand this member asking the question is also

a member of the legal profession, and I understand or would expect that

he would certainly be informed on the subject. I need to advise him, in

case he doesn't know, that it's being appealed; therefore it's before

the courts and we really shouldn't talk about it.

MR. SIHOTA: The matter may well be before the Court of

Appeal. That doesn't prevent matters from being asked that relate to

the decision. I take it, then, from the answer that the government has

conducted no economic implication studies.

The next question is far more important. That decision gives workers

a choice of remaining within the public sector instead of going on to

the private sector in terms of privatization, which of course has

economic implications. Will the government, pending the appeal, which

can take up to a year, respect the Supreme Court of British Columbia

decision and not take any further actions with respect to privatization?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't think I can discuss this

particular matter, since it's before the courts, but we will certainly

be mindful in considering the outcome of that particular appeal.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier doesn't appear to understand. The

question did not relate to the decision; it related to the implications

of the decision and what happens between now and when that decision is

heard. In that regard, people need to know where they stand.

The question to the Premier is: given the fact that that decision

provides people with a choice, will the government be advising people

affected by privatization that they have in law, by virtue of that

decision, the opportunity to remain in the public sector — that they

now have a choice? Will the government be advising public servants of

that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, Mr. Speaker, we'll be awaiting

the outcome of the decision. But in the meantime, yes, we are making

considerable progress. I should mention that in the case of the

privatization of highways on Vancouver Island, we still have by far the

majority of the employees wanting to proceed with continuing the

process, and being involved in that process. We're receiving tremendous

support from these employees. These are real grassroots people that

have been involved in the process, and they want to be even more

involved by taking on the challenge which has been offered them. As

long as we have that sort of support among employees and among British

Columbians, we're making great progress.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd like to take the opportunity to invite the

Premier to come out with me and go through my riding and talk to people

in the highways yards.

The law in this province, as it stands right now, provides workers

with a choice to remain in the public sector, as opposed to being

privatized out. That's the law. Will the Premier respect that law, and

will he tell the employees that they have that choice?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We always respect the law, Mr. Speaker.

OPINION POLLS

MR. CLARK: A few weeks ago the Premier indicated that the

government was not paying for any public opinion polling. Could the

Premier advise the House whether that is still the case?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not aware of any polls commissioned by government.

[ Page

3367 ]

MR. CLARK: Supplementary. Could the Premier advise the House whether any Crown corporations are polling on the government's behalf?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any such polls.

MR. CLARK: It has been brought to my attention that British

Columbians are in fact being polled by Goldfarb Consultants on the

question of privatization of B.C. Hydro. It's an $80,000 poll, and one

of the questions is: "Would you like to see all of the

electricity-related part of B.C. Hydro sold to the private sector?"

Isn't the government's intention, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr.

Speaker — to sell the electrical division of B.C. Hydro? If not, why is

it that anyone would be interested in polling on these questions?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm not aware of this poll at all.

They've certainly not called me. Nor am I aware of any discussions

taking place with respect to privatization of the B.C. Hydro

electricity division. I'm not aware of such discussions.

MR. CLARK: A supplementary to the Minister of Energy. Maybe

he could inform the House whether, in fact, these matters are under the

consideration of the government, because I can go on at great length

with dozens of questions regarding the specifics of B.C. Hydro

privatization in this poll. Could he inform the House whether he's

aware of this poll, and whether B.C. Hydro has commissioned it, and

whether or not the specifics in the poll relate to government policy?

HON. MR. DAVIS: B.C. Hydro has commissioned a poll of the

customers of B.C. Hydro, essentially asking them about the quality of

the service of B.C. Hydro, and the poll is being carried out with a

view to improving the services to individual customers on the system.

MR. CLARK: The Minister of Energy has confirmed that an

$80,000 poll paid for by public money has been commissioned by this

government. Nothing will be left but the wires when this government

gets through with it. Could the Minister of Energy advise the House

whether or not the generating stations and dams and those kinds of

electrical components of B.C. Hydro are being considered for

privatization?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer is, at this moment, no.

MR. CLARK: That answer's not satisfactory. Could the Minister

advise the House why taxpayers' dollars are being used to poll on these

questions if it's not the government's intention to follow through on

the results?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The money involved is money collected by and administered by B.C. Hydro. They are not taxpayers' dollars.

LUNCH PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS

MR. CASHORE: A question to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us why he is continuing to refuse to feed hungry school children?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This issue has been dealt with very

effectively by the Minister of Social Services, who has responded to

the problem and the various actions and so-called initiatives that

we've seen in Vancouver, and I would defer the question to the Minister

of Social Services.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: We in Social Services have the mandate to

look after the well-being of children in this province, and we take

that mandate very seriously. We feel that our mandate is to look after

all the children and make sure that they are well nourished, not just

the children in six selected schools in Vancouver.

Therefore we have urged on many occasions that the Vancouver School

Board cooperate with us, so that we may get to the root of this very

serious problem, so that we can make sure that other children in those

families are nourished, not just those in the six selected schools. To

that end, we have asked for the cooperation of the school board and

have not received it. We are quite willing to put any resources needed

into the funding of this program at the front end, but we will not on

behalf of the taxpayers fund it at both ends.

MR. HARCOURT: I would like to ask leave to table the documents mentioned in my questions in regard to the municipalities.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled a statement of Crown proceedings and payments for the fiscal year 1986-87.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier, the

motion with respect to the committee of privilege has precedence, the

motion of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota). I

adjourned debate yesterday on behalf of the first member for Cariboo

(Mr. A. Fraser), and we understand that he is ready to speak. I see him

there. We will continue with that debate.

[2:30]

Motions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

(continued)

MR. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your

assistance in making it possible for me to take

part in this debate on

the motion before this House and ask other hon. members to be patient

while I say a few words.

I have a mechanical device that replaces my vocal cords. This device

has a battery and I press it against my neck so you will all be able to

hear me. If the battery becomes weak, I might have to request the

permission of the House to pause while I change batteries to get

recharged.

Mr. Speaker, I have never misled this House at any time in the 18 1/2

consecutive years I have been a member. In November 1985 I stated in

this House that phase 1 of the Coquihalla Highway project, Hope to

Merritt, and phase 2, Merritt to Kamloops, would be built for an

estimated $375 million. I emphasize the word "estimated." Some $250

million was estimated for phase 1, and $125 million for phase 2.

Mr. Speaker, when I stated this in the House in November 1985 I

believed it to be true at that time, based on the information I had

been given. All costs related to the building

[ Page

3368 ]

of the Coquihalla Highway were properly recorded in the public accounts of

British Columbia, and I assume were audited by the comptroller-general and the

auditor-general of British Columbia.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to remarks that a

coverup took place about the costs of constructing the Coquihalla

Highway.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the acting auditor-general and the newly appointed

auditor-general that the MacKay royal commission did not know what they were

talking about when they reported: "The Legislature was avoided. The Legislature

was misled by the documents presented to it. The true costs were not reported

in a forthright way. The project was redefined part-way through and expenses

transferred from vote 74 to vote 69."

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, I say to you: what expertise and knowledge has

Mr. MacKay about the procedures of the B.C. Legislature? I suggest to you: none

whatsoever, and he should not be considered a proper critic of what takes place

in this Legislature. On the other hand, the acting auditor-general and the newly

appointed auditor-general are officers of this Legislature, have full knowledge

of the operations of the Legislature and know what they are talking about — far

different from Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transportation and Highways during

the construction of the Coquihalla Highway phase 1, from Hope to

Merritt, and part of the construction of phase 2, from Merritt to

Kamloops, I am proud of my

part in this great project.

Mr. Speaker, the original Coquihalla estimates were made public

prior to detailed quantity survey. Those estimates did not properly

factor in inflation. Consequently, the actual cost is higher than the

original estimated cost. That, in turn, is the main cause of all this

finger pointing. I accept my responsibility, as minister, for those

facts. However, I can tell this House that it always received from me

full disclosure of all the facts needed to do its work.

I am sorry that the actual cost was above the estimates, but many

projects do go above the estimates because of the difficult terrain and

changing weather conditions we have in British Columbia. Almost all

construction work on the Coquihalla project was awarded to British

Columbian contractors who were low bidders on the various sections of

that project.

When speaking about estimates, I would remind this House that when

the original estimate was made for building SkyTrain, it was estimated

to cost $289 million. SkyTrain was constructed, and the final cost was

— and get this — $1 billion. As hon. members know, SkyTrain was built

from Vancouver to New Westminster on fairly level ground and under

moderate weather conditions, compared to the Coquihalla Highway which

was built over mountain ranges in all types of weather.

The staff of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, as well as

all engineers, contractors and their workers that took

part in this

great project are to be congratulated for a job well done and should

feel proud of the part they played in the transportation history of our

province, which created a third road access to the Pacific coast from

the interior of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this House and all people of British

Columbia, the Coquihalla Highway cost more than the estimates, but the

citizens of British Columbia who paid for this safe and efficient

highway got full value for dollars spent.

In closing, I have been an hon. member of this Legislature for 18 1/2

consecutive years. I would never deliberately, intentionally or any

other way try to deceive or mislead this great institution of

democracy. I have the highest respect for this institution and its

members.

Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have given, I cannot support the

motion before us and I will be voting against it. Thank you for your

patience.

[2:45]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is not a moment that anyone on

the opposition side would choose, and it certainly isn't deliberate. It

was my intention to speak yesterday, but things didn't work out that

way.

For a start I intend to comment briefly on some of the remarks from

the first member for Cariboo. Perhaps it's just as well that I'm the

one who's doing so. I think I'm the only one, with perhaps one other

exception, who has served in this Legislature longer than has the first

member for Cariboo — not continuous, but I'm in my twenty-second year

now — and if we didn't have some feeling for this place and what it

means, neither one of us would have been here as long as we have.

It was never our intention to single out the first member for

Cariboo; nor was it the intention of the MacKay commission or of the

results of the deliberations of Mr. MacKay. The first member for

Cariboo said it was a job well done. There have been some minor

arguments about that, but none serious. It was a job well done. It's a

good highway. I've driven over it.

