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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3341 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Abortion funding. Mrs. Boone –– 3341

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Harcourt

Motions

Coquihalla Highway cost