The first member for Cariboo talked about another job on which there

was a very large overrun. SkyTrain, which was to cost $289 million,

cost a billion. The point at issue here is not whether or not there

have been overruns in the past, or whether there will be in the future.

The only question at issue is whether the Legislature was misled —

"lied to" are the words used in the MacKay commission report, or at

least in comments on it. As I heard it, the first member for Cariboo

made only reference to that when he said in the first place that he

never intentionally misled the Legislature. The MacKay commission

indeed suggested that maybe it wasn't the Ministry of Highways that was

doing the misleading, that the minister himself may have been misled.

That's one of the possibilities that arise.

Secondly, the first member for Cariboo said that the MacKay

commission didn't know what it was talking about. If there's any case

to be made for a special committee to be established, it is indeed to

find out whether the MacKay commission did know what it was talking

about. The first member for Cariboo was one of the witnesses who was

heard at some length by Commissioner MacKay and his staff, and the

questions still remain: did the MacKay commission know what it was

talking about? was the Legislature misled? We have the motion asking

that a committee be appointed to consider the facts surrounding the

prima facie evidence that the first member for Cariboo deliberately

misled the Legislature. As the first member for Cariboo suggests,

perhaps he wasn't the one who did the misleading. He didn't say that,

but with the MacKay commission inquiry report before us, we have to

consider that possibility.

There are many parts that one could read from the MacKay commission, but in

part it.... The Journals for

[ Page

3369 ]

1987 show that on March 19 the first member for

Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), in his capacity as the

Minister of Finance, tabled the Public Accounts

for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986. In view of the evidence that

was presented to the MacKay commission, the first member for Saanich

and the Islands must have been a knave or a fool to have presented

those accounts in the way they were, and I leave it to him to say which

he was. For him to be as ignorant of what was there as he would have to

be to present them, I wouldn't believe. So I say, either a knave or a

fool. The Public Accounts claim that vote 74 was spent on the construction of the Coquihalla Highway and related projects.

If we look at the report presented by the auditor-general, we see

that Coquihalla and related projects narrows down to a strip of highway

with one end not even part of the Coquihalla and related projects. One

end was defined as part of the Coquihalla and related projects and the

other end was in vote 69. Such an arbitrary distinction obviously was

not what was intended in the first place. There's no question about

that.

The first member for Saanich and the Islands in his speech yesterday

talked about a specious allegation. Well, if it were just specious we

wouldn't be discussing this resolution today. Mr. Speaker in his wisdom

decided that it had some substance to it. The first member for Saanich

excused it on the basis that unemployment was high at that time and it

was important for the government to do something, and it provided

direct and indirect employment. That's admitted. It reduced travel

time, we admit that. It saves fuel: well, of course it does. A valuable

contribution to the economy: yes, indeed. Nobody benefited illegally:

well, that's never been questioned, to my knowledge — benefited, yes,

but not illegally.

The first member from Saanich went on to say that no further inquiry

is necessary, and the government House Leader said nothing more than

that political voyeurism leads the opposition into this attack. The

first member from Saanich said the commission did a complete job. The

government House Leader said the commission did a good job.

The first member from Saanich went on to say that there are only two

reasons for pursuing this motion; one of them to attach blame, the

other to make sure it doesn't happen again. Blame has already been

directed. It's been directed at a number of people, members of the

House now and members who are no longer in the House, including the

former Premier, Bill Bennett; the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr.

Michael), who was a past Minister of Highways; and, of course, the

first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser).

Also, all of the members of the Bill Bennett cabinet at the time of

the election must have been in on all of the discussions about the

rearranging of dollars that was reported so well in the MacKay

commission report. They all knew about it. They attended cabinet

meetings. It's just inconceivable to believe that the first member for

Cariboo could have singly, solely, all by himself, without anyone

else's knowledge or collusion, lost half a billion dollars and nobody

else knew about it.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Then why proceed with this inquiry?

MR. STUPICH: I'm coming to that. The first member from Saanich wants to know why I'm proceeding. Well, I'm coming to that.

All of those people knew about it, and all the members of the

current cabinet must have known about it. Then he went on to say the

second reason is to make sure it doesn't happen again. What is the

"it"? The it could be the overrun. Well, we've been told by the

Minister of Finance that steps have been taken to make sure that such

overruns don't occur again. But the it could be something else indeed.

It could be the deception. Have they taken steps to make sure the

deception of the Legislature talked about in the MacKay commission does

not occur again? That's the question.

The first member for Cariboo said that the commission doesn't know

what it was talking about. Well, the commission was well chosen. We

didn't choose them, and they were well supported by what I believe to

be competent staff. They're listed on page v of the Acknowledgments:

Mr. C.F. Murphy, QC; Mr. G. Macintosh of the firm of Farris Vaughan

Wills and Murphy; Mr. D. Hooper, CA; Clarkson Gordon. Some members, not

very many, will remember the Clarkson Gordon report of 1976, so we're

still using Clarkson Gordon — a good firm — and Mr. Pankratz of the

same firm.

The MacKay commission was a well-organized commission. To simply

dismiss them by saying they didn't know what they were talking about is

not good enough, in my opinion. Page 69 of the report....

Well, I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance and I'd ask

him to have a little patience. I don't have that much time left. I'll

try not to bore him too much.

"The commission cannot find that this transfer from

vote 74 to 69 was acceptable when it had the sole effect of making the

project on-budget..."

The auditor-general says he doesn't know why it was done, and

because he doesn't know why it was done it must be okay. The commission

didn't take that stand. The commission did inquire into why it was done

and came to the conclusion that it was not acceptable, because it was

done for the sole purpose of making the project on budget.

"...by shielding prior decisions on significant additions

to scope, and by altering the basis for reporting the project's total cost.

"When all of the foregoing is added to the findings of

chapter 3, including the misleading news releases issued about the

project, the commission finds the financial reporting of the Coquihalla

Highway project to be tainted with an atmosphere of deceit and

prevarication by both politicians and public servants."

That's the finding of the commission.

The acting auditor-general: his name has been brought into this and

there are a couple of letters. I'd like to just read briefly from the

first of them dated November 9 and addressed to the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Williams): "Our reports on this work contained

warnings that if heeded could have prevented many of the problems of

the Coquihalla Highway and perhaps eliminated the need for a commission

of inquiry." So the acting auditor-general admitted in that first

letter that indeed there were problems — reporting problems, financial

problems. "In 1985 we reported the results of our audit of ministry

annual reports, which concluded that legislators and the public were

not getting the information they needed to judge the performance of

ministries." The Legislature wasn't getting the information, according

to the auditor-general. "In large measure, it was the disclosure of the

costs of the Coquihalla Highway which led to the commission of inquiry.

These costs would have been clearly evident to everyone if the

recommendations of our report had been adopted." So indeed, Mr.

[ Page

3370 ]

Speaker, the acting auditor-general was saying that the government was hiding

things from the Legislature.

Again in a second letter, dated January 22, to the same first member

for Vancouver East: "...if our warnings had been heeded, proper

disclosure of the costs of the Coquihalla Highway would have resulted.

Legislators would also have had factual information" — which means to

say we did not have factual information — "against which to evaluate

statements made by the government about the costs of the highway."

The auditor-general on page 5: "We cannot attribute any motive to

the transfer, as we cannot know the intentions of those who made the

reclassification or directed that it be made." Well, as I said earlier,

the commission did inquire into the reasons and came to its

conclusions. The auditor-general made no inquiry, and since he made no

inquiry, he had no reason to think that anything other than what was

there was correct. He didn't look for reasons, so he didn't find them.

Mr. Speaker, to make sure it doesn't happen again.... There's a

perception in the community that several ministers participated in an

attempt to deceive the legislators, the Legislature. That's in the

commission's report. While that perception is in the minds of the

community, I think it's important that we deal with it. It's not good

enough to leave that out there and to leave the perception that some or

all of the half-dozen people whose names have been linked with this —

quite apart from all their fellow members of two cabinets — lied. I've

been here 22 years, but never in the history of the province have I

heard of more than one person accused of lying to the Legislature.

Now we're told that there's evidence. The commissioner, in talking

about the evidence, described it as "testimony and documents" leading

the commission to the conclusion that the Legislature was deliberately

deceived by cabinet ministers. That's a question that should be

answered. It should be answered by a committee that can call witnesses

and put to them the kinds of questions that could not be put to them by

the commissioner because that was beyond his terms of reference.

The terms of reference are included here, as to what he could do and

what he couldn't do — what he was hired to do, if you like. They are:

"...to compare the estimates and costs of the Coquihalla

Highway; to find the reasons and justification for differences between estimates

and costs; to examine other recent highway projects where costs may have differed

from estimates; to investigate the procedures for costing, administering and

reporting highway projects; to make recommendations."

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in there did the commissioner feel that he had the authority

to ask people the kinds of questions that arose from his gathering of evidence,

his listening to evidence, his perusal of documents — the people who he had

working with him. Nowhere in there did he have the authority to go in the direction

that he felt his findings would lead someone to go to find the truth of the

matter.

"From all of the evidence — testimony and documents — on

matters of authorization and reporting of the Coquihalla Highway, the commission

finds" — these are distinct, deliberate findings — "the Legislature

was avoided; the Legislature was misled by the documents presented to it; the

true cost were not reported in a forthright way; the project was redefined part

way through, and expenses transferred from vote 74 to vote 69."

Skipping along:

"The political decisions were implemented by senior

administrators who could not have been unaware of their purpose. The

financial statements, the ministry brief and the auditor-general's

report did not reveal the transfer of costs from vote 74 to 69."

The Province , Thursday,

February 25: "Taxpayers Taken for a Rough Ride." Just one sentence out

of this: "The people of British Columbia have been lied to and deceived

for political purposes."

A story from the Times-Colonist , March 3, and just quoting

briefly: "The people of this province" — and skipping a few words —

"know they were lied to and deceived.

[3:00]

From the Vancouver Sun ,

February 25: "The deception by the government of Bill Bennett was

outlined in the report of special commissioner Douglas L. MacKay.... He

concluded: the Legislature was avoided; the Legislature was misled;

true costs were not reported in a forthright way; the highway project

was redefined part way through, and expenses transferred from the

appropriation authorized by the Legislature to another vote."

"...advance reports suggest that the present

government, which was not accused of anything by Mr. MacKay, will try

to block it" — the inquiry. "This would be a mistake for the sake of

the government's own reputation, as well as that of the Legislature."

That was from the Province — I'm not sure what I said.

This one is from the Times-Colonist : "The commission found,

among other things, that 'the Legislature was avoided...was misled by

the documents presented to it...true costs were not represented in a

forthright way...these deliberate and planned actions were politically

motivated and were designed to give the impression of good overall

budgeting and...that the Coquihalla Highway was on budget."'

The first member for Cariboo may have contributed to that process,

but he certainly was not the only cabinet minister to do so. In our

parliamentary system of government, responsibility for policy decisions

rests with all members of cabinet. Is the first member for Cariboo's

head the only one on the block because he had the temerity to denounce

the privatization of highway maintenance? I quoted the reference.

Mr. Speaker, my point in reading this material is to try to

emphasize that the public has been reading this about the report. Not

many of them have had an opportunity to read the report, but they have

read from the report. The editorial writers and the column writers are

all telling them that the Legislature was misled — in some cases they

say, "lied to." That has never happened before in the history of the

province. There have been charges that one member may have done this,

and usually they've had to be withdrawn. Never before have so many

people been accused of working together in collusion to mislead the

Legislature.

To cover up a half-a-billion-dollar overrun, there had to be

collusion; there had to have been quite a number of people involved in

this. The commission did find that they were politically inspired

decisions rather than financial ones, and indeed, in some instances,

relinks the Finance ministry very closely to the decisions and the

actions.

[ Page

3371 ]

While people in British Columbia are reading this and are aware that

the Legislature — of all places — has been lied to.... Now that isn't

supposed to happen here. Very seldom is anyone even accused of lying in

the House, and as we all know, it's withdrawn unless you can prove it.

In this instance, the commission has gone a long way towards proving

it, and they've certainly proven it to their own satisfaction. For the

sake of those who have been charged and for the sake of those who still

believe in our system of government.... I do. I wouldn't have been here

for 22 years. The first member for Cariboo would not have spent 18 1/2

years here, and others who have been here for a long time.... We must

have some feeling for the place; we must have some positive feelings

for it. For a member of the opposition, and perhaps even more so for a

member of the back bench, it must be awfully frustrating at times, not

being able to do the things that one can do in cabinet. That's

frustrating, but it doesn't make one cynical. It takes something like

this to make one cynical about the process.

If a government, supreme in the knowledge that it can do whatever it

wants and get away with it, is prepared with cabinet members in such

numbers to work together to mislead the House, then what future is

there for democracy in British Columbia? What's the point of it all?

Why elect governments, if this is the kind of treatment we're going to

get from them?

The people in British Columbia have a right to know and to have it

definitely established by a committee — a committee, I would hope, that

would be chaired by a member of the opposition and that would have the

authority to call before it any witness that anyone on that committee

wanted to hear. Only then can we really find out who is telling the

truth and who isn't. There's not a great deal that can be done to any

of the people. I don't suppose there are any charges that can be made

afterwards, but at least we'd be getting at the truth.

If indeed there are people who have participated in a campaign to

mislead the Legislature, then that truth should come out. We should

know it. The people of British Columbia have a right to know that these

people had their day in court and their opportunity to answer all

questions put to them and to make their submissions and argue to try to

convince everyone — as the first member for Cariboo did — that he never

intentionally misled the House. He had that opportunity in the House

today; others have their opportunity here, but there isn't the

opportunity to cross-examine them. Only a committee of inquiry can

remove this cloud that currently hangs over the Legislature of British

Columbia.

I believe there is only one reason for not going the committee route

on the part of the government, and I'm sorry to have heard the

government House Leader say yesterday that he would be voting against

this resolution. Obviously, that means that the government would be

turning it down.

But I would submit, Mr. Speaker, if I can't talk to the members on

the government bench, perhaps I can talk to some of the back-benchers.

This has been a great place, and I have spent just about 22 years here.

But I believe there is a real cloud hanging over it right now. Nothing

like this has ever happened in the province before and, to the best of

my knowledge, anywhere in Canada — nothing as big as this.

It is important that we get at the real truth. The commissioner said

he couldn't, but he recommended that it be done: "The commission finds

that its terms of reference do not permit it to make any further

inquiry." The implication is that he would like to make a further

inquiry, but his terms of reference didn't provide for it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what I can do other than appeal to the

House Leader to change his mind about this resolution. That is the only

way, in my opinion, to remove the cloud that hangs over this place.

I've been here a long time, and I rather like it. I expect to be

leaving it; it has to come to an end sometime. But I don't like to

leave it with this kind of cloud hanging over everyone. There has been

the suggestion that all of us should have known better, that we should

have caught it sooner, but the real criticism is against the

government, many of the members of which — if one can follow the track

of the commission report — participated in this attempt, as one of the

newspaper articles said, to lie to the Legislature. Many of them, Mr.

Speaker, not just one. Not just the one referred to in this resolution,

but other members as well. All I can do is appeal to the government to

change its position. Let's have it out. Let's get at the truth, because

then it's gone.

I can remember a former minister of the Social Credit government

quite some time ago, who lost his position because he did lie to the

press and to the Legislature actually. Each time he lied, the truth was

found out, and he had to tell another lie to cover up. After the fourth

or fifth lie, he lost his position in cabinet and got another one later

on.

If you can agree to a committee of inquiry, it will get the truth

out of this matter. Once the truth comes out, as I say, that's the end

of it. But at least people will know that the system works, that you

can't get away with lying in the Legislature, that the members of the

Legislature have an opportunity to bring you to task if you are accused

by someone with the ability, if you like, of the MacKay commission.

That's a pretty strong document, Mr. Speaker, and there have been

strong comments about it.

There's only one way to get at the truth, to absolve the people who

are indeed innocent. For all we know, the first member for Cariboo (Mr.

A. Fraser) may be innocent. There's only one way to get at the truth,

and that is through a committee that has the power, the authority and

the freedom to dig until it gets the truth, to absolve from blame any

who are blameless, to clear the cloud away from the Legislature and to

find guilty those who are guilty. That will be the end of it. As I say,

there's really no punishment after that, but at least the truth will be

out, and the people of the province will know that there is always that

way of the Legislature getting the truth.

If the government, in its determination to defeat this motion —

which it can, 46 to 22.... It can do it, sure. Mr. Speaker, that

doesn't give us the truth. All that will do is convince people more

than ever that the government has something to hide. I wouldn't think

that the government itself would want that to be the answer coming out

of this debate. Is that really what they want to tell the people of

British Columbia: "We have something to hide; we don't want to go any

further with this. We think it will cost a bit money, and it's not

worth it to clear up the questions"? Mr. Speaker, I can't accept any of

those arguments, and that's about all I've heard. It's a serious

matter. I ask the government members to consider it seriously before

they vote.

HON. MR. ROGERS: As the member for Nanaimo said, for those of

us who have been here some time — I haven't been here as long as he

has, but I have been here 12 years and then some — this is a very

different kind of debate than the kind we are normally engaged in. But

during almost all of the

[ Page

3372 ]

12 years that I've been here, the first member for Cariboo — in fact for

many years the only member for Cariboo — was the Minister of Transportation

or the Minister of Highways, anyway. The portfolio changed a little with definition

over the years. In an amusing way, he was always highly revered by everybody,

because almost everybody had some project in their riding that needed highways

work, except for those of us, I think, from the metropolitan area, which isn't

covered by the ministry. In all that time there has been a great sense of dignity

that went with this gentleman. For his performance today in the House and for

the difficult work he had to do in order to come and speak, I would like to

send him my personal congratulations for having the courage to come from what

is obviously a sickbed to defend his honour and his position in this House.

But the question really before us is: has the House been misled? 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. 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. Those who may have questioned his integrity before certainly

should not be questioning it now after his having put in this report.

I want to focus for a little bit on the magnitude of this project

and the condition that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was

in when it was given the challenge to build the Coquihalla, phase 1 and

phase 2. It is worth noting that the ministry had not actually done a

major highway construction project in many years. While there had been

some bridges built and major highway rebuilding, there had not been a

major greenfield construction project in this Ministry of Highways in

the last 20 years. Certainly none of the senior people who were in the

ministry at the time would have had the experience or the possibility

of working on a project this big. It's my information that the

Coquihalla phases 1 and 2 was probably the largest highway construction

project done anywhere in North America in this last decade.

Having said that, 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....

Not at all costs: it's not the right word to use.

Interjection.

HON. MR. ROGERS: It isn't, though, because I was there and

those are not the instructions they were given. 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 can't emphasize enough to the members of this House the strain

that was put on the employees of this ministry. 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. With a dedication

that we have not seen before, and with a target that was looming up on

them in terms of construction date, the ministry staff went about the

task of completing this incredible project. 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've had this ministry for a few

months now, and I've not detected anybody who has any malice

whatsoever. In fact there is a pride in this ministry that is not

always there in other ministries. The ministry perhaps should have

said: "We'll open it the year after Expo." But they would accept the

challenge. They have dignity and pride, and when they're challenged to

do something, when they're given a challenge that's a

once-in-a-lifetime challenge in some cases for a project this big, they

took it on.

[3:15]

Perhaps they were delinquent in not focusing as much on the

accounting side of it as they did on the construction side of it. I

would suggest that those people who have travelled the highway since

and those people who used it to gain access to Expo would not question

that too much. They would say they did a very fine job on concentrating

on the construction. There even are some errors in the construction

which I'm sure we'll hear about from time to time. This ministry will

now be under a looking-glass, and it's my prediction that when the next

problem comes in one of the ministries of government, it probably won't

happen in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, because everyone

will be watching us with such incredible scrutiny.

Mr. MacKay, when he examined the ministry, also identified some

procedures that were quite out of date in terms of reporting —

procedures that had served the ministry very well. He made a number of

recommendations, and as a matter of course these recommendations have

largely been implemented by my staff and myself in terms of where the

ministry goes. I cannot believe that anybody in the ministry with any

malice or any lack of foresight decided that the ministry was above and

beyond the Legislature and that they were able to go ahead and spend

money without the authorization of the Legislature. I think if some of

them had the chance to do it over again, they perhaps would build the

project the same way but would hire more staff on the accounting and

reporting end of it.

The magnitude of this project strained the resources, at

construction and accounting levels, of absolutely everybody involved —

from construction companies to the ministry and the ministry staff. The

members of this House and, I believe, the members of the executive

council.... But I was not a member of the executive council for the

particular period of time that the great balloon took place.... I don't

believe the members of this House were misled intentionally. I believe

that if we had to do it again, we would have started the project two

years sooner, and if we had the luxury to start it two years sooner, we

would probably have built it for the same cost, but would not have run

into this embarrassment of having the issue before the House for debate

today.

[ Page

3373 ]

On behalf of myself as a member of this House, I find it awkward to

speak during a debate on this particular subject. But as the minister

responsible for what's left of the ministry — those people who remain

and who have dignity and pride and have served this province well and

intend to continue serving this province well — I would suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, and other members of this House that, given the challenge

to do it again, either we would be pragmatic and say: "Postpone the

project, or give us advance warning next time." Or we would say: "We

will do the challenge if that is the direction of the government of the

day, but we will have some difficulties." The difficulties will be

exactly the same difficulties that Mr. MacKay reported.

Mr. Speaker, when my estimates are discussed in this House, I'm sure

this thing will go into much further detail. But I don't believe my

colleague, the first member for Cariboo — a man with great pride and

great dignity — personally ever misled this House. I will be voting

against the motion.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise to support the motion that was put

forward by the able member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) in

regard to setting up a committee of this Legislature. I listened very

carefully to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, and I wanted

to respond to him, but I see that he has taken off. So it's very

difficult for me to address these words through you to him.

The Minister of Transportation and Highways said that the issue is

whether the House is being misled; that's not the issue before us at

all, Mr. Speaker. The issue isn't whether the House is being misled;

the issue is whether this Legislature should set up a committee of the

Legislature to investigate the matters raised by the government's own

commission — the MacKay commission. That is what is before this

Legislature.

What is before this Legislature is not just the conclusions of the

MacKay commission, but the events surrounding the MacKay commission and

many other pieces of material. It is not just whether the first member

for Cariboo has misled this Legislature, but it is the very real fact

that the events that took place over the last few years were not known

just by the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). To say otherwise

is just not believable by the people of British Columbia. To say that a

$500 million cost overrun was covered up for over two years, and that

it was done solely by the first member for Cariboo in his previous

capacity as the Minister of Highways is just not believable by the

people of British Columbia. That is why we are here. The prima facie

case that has been put before the House to see if this Legislature will

establish a committee of the Legislature: that is what is before us.

That is what I intend to address.

I think it's important, when we consider the issue of a $500 million

cost overrun that was covered up — a half a billion dollars, the most

massive cost overrun that we've had in this province.... That is the

conclusion of the MacKay commission that was established by this

government. I would like to refer to page 71, which would be very

useful for members of this Legislature if they haven't read the MacKay

commission. If they're going to read only one page in the MacKay

commission, I recommend that they read page 71 of the report. The

conclusions are, and I quote from page 71 of the MacKay commission

report that was tabled with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on

December 21, 1987:

"From all the evidence — testimony and documents — on matters

of authorization and reporting of the Coquihalla Highway, the commission finds:

the Legislature was avoided, the Legislature was misled by the documents presented

to it, the true costs were not reported in a forthright way, the project was

redefined part way through and expenses transferred from vote 74 to vote 69.

"These deliberate and planned actions were politically motivated...."

I think most importantly — and I listened very carefully to the

presentations earlier from the first member for Cariboo and the first

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who indeed have been in this

Legislature for many years — the commission says:

"The commission's terms of reference directed inquiry

into the ministry's practice and procedures in the administering and

reporting of projects. This it has done and is satisfied that the

reporting irregularities documented here did not originate within the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways."

The commission goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: "The commission finds

that its terms of reference do not permit it to make any further

inquiry" — basically that there is a need for the Legislature, through

a committee, to make that further inquiry. That is the conclusion from

the MacKay commission: if the Legislature was avoided, the Legislature

was misled, the true costs were not reported in a forthright manner,

these actions were deliberate, planned and politically motivated, then

it's the Legislature which should be setting up a committee to deal

with these matters. That is why we are here.

I found it unfortunate yesterday that the Finance minister (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier), the member for Saanich and the Islands, who also is not

here, could only engage in a fierce personal attack on the member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, working on the theory that the best defence is

an offence. He failed in that theory; he simply succeeded in being

offensive. He was basically attacking the member as inexperienced, that

the member was personally going after one of the longest serving, best

known and most successful elected members in this Legislature. I found

that offensive indeed, because that is not what we are doing here today

nor has the New Democratic Party ever intended that.

When we asked questions in this Legislature in 1984, 1985 and 1986,

when we started to ask the Minister of Highways at that time, the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), in July, it was not to

deal with one member, because it is beyond comprehension that the first

member for Cariboo would be the only one involved in the $500 million

cost overrun and the fact that the Legislature was avoided and misled

and that these were deliberate and planned actions. The commission

indeed said that it did not originate with the first member for

Cariboo, the then Minister of Highways, and that there is a need for a

legislative committee to look at that. We then heard from the member

for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan), the House Leader and

Minister of Environment, who said we've already had an inquiry. Well,

it's true, we had an inquiry, and I've just read you the conclusions of

that inquiry, which are absolutely startling. We have never seen

anything like that in the history of this Legislature. For a man of the

stature of Commissioner Doug MacKay to say that the House was misled

and avoided, that these were deliberate and planned actions that were

politically motivated and that these irregularities did not originate

within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways but at the

[ Page

3374 ]

top leadership of the Social Credit government — we say past and present —

is an astounding finding indeed.

We have also seen an attack on Commissioner MacKay, that he is

inexperienced in the rules and regulations of the House. That's when

you've got a weak argument. You always fall back on technicalities. If

you can't win on substance, you fall back on technicalities.

I want to let you know about Commissioner MacKay. I had the honour

of serving with Commissioner MacKay, as did the present Premier, for

many years when he led the regional district in Vancouver with a

population of 1.3 million. With the multimillion dollar construction

contracts and proposals that he was in charge of as the commissioner of

the regional district and as the engineer in charge of the water and

sewage and all the public works in the regional district of Vancouver,

to say that that man is inexperienced in government procedures and in

multimillion dollar construction contracts is to miss the whole reason

that the government chose Commissioner MacKay in the first place.

I think it was unfortunate that Commissioner MacKay was diminished

by those attacks on him by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of

Highways just a few minutes ago. I want one thing to be very clear.

Even if this present Social Credit government do as the government

House Leader has said they're going to do, which is to not vote for

this motion for a legislative committee, the people of British Columbia

still know that there was a half a billion dollar cost overrun and

coverup. That is still there staining the affairs of this province.

[3:30]

This matter of the coverup of the half-billion-dollar cost overrun,

as we've said from the beginning, does not rest solely with the first

member for Cariboo, and it doesn't just rest with the past government;

it rests with the present government. I would like to spend a few

minutes talking about the relationship between the first member for

Cariboo and the present Premier, and I'd like to lay out some history

to set the context for that relationship.

As we're aware, in August the hon. Premier was elected leader of his

party and sworn in as both Premier and Minister of Finance on August

14, 1986. As we know, as Minister of Finance the hon. Premier became

the chairman of the Treasury Board. Hugh Curtis, the former Finance

minister, was appointed the co-chair, at that time, of the Treasury

Board, an appointment not provided for in the statute and one which is

believed to be unprecedented in British Columbia.

Next in the sequence was that the first member for Cariboo was sworn

into the first cabinet of the new Premier. The first member for Cariboo

knew that with his old colleague, Hugh Curtis, co-chairing the Treasury

Board with the hon. Premier, support for the Coquihalla was every bit

as strong as it had been in the previous Premier's day. We have a

pretty good idea about what the member for Cariboo knew and when he

knew it.

What we want to ask now is: what did the Premier know and when did

he know it? He knew, or ought to have known, first, from the briefing

that he received from Mr. Curtis as they worked together to run the

Treasury Board, that this massive project had great difficulties. It's

beyond credibility to say that it would not be one of the first matters

that would be considered by either the Minister of Finance or the

Premier, and if they didn't, it's absolutely astonishing to believe

that they didn't. They had to have had regard to this critical project

in a critical stage; it is just beyond the bounds of any reasonable

person's thoughts that the Premier or the Minister of Finance would not

have known about this project, its cost overruns and the coverup that

had occurred to date.

I think it's also clear that the member for Cariboo knew that the

public accounts would show the redefined scope of the Coquihalla

Highway. He would be unconcerned about the cost overruns because he

knew the hon. Premier presided over the preparation of the accounts in

the Premier's capacity as Minister of Finance and chair of the Treasury

Board. The Premier, the first member for Cariboo would think, would

support him and, indeed, that the coverup that had occurred would be

maintained. And so it turned out to be for a time.

The next important sequence and date in the review of this period of

history of the Coquihalla is September 7, 1986, when the hon. Premier

and Minister of Finance released the forty-sixth edition of the

Financial and Economic Review . The review presents, in the words of the

hon. Premier in his preface, "comprehensive and up-to-date information

on the recent activities and finances of the provincial government and

the Crown corporations...." The Premier took pride in the review as "a

document of record on the economy and finances of the province of

British Columbia." The review includes the preliminary financial

statement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986. These statements

show that for vote 69, Highways operations, $478.8 million was

estimated, and an additional $118.8 million was added as a result of a

special warrant, for a total of $597.6 million. The actual expenditure

is given as $585.9 million, for a net under expenditure of $11.6

million. However, no mention is made of the Coquihalla allocation to

vote 69. Mr. Speaker, the statements were designed to conceal the

coverup of the Coquihalla.

The pious level of political leadership's expectations that the

coverup would be maintained was fulfilled with the forty-sixth

Financial and Economic Review . For the first time, the misleading

allocation of vote 69 and vote 74 appears in a document of record, made

available to the public and circulated to members by the Premier.

One of the conclusions of Commissioner MacKay perhaps the most

important one, as I said previously . was that the Legislature was

misled by the documents presented to it, and that the true costs were

not reported in a forthright way. He found that the project was

redefined part way through, and expenses transferred from vote 74 to

vote 69.

1 repeat — because it's important for this Legislature, as it

considers the necessity of a committee, to understand the scope — that

this was not the intention and the actions of the lone member from

Cariboo, the first member for Cariboo; that these were deliberate and

planned actions which were politically motivated and designed to give

the impression of good overall budgeting, specifically that the

Coquihalla Highway was on budget. I repeat, Commissioner MacKay also

found that none of the reporting irregularities originated with the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways or its minister, the first

member for Cariboo.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There was no effort to reveal the truth about the Coquihalla. It is

difficult, as a matter of fact next to impossible, to believe that the

Premier and Minister of Finance knew nothing of the largest cost

overrun in the history of this province.

The Premier retained Hugh Curtis's Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Philip Halkett, in a senior capacity in the

[ Page

3375 ]

Finance ministry. Mr. Halkett was acting deputy minister from July

1, 1986, to September 1, 1987, when he became secretary of the Treasury

Board. It is inconceivable that Mr. Curtis or Mr. Halkett would not

have advised the Premier about the major items facing the ministry,

including the Coquihalla Highway costs.

I find this whole episode very disconcerting and discouraging. I'm

appalled at the way the financial affairs of this province are run. I

come here with a background in the private sector and as the mayor of

the third-largest city in this country — as you do, Mr. Speaker; you

come with a municipal background — where we have to balance the budget,

where there is full disclosure of our finances, where people have got

to see the budget every year. Our capital financing in Vancouver is

done through the vote of the people of Vancouver, up front. I as the

mayor was able to persuade the people of Vancouver in a vote, where 75

percent of the people in our city voted for a new Cambie bridge to be

ready for Expo — and it was ready, 25 percent under budget, seven months

ahead of time, and all with union labour. There was a one-year process

of public consultation and participation and, during construction,

monthly printouts that were publicly available on construction progress

and the financing of that project. That's accountability, and that's

the way the books of this province should be run, not in this

disgraceful way that the Coquihalla was built, and covered up.

A half a billion dollars, Mr. Speaker. I'm angered by that. And I'm

angered on behalf of the people of this province, the taxpayers who

were run through and lied to for a half a billion dollars.

What we need out of this episode is a committee of this House to

inquire into the highest level of the past and present administrations

of the Social Credit government, into the half billion dollar overrun

and into the coverup of that, on a continuing basis. We need to clean

up the fiscal affairs of this Social Credit government, which has had

six deficit budgets in a row and has seen our credit rating diminished

to a double A and getting shakier. What we need is the truth to be told

to a legislative committee about a cost overrun of a half a billion

dollars, $500 million, the largest overrun in B.C. history. The truth

will not be covered up by Social Credit past or present.

MR. MERCIER: The political rhetoric is great, but I think

what the public is interested in are facts, and the facts are that

there is no coverup. Never has there been such an extensive examination

of a project in the history of this province. The facts don't warrant

or support the motion to further belabour the issue at hand. The truth

is already known.

The opposition is being vindictive, and for what purpose? What can

they hope to achieve? What do they think they'll find out that they

don't already know? I'm concerned that they are effectively attacking

the acting auditor-general and the office of the auditor-general.

I think that it's a very serious step they've taken through their

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), who actually has spent

a lot of time in the past year proving that he's expert in many

affairs. He's expert on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and all securities

matters, and now he's an expert in highways construction, accounting

and auditing and the operation of the auditor-general's office.

Actually, things that are heavier than air don't fly for very long, so

I expect he'll come down to earth in the next year.

They're trying to elevate the substance of the event. The substance

of the event is already known. The auditor-general reports: "...the

government was within its authority to account for the highway costs as

it did, and the costs charged to the votes were permitted within the

vote descriptions." The reason: "Because the government rather than the

Legislature made the original allocation, it was the government's

prerogative to change it, as long as the resulting allocation did not

conflict with the meaning of the vote description." Throughout his

report, the auditor-general reports support for the substance of the

transactions that took place. I won't go into detail, but on pages 4,

5, 10, 13 and 14 he basically repeats the same tenets, the same

accounting and auditing principles, that support the project in total.

Now the MacKay report: it was good as far as it went. I don't think

the MacKay report did a very good job of describing how the allocation

from vote to vote took place, and there were cases in the report that I

think went beyond their mandate.

The report followed some quotes in a letter from the member for

Vancouver East to the auditor- general. who had said: "...there

were flagrant violations, false reporting and false billing...." I

would like that member to one day apologize for making those

accusations and pointing them in the direction of the auditor-general

in his letter of November 1987, because the MacKay report clearly

establishes that the ministry's records were corroborated in all

important respects, there was no evidence of excess payments made to

contractors, and the prices bid and the profits made by the contractors

were not excessive. It's not very often that the member for Vancouver

East would eat his words, but I would say that this would be a good

time for him to start.

[3:45]

Now for the procedures that were adequately documented in the MacKay

report. What I think the public is aware of and what I would say in

response to the opposition who say there was a coverup, and the truth

must be known, and why they want to have a committee.... The public

is aware that the highway was constructed, and that although the costs

exceeded the estimates, there is no proof other than that we had value

for the money expended. Nowhere in this whole issue has the opposition

recognized the fact that the people who benefit from the highway got

value for their money and therefore the people of this province got

value for their money.

I think it was wrong for the MacKay report to speculate:

"...one wonders whether funding would have been provided

for its completion on the

schedule and to the standards that it was built."

That is pure speculation. The people saw the highway being built; the opposition

saw the highway being built: they knew that there were people employed and equipment

employed and millions of dollars being spent. If they were so certain there

was something wrong, they could have started making their inquiries a lot sooner,

and they would have had the answers then, and they wouldn't be wasting our

time now.

The report does condemn certain management practices. As the current

Highways minister stated, those practices were in effect for decades

including the period of 1972 to 1975. Our government has taken all the

necessary steps to prevent a similar event in the future.

What I think the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is attempting to

do is elevate the cost overrun beyond the criticism set forth in the

MacKay report, and again I ask: for

[ Page

3376 ]

what purpose? What does he hope to achieve? He's overstepped the bounds

of parliamentary privilege and his own area of expertise to question the opinion

of the acting auditor-general in this matter, and more latterly, he goes to

the press and criticizes, indirectly and partly directly, the words of the current

auditor-general. I think he's overstepping his bounds. Throughout the information

that has been provided, it is clear that no one is going to be hung; no one

is going to be jailed; and no one is going to be fined. So what exactly is it

that the opposition is taking our time for at this point?

Notwithstanding the overrun was large compared to original

estimates, it is clear the MacKay report findings were not material

with respect to the total provincial operating results for the year.

And for those who are not familiar with the process, the province

received an unqualified report from the acting auditor-general. The

reason the report was not qualified is because they found no reason to

qualify the report. So again I repeat: the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew has far overstepped the bounds that the public expects and is

wasting the time of this Legislature.

If the lawyer for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will allow me, I suggest he

is taking on an accounting matter— a cost overrun — and attempting to

turn it into something more substantial. In the process he's

sacrificing the procedures of this House and the reputation of some of

the members, I think for his own glorification.

The MacKay report was sufficient. The public is aware of the events

and the results. The government of the day did nothing different than

the 1972-1975 NDP government did, which spent $100 million more in a

ministry than they had planned, and the minister of the day responded:

"What's a hundred million?"

I look forward to the improved accounting and management procedures

promised by the Minister of Highways. The member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew continues on a path where his research and presentation are

inadequate to the task, and he will usually fail, like the current

motion should fail. As the first member for Cariboo stated, the

statements he made in the House were the truth, based on the

information available to the minister at the time. He refutes the

conclusions in the MacKay report with respect to misleading the

Legislature. In highway estimates, the quantity surveys and other

measurements are a very complicated matter, and I believe that our

practices now and in the future will give greater accountability to

those factors. The project on its own was significant. The issue of

disclosure must be related to the provincial budget in total, and that

is what the auditor-general has done. It was a management decision to

direct the funds, which was in the purview of their management

responsibilities, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to

support the motion.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the last speaker, the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds, says it all. He said it all when he said the MacKay

report was good as far as it went but it didn't go far enough. There's

more to this story. I think it was a bit unfortunate in some sense that

the first member for Cariboo has to stand in this House in defence of

what took place during that period of time. I know the first member for

Cariboo — not well, but I think he's a scrapper; I think he's a fighter

and can take care of himself. I would rather have seen, perhaps not in

this chamber, the former Premier and the former Minister of Finance

offering some defence of this affair. Why have they been so silent when

it comes to discussions on the Coquihalla Highway? I think that's truly

unfortunate. But I guess the former Premier's doing okay by the highway

— he's doing all right. The former Minister of Finance seems to be

doing all right as well, in terms of his position with First City Trust

and the business they do with the province of British Columbia. I guess

they figure they're doing all right. They're not going to open their

mouth and put themselves on the line. They're not going to stand up and

defend the member for Cariboo, the former Minister of Transportation

and Highways. They're not going to tell what they know about this

issue, and I think that's extremely unfortunate.

I was involved right from the beginning in this issue, being the

critic for Transportation and Highways at the time the issue really

first came to light. As a new member, I recall going through some real

wrangles with myself in terms of coming to the conclusions that I was

coming to as I unearthed the information. I don't think it's an easy

matter when we make these kinds of statements or allegations. These are

very serious allegations, and they're central. I would think that all

members, no matter which side of the House they happen to be on, would

be equally concerned about the importance of this kind of issue in this

House. In my opinion, it really does go to the heart of our system, and

that is that we trust that all members are honourable members.

I think that the evidence has been presented in such a way that it

can't be simply deflected or ignored or sloughed off in some kind of

counteroffensive from the other side. I would remind you that a prima

facie case was made by the member who raised the matter; it was made

and accepted by the Speaker, who ruled that a case was made. That

therefore became something that this House had to deal with. As a

logical consequence of that ruling by the Speaker that a case had been

made, we again returned to this House with a motion that the matter be

sent to a committee of privilege.

As I started to dig into this stuff last summer and before, in terms

of my responsibility as critic for Transportation and Highways, I was a

bit taken up with the chase. I was a rookie MLA, and I was digging into

these budgets and estimates and Public Accounts and Hansard , and trying

to chase through a very tortuous path, trying to find information that

would assist me in asking questions about the Coquihalla Highway — a

highway, let us not forget, that had been a major political issue in

this province. The government had raised that highway as a major

political and economic initiative. Later on, I'll get to what I think

was their real undoing, the introduction of the Coquihalla Highway

Construction Acceleration Act. I think that was really what did them

in, and it was a piece of political arrogance that probably hasn't been

matched, and I hope nobody ever tries to do it again.

As I was going through this paper chase, trying to find the

information that I required — that really wasn't available — I remember

that at one point I had really formed in my own mind the opinion that

the House had been misled. When all of the facts came together in my

mind, that was the opinion I formed, that the House had been misled.

I recall working on a weekend here, and I happened to run into a

person who's been around these precincts for a long time. I won't say

who it is or whether he's government or press or whatever, but it was a

person who'd been here a long time and who had a lot of respect for the

traditions and the trappings of a parliamentary democracy. I said:

"Look, I'm

[ Page

3377 ]

really kind of troubled here. I think I've come to the conclusion

that the House has been misled." I was quite dismayed and saddened by

that revelation. I said: "What do you suggest? What should I do?"

I suppose any member has the option of simply throwing things back

in the drawer and forgetting it or pretending he didn't see it. But I

also had a job to do as an elected representative in this province, and

as opposition critic in terms of that Coquihalla Highway. The advice I

got was: "Well, if you've got the evidence, if you think the facts

substantiate your conclusion, then you have to go with it. You really

don't have an option." And so I did.

I'm also aware, Mr. Speaker, that at the time we started to unearth

these facts about this highway project in June or July of last year,

phase I had been completed already. We were two months away from the

entire phase I and phase 2 complex being opened. Only two months away,

for a project that had gone on for a considerable amount of time. Two

to three years after that, the truth had not come about what the true

costs were. I wonder if the members have asked themselves that

question, particularly those with municipal experience who constantly

talk about the wise use of the taxpayers' dollar, and their

responsibility to the taxpayers. I wonder if they have really asked

themselves that question: why it took so long.

But we finally did get to the issue. We finally started to uncover

the issue, and I'm reminded by the kind of paper chase that we had to

go through of the saying that if the people don't know what you're

doing, they don't know what you're doing wrong. In hindsight, I can see

why this government did not want those figures to come out. The project

was a cornerstone in their political platform. Let's put this issue in

context. We're not talking about some minor mistake: "Oh, well, we

forgot to put the figures down. No, we didn't estimate properly. It was

all a little mistake." How easily they can sweep aside these facts that

have been brought out by the MacKay commission. How easily they can

dismiss these facts, Mr. Speaker. I'm disheartened.

In any event, we did unearth this. We did unearth these facts, and

as we started to bring them forth in this Legislature, we found a great

deal of reluctance on the part of the government to admit to anything.

I recall when I asked the Premier to set up an inquiry in this

House.... During question period, I said right to the Premier: "The

facts are revealed. We're talking about $600 million for phases 1 and

2. Would you set up an inquiry? How have we done this?" I recall the

response from the opposition side; it was laughter, Mr. Speaker. "Oh,

well, it's only millions." I heard the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr.

Mercier) go back 15 or 16 years to find a reference to a member on this

side who used to be a cabinet minister to apparently justify his

position and the position of his government. That appalls me, that they

so easily dismiss the millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars

involved in this issue.

[4:00]

1 return to the former Minister of Transportation and Highways, the

current member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael), and some of his

remarks on this issue. I really am dismayed at that member, because he

hasn't displayed any contriteness about what's been discovered. There's

no contriteness; there's no admission that it was a severe wrongdoing.

He reminds me of a kid you catch with his hand in the cookie jar, who

doesn't say: "I'm sorry." He's mad at you because you caught him. It's

the only thing that upsets the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke; he's mad

because he was caught. I guess he's mad because he's no longer in the

cabinet. Well, don't get mad at us because you're not in the cabinet,

Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Get mad at the Premier who took you

out.

MR. SERWA: "Angry" is more appropriate.

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Member. I would not like to accuse any of the members on the opposite side of being mentally deficient.

So as my leader said, he decided that the best defence is an

offence, and all he succeeded in doing was being offensive. He made

what is probably the most illogical leap of logic that I can think of

in defending what happened in this issue. He wanted to attack the

opposition because they weren't efficient enough, they weren't good

enough, to dig these facts out. "It's your fault." he says to the

opposition. "You weren't smart enough to find out." Well, that's a very

strange attitude for a person who used to be a cabinet minister. "It's

not that we have an obligation to reveal, to let the public know, to

let the opposition know in the Legislature. We don't have that

obligation. You have an obligation whether you're the public or the

opposition — to ferret the facts out. If you can't find those facts

that we've hidden in all of these obscure little comers, then you're

not doing your job right, and don't talk to me.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: That's a very strange attitude, Mr. Member, and I

wouldn't mind debating the issue with you in your constituency —

particularly that attitude. We'll see if the voters in your

constituency support that attitude, Mr. Member for Shuswap-Revelstoke.

He even had the temerity to attack the labour movement. You know, these

sensitivities keep popping out when this member gets up to speak —

these little sensitivities about the labour movement and others. Do you

think the labour movement is after you, Mr. Member?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Kerkhoff is the only thing you're interested in.

MR. MILLER: Kerkhoff is the only thing I'm interested in;

there we have it again. This member is single-minded when it comes to

the issue of one particular contractor in this province.

I'll tell you, Mr. Member, why and how this issue first came to

light. You spoke of it yourself. It was because this opposition could

not find the facts that you had hidden about this issue. We couldn't

find them because you didn't want us to find them. You didn't publish

them; you didn't explain them: you didn't volunteer them. You hid them.

Acting on information on one project, we took the lid off of that

whole Coquihalla scandal, and believe me, it stunk. We took it off with

one project that happened to double in cost. The member is, as I said.

extremely upset that we found out that information. I'm appalled, Mr.

Member.

He's upset that we actually did what he accused us of not doing —

that is, our job. Would you not have done that, Mr. Member? If you as

an opposition member had received information that a project had

doubled in size, would you not have stood up in the House and asked

questions about it? Or would you have sat in your seat, Mr. Member?

Maybe you're

[ Page

3378 ]

not fit on either side. If that's unparliamentary, I'll withdraw that,

Mr. Speaker.

So the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke wants to castigate the

opposition for not being smart enough to find their way through this

maze that had been created in terms of the true costs of the Coquihalla

Highway. I ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke: did he know about the

cost overruns?

He knew about the cost overruns. When did he know about the cost

overruns? The member is silent when you ask pertinent questions. He

likes to attack the labour movement, but when you ask him a direct

question about when he knew, he is silent.

If you knew about it, why didn't you tell anybody about it? You were

part of a new administration, I recall. I was in that election, Mr.

Member. I recall the Premier: "This new open government...." This

honest government; the clean broom; you were part of that

administration, Mr. Member. You knew about the Coquihalla cost

overruns; you just said so.

MR. MICHAEL: I didn't say so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MICHAEL: I'd like the member to withdraw that remark. I made no such statement.

MR. CLARK: I think a quick review of the Blues would confirm

that, in fact, the member did say that he knew of cost overruns on the

Coquihalla Highway.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the debate should proceed, and

members should remember that what we're discussing here — as I pointed

out yesterday — is whether or not a special committee is required to

deal with this matter.

MR. MILLER: I guess the matter of whether he knew or not is something that we may find out.

In any event, we had this commitment to a new and open and honest

administration that was going to be a breath of fresh air in this

province, in terms of the public attitude that had grown up around the

previous administration. Yet at every step of the way, when it came to

trying to find out information about what really happened, there was

resistance. There was resistance from the Premier initially about

setting up an inquiry. There was resistance from the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke when he was the Minister of Transportation and

Highways, in terms of revealing the true costs of this project.

Despite a lot of huffery and puffery in terms of trying to defend

what has taken place in the past, the members on the government's side

— as far as I can ascertain from the way they're handling themselves —

really don't like the fact that these kinds of things have come to

light. They don't like the fact that there's been a MacKay inquiry.

They don't like the fact that we're now dealing with this issue again

in terms of trying to set up a committee to really get at what happened.

As I said at the outset, it's not something that anybody should be

happy about, and if the members opposite think that we're somehow

pleased at this turn of events, they're completely mistaken. I would

much rather deal with the issues of substance in this province, and I

think there are many. This is one that I think cannot be ignored.

Turning to the kind of response that we've seen.... I think it's

important in terms of the motion we've made, because we continue to

insist that facts should be brought to light, and all we get on the

other side is not any kind of defence except: "You guys somehow want to

blacken people's names." Again the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke used

that analogy. Again I have some difficulty interpreting the argument.

On the one hand we have the member saying in his speech yesterday

that his name has been blackened in the press: "My name has been

blackened by the press in this issue." I would have thought you would

want to have a further look, a further intensive scrutiny of this

issue, and maybe your name wouldn't be so black. In the very next

breath he says: "We wouldn't have had an inquiry at all if it hadn't

been for the courageous Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun ."

There would have been no inquiry if it hadn't been for Vaughn

Palmer, he says. Well, get it straight; do you want the press to report

on these issues or don't you? Did you want the MacKay commission

inquiry or didn't you? Mr. Palmer said on July 21, and I quote:

"Michael is reluctant to release details." Maybe you should have a chat

with Mr. Palmer, to the member for Shuswap. The only reason we have the

MacKay inquiry is because of one column by one newspaper columnist.

I think in terms of the substantive issue here, which is whether or

not there should be a committee of privilege, we have to look at the

information that has been brought to light to date, and there is

considerable. I think it's pretty solid, substantive information and

it's worth repeating some of it.

I want to deal, first of all, with just a couple of statements of

the MacKay inquiry. My colleagues have read others that I think are

pertinent, but I just want to deal with one in terms of the process

because there have been members on the other side who have tried even

to discredit Mr. MacKay. Again I repeat: you've got to really examine

your own position and your own conscience.

I see all too often in this province in dealing with this

government, when there is a heavy body of opinion that says you're

doing something wrong, and you continue to cling to the notion that

there's nothing wrong with me, it's all you guys who are wrong....

You've got to think about that. I am sure there is a name for it. Maybe

if you can scurry to your dictionary you might find it, but you know

what I'm talking about.

Just reading the

summary in the MacKay inquiry report, to substantiate what I've just said:

"The inquiry has been conducted with the com mission's

agenda being set by the need to discover the facts in a methodical

way." Further on, the same introduction says:

"The Ministry of Transportation and Highways, contracting

companies, industry associations, trade unions and private individuals have

all contributed. Experts in accounting, engineering, law and project management

have acted as advisers to the commission."

In the face, Mr. Speaker, of this kind of methodical, serious

approach to try and unearth the facts in this case, we are still faced

with members on the opposite side — some of those members with

accounting experience — who can blithely stand up and say, "The MacKay

commission, that was no good; they went too far; they were no good, "

when the evidence is in front of them. It's not a bad attempt at a

[ Page

3379 ]

defence, but ultimately I would expect some realism to creep in — that indeed there was a misdeed in this province.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask about Queens Beach.

MR. MILLER: We could talk about the auditor-general too, but I don't want to use everybody else's material. I've been ordered off it.

I want to turn now to Hansard , which I find to be a valuable

document when it comes to examining the past. It is a very valuable

document because, unlike minutes of meetings or facts and figures, when

we talk in Hansard , these are the actual words spoken in this House

about particular issues. One of the things that struck me as I was

going through Hansard last year in terms of researching this issue was

the constant and detailed questioning by members of my party, acting as

responsible opposition members, as to the true cost of this highway.

They were almost relentless in terms of trying to get the facts. I

haven't counted up how many times, but on numerous occasions they

asked: "Come on! Why don't you tell us the real cost?" Despite all of

that, they got the same consistent answer back: "The cost is $375

million." Despite all of the pressure, the first member for Cariboo.

who was then Minister of Transportation and Highways, refused to admit,

even a little bit, that it would be a nickel over $375 million.

[4:15]

My colleague for North Island asked a number of detailed questions

in terms of interactions with the Treasury Board, and again we got the

same kind of response: "No." I particularly remember one response that

really got my goat, if you like. Having been around politics in British

Columbia for a long time, I've heard all kinds of references to

people's ability to manage. In response to one detailed question about

the true cost of the Coquihalla, the first member for Cariboo said:

"You guys are so negative. You've always being negative. Why don't you

listen to us? Why don't you trust us? We're honest." That's the

response we got: "You guys are always being negative." It seems we

can't do anything to please the members on the government side. If we

ask enough questions and get the right information, they're mad at us

for that; and if we ask tough questions, they're mad at us for that.

Well, we pursued, and so did Mr. MacKay. Mr. MacKay really

substantially lays out the case. But we go on. I was at a constituency

meeting a couple of weeks ago speaking to the good people in

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and a young fellow came up to me, quite upset

about this whole Coquihalla affair. What really upset him — and I have

a lot of respect for what he had to say — was the throne speech of

1986. I have to read this because it is so germane to the point we are

trying to make. These were words spoken by the Lieutenant-Governor of

British Columbia. The Queen's representative said this in this House.

He didn't write it. I don't think he wrote it; I think the government

wrote it.

"I am informed that in the past year we have witnessed some

major achievements in the continuing development of our province's transportation

systems. Work is close to completion on the Coquihalla Highway and the new

Annacis bridge across the Fraser River.... My government's pride in

these three major feats of engineering is matched only by our pride in British

Columbia and the British Columbia workers who brought them in on time and on

budget."

Who put those words in the mouth of the Lieutenant-Governor of the

province of British Columbia in March of 1986 when it is well

documented that the government was aware that the costs had gone over

budget? All we get from the members opposite is their offensive offence

in terms of this issue.

Again, on March 26 in the Legislature of British Columbia, dealing

with a very salient point in the history of this project and the

history of transfers of votes and special warrants, sometimes brought

in a week after this Legislature adjourned or a week before it started — what kind of way is that to do business? — an exchange between the

former member for Mackenzie and the Minister of Transportation and

Highways: "My first question in this regard would be: how much of

this " — special warrant — " is going toward the cost overruns on

the Coquihalla and the Annacis bridge? Where is this money going and

how is it being spent, and why the large amount?" A valid question for

the opposition. The answer from the then Minister of Transportation and

Highways in Hansard , page 7568, March 26, 1986: "None of it applies to

the Annacis or the Coquihalla. I have a list of the projects. three or

four pages long, and with permission of the House, I'll read them all

out. It will take me about an hour and a half." At that point it ended.

I can see that the member for Columbia River (Mr. Crandall) thinks

it's funny. Well, he can laugh all the way up to Columbia River and

explain to his constituents how the government managed to spend that

kind of money and keep it hidden for so long. Don't they trust the

judgment of the people of this province? Do you have to bury facts from

the people of this province, Mr. Member from Columbia River?

Mr. Speaker, let's really examine the politics of the Coquihalla and

why we need this further examination. The question is: why was

an act

brought in — the Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act? I

would ask those members: have they not done any research on this? Are

they just reading the stuff that they're given? It was brought in as a

political device and ended up being the petard on which they hoist

themselves. It was a cheap political device. It's clear from reading

the debates that

an act wasn't required. During debate on the act the

minister said they had already spent $260 million, and simply didn't

answer questions about the need for

an act.

I'll tell you why the act was brought in: because they were hoping

they could embarrass the opposition in this province into voting

against it, and then they could trumpet that around the province. If

the opposition asks serious questions about costs, these guys over here

are going to misinterpret it for the public of British Columbia and

say: "See, you're against the Coquihalla. You're against progress."

Well, quite frankly, those kinds of cheap political devices have got

them in the hot water they're in today.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, I stand today opposed to the

establishment of a special committee of privilege, and I stand proudly

in favour of the first member for Cariboo, whom I quote: "Mr. Speaker,

I have never misled this House at any time in the 18 1/2 consecutive

years I've been a member." I will stand here and defend that member's

honour and integrity, because I believe he is correct.

[ Page

3380 ]

I've reviewed the work and the expenditure that has occurred in the riding,

and let me tell you something about the history of that highway.

MR. LOVICK: In the riding?

MR. RABBITT: Yes, my friend, a good chunk of that highway is

built in my riding, and that's why I feel that I have to stand here and

contribute today. So if you will listen, you might learn a little of

the history of when a colleague of the member for Nanaimo was also a

member of the opposition and a member for my riding, and that member

rode on caravan after caravan promoting the Coquihalla Highway and

saying: "We will build it." But let me tell you what happened after

1972 when the NDP became the government. They put their head in the

sand and we never saw anything happen. That's what we saw out of that

hon. member.

Let us remember what that government, from 1972 to 1975, gave us.

For a Minister of Highways they gave us Pothole Lea. He wouldn't build

a highway. He never even patched the potholes in the whole country.

I've sat here for two days and listened to cheap shots. I've read

the papers for weeks and listened to the cheap shots taken at a member

who wasn't even here to defend himself. You must feel very proud of

yourselves, gentlemen.

I ask myself: what is the NDP agenda? Why this vicious attack on the

first member for Cariboo? I've known this hon. member for many years,

and he would not deliberately mislead this House for any reason. His

nickname in his home riding is King of the Cariboo, and let me tell

you, in my riding he's King of the Interior. I think this vicious

attack is only out there to score political points, and I predict that

in the interior it will backfire on you, members.

So again I ask: what is the real agenda? I suggest it's a strategic

plan worked out to discredit the Social Credit Party, the Social Credit

government both past and present.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) originally

brought a motion forward that I think offended individual members of

this House. It offended the auditor-general, it offended the Speaker,

and it certainly offended me. I think it's unacceptable.

The member was not successful. Let's look at the reason why.

Possibly he had an incompetent lawyer put the package together for him.

Possibly, if he'd gone to a good lawyer, the Speaker might have ruled

differently. Rather than attack the Speaker and the auditor-general,

why hasn't that member put forth a substantive motion on this matter?

Tell me why.

Let's look at the real agenda of the NDP. Let's look at the position

of the NDP leader, the inept Leader of the Opposition, the one who's

seldom in the House, who was making remarks during his speech, because

the hon. first member for Cariboo was outside the chamber for a few

moments. What was one of his utterings? May I quote from a local paper

in my riding, Similkameen Spotlight , Wednesday, March 2, 1988, an

article entitled "The Opposing View, by Mike Harcourt. Let me quote

the second paragraph: "The first item on the agenda for the New

Democratic MLAs is our call for a special committee to probe more

deeply into Coquihalla corruption." Now we know the real agenda:

muck-stirring. Corruption — where is it? You have no proof of any

corruption.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote this?

MR. RABBITT: I did, my friend. Live with it.

He also refers to the MacKay commission report. He says it's the

first step. Let us look. Let's go on this corruption. What does the

MacKay commission inquiry say about that particular word "corruption"?

Not one word, hon. members. Not one penny was spent corruptly. It is

smoke and mirrors. Now we see what the real agenda is: smoke and

mirrors, just to discredit the government and gain some more headlines.

What did the MacKay commission say? Let's look. I've heard some

quotes from the critic of the opposition, who has snuck out the back

door: "Overall, the difference between estimates and costs is due to

the inadequate estimates." We have been informed by the present

Minister of Highways that that has been remedied, has been corrected —

and it should have been.

Let's look at what they said about financial investigations. Let's see what the MacKay commission says about that.

"His detailed review compared the ministry's fi nancial

records with those of the contracting companies. This revealed: the ministry's

records were corroborated in all important respects; there was no evidence of

excess payments made to contractors; the prices bid and the profits made by

the contractors were not excessive."

Not one penny of corruption.

[4:30]

Let's look at another quote. There was one subject raised by the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller). He did ask the then Minister of

Highways about the Great Bear snowshed. Let's see what they say about

that: "...the commission is satisfied that all invoices were

properly scrutinized and payments were made only for work actually done

on the project." I suggest there was no corruption; I'll insist there

was no corruption. So what is the leader of the NDP doing? Is he

telling the whole truth? I suggest not. Again we see what the real

agenda is across the floor there. It's a vicious attack on the first

member for Cariboo. Why the character assassination? I certainly will

not support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, our House Leader spoke yesterday. He told us very

clearly what the proposal that the opposition is putting forward would

do — and that was nothing. I believe him. Our Finance minister spoke at

length on this. He pointed out some very positive benefits of that

highway and I certainly agree with that.

Let us look at this for a minute. Where did the money go? Tell me.

I'll tell you where it went. Every single dime of it got spent right

here in British Columbia. Is there something wrong with that? A good

chunk of it got spent in my own constituency, and what did it create?

Jobs, jobs and more jobs, and what is wrong with that? For you members

over there who may have been away from a real job for awhile, let me

tell you what they are. There are scraper operators, 'dozer operators,

truck drivers, crane operators, rock drillers, labourers, carpenters,

back-hoe operators, electricians, engineers, draftsmen, surveyors,

loggers, painters, and many others.

We had people from every corner of the province who worked on this

project and who benefited from the Coquihalla Highway, and the people

of this province will benefit for years and years to come. I want the

NDP to tell the people of the Nicola Valley that the Coquihalla is bad.

I want them to tell the people of the Upper Thompson that the

Coquihalla is

[ Page

3381 ]

bad. Tell the people of the Okanagan that the Coquihalla is bad. Come on.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) yesterday made some

valid points. He pointed out the opportunities that the opposition had

to challenge his ministry. He specifically pointed out four ways that

the opposition could have challenged the estimates. They failed on all

four.

I contend that there was no corruption. I contend that the taxpayer

of British Columbia got value for the dollar. I contend that the first

member for Cariboo is an honourable man and should never be subjected

to this type of vicious attack. And I contend that the NDP have a

hidden agenda and the voters will tell them that, come next election. I

urge the House to defeat this motion.

MR. KEMPF: I am going to be very brief. I don't think one

needs to speak for very long on this subject, a subject which shouldn't

even be before this Legislature. I intend to vote against this motion.

I would like to congratulate the first member for Cariboo for having

the courage — for, hon. members, it took courage — to do what that

member did today. I believe that the courage shown by that member today

exemplifies the feeling that this member has for this institution, and

not only for this institution but for the people of British Columbia.

He is not only an honourable member; he is an honourable man. He is an

honourable man who understands, unlike some who would by their actions,

by calling such a motion in the first place, show contempt for the

democratic process. I personally know that this member would never

mislead this chamber, would not knowingly mislead anyone. He's an

honest man. He's honest and he's concerned for the people of this

province, because he's spent the better part of his life in their

service.

I've been here 12-plus years and have watched this member, and if

there has ever been a member who has warmed a seat in this place and

has had as much concern for the way in which taxpayers' money is spent,

I've yet to see it. I have never seen such concern. I experienced that

concern first-hand, because I spent a year as parliamentary secretary to

that Minister of Highways. I'd like to relate a little story to this

Legislature with respect to that job, which I feel was probably one of

the best years I've ever spent in politics.

As parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Highways, the now

first member for Cariboo, every move I made, every cent I spent, was

monitored. In fact, I would think that the reports I was asked to

submit on a regular basis to that minister when I served as his

parliamentary secretary are probably the most in-depth reports written

by any member who ever served in this Legislature since its inception.

Everything was accounted for: my time, who I met, what I spent of the

taxpayers' money in doing so. I was made quite aware very early on in

becoming that minister's parliamentary secretary that every cent of the

taxpayers' money had to be accounted for, and it was. So I know

perfectly well that all of this hullabaloo over that member having

misled this chamber, particularly with respect to taxpayers' money, is

absolutely and totally false.

I say again that I'll vote against this motion, as I'll not take any

further

part in this kind of witch-hunt. It's a witch-hunt. You know,

somebody said just recently.... They talked about cheap political

devices. That is what this is. Mr. Speaker. It's a cheap political

device. What good do you expect to do by further hanging someone out to

dry on this issue? Are you going to bring the dollars back? Is that

what the opposition intends to do? I would say that's rather impossible.

So there was an overrun — if there was. So what? One of the most

impossible feats ever taken on was the building of the Coquihalla. You

know, it was a real Social Credit administration that by building roads

really built this province. I remember it pre-1951, because I was

around. I was born and raised in this province.

You're not going to do the taxpayers of this province one bit of

good by continuing with this kind of witch-hunt. It's already been very

well canvassed. There's absolutely no purpose or advantage in further

wasting either time or money, particularly of this chamber, on this

issue. I'm sure, I'm positively sure, that the opposition benches can

find enough wrong with this administration that they don't have to flog

a dead horse. There are sufficient issues that can be debated and will

be debated in this chamber with respect to what this administration is

up to. They don't have to flog a dead horse. Purely partisan political

reasons are motivating this particular motion and, Mr. Speaker, I have

to speak and vote against it. Thank you.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, it's a real honour and a pleasure to

speak today. I rise to speak in opposition to the motion put forward by

the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

The MacKay report was far-reaching, comprehensive and conclusive.

Can anything further be gained by a special committee of privilege? I

think not. An overrun — $500 million the opposition shouts. On what

basis? Nothing but the failure to upgrade estimates for a number of

reasons: inflation, upgrading of standards, extra work, a greater scope

to the project.

I thank those members of the opposition who have taken liberty to

exercise considerable latitude in this debate, especially the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark), and I thank them for their pioneering work

because I'm going to utilize all of the latitude that they've taken.

I'm addressing this debate from the perspective of an interior MLA.

I note with considerable interest that the members adjacent are

smooth-talking city slickers. They have absolutely no comprehension of

the importance of highways and transportation systems to the vast

interior of the province of British Columbia. Absolutely no

comprehension.

[4:45]

They have among their assets and their opportunities a recent

capital investment made by the people of this great province: SkyTrain.

I don't hear the members talking long and loud about SkyTrain, an

outstanding project for the lower mainland. We keep hearing about large

cost overruns. The first member for Cariboo indicated the estimate for

SkyTrain was $289 million. It's now over $1 billion, growing and

expanding. Figure that out.

MRS. BOONE: It's your government.

MR. SERWA: I don't think I hear much about that issue because it's pretty close to home, pretty close to the home of the city slickers.

MRS. BOONE: Not my home.

[ Page

3382 ]

MR. SERWA: No, that's right. That's right. The member for Prince

George North will probably join me in speaking in opposition to this motion.

Suddenly, where there was always wilderness, a freeway came into

place, and a vast province shrank. That's good stuff. Think about it.

The Coquihalla country is rugged and it's an unwelcoming land. What

did the building of the Coquihalla mean? I think we might as well look

back a period in time to the earlier days of British Columbia. When I

first came to British Columbia in 1941, I remember the Big Bend

highway. I remember all of the gravel roads in this province. I

remember the Fraser Canyon. I remember the Okanagan highway system. I

remember Kelowna in 1946 when we moved there. No substantial change:

narrow roads, the occasional one that was paved, the pavement was 12

feet wide. Most of our transportation was by ferry and barge.

Agricultural and lumber products were about the sole economic

opportunity for the people in the Okanagan. Very limited tourism

because of the difficulty of access.

In 1952 the economic opportunity for this province of British Columbia was

pretty well relegated to the lower mainland and especially to the Vancouver

area. Even the lower Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, didn't have the type of

access that they required to encourage economic growth and industry.

In 1952, for the first time in the history of this province, we had

a Social Credit Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, who had a vision for this

province and who made a commitment to this province. Social Credit

governments, through their commitment to highways and transportation,

built and developed this province and created the strong economy that

we enjoy today. The Premier had the assistance of one of our first

great highway builders, a Minister of Highways who was famous

throughout this land, Phil Gaglardi. As a matter of fact, he was so

committed to highways he used personally to go and test the curves at

high speed.

The government of the day opened up this province: the north

country, via the Cariboo highway system; the Peace River country became

attached to the province of British Columbia through the John Hart

system and the increasing upgrading of it. The East and West Kootenays

for the first time really became part of British Columbia with the

construction of highways such as the Rogers Pass and the southern

transprovincial.

Capital investment and expansion was made in this province in a

variety of other ways. B.C. Rail opened up the heartland of this

province and gave economic opportunities and jobs to the north country.

B.C. Hydro undertook vast construction projects — dams, generating

stations, transmission lines.

W.A.C. Bennett's government changed something that was very

important, something that we thrive on today. He changed what was

traditionally a north-south transportation route, a north-south supply

route because of our north-south orientation of the valleys, into an

east-west opportunity, an all-Canadian Trans-Canada, the opportunity to

travel across British Columbia on the southern transprovincial or from

Prince Rupert across to Alberta on our northern highways systems. There

are opportunities and jobs for all areas of British Columbia. Who

benefited? You bet — the north, the Peace River, the central interior,

the East and West Kootenays. The biggest beneficiary of all, hon.

members adjacent, was the lower mainland and most especially Vancouver — a rich, vibrant province held together for the first time by a modern

system of highways that has enabled and enhanced opportunities for

economic expansion in all areas of our province.

As the demand increased on our highways system, it became readily

apparent that we had to have some other system of moving vehicles from

the interior through to the coast. We had difficulties, cost

limitations, difficult terrain in the Fraser Canyon. We have climatic,

elevation, terrain, topography restrictions on the Hope-Princeton.

In 1965 I was a member of the original car caravan that went from

Kelowna through to Merritt. We overnighted there and then drove the

next day from Merritt right through to Hope. My background is in the

construction business, and I was very impressed with the formidable

task, the formidable challenge, that a road through that area would

entail. I looked at the railway, the trestles, the avalanche paths, the

snowsheds, the difficulties with rock and water, the terrain, soils,

mud, silt, the elevation and the climate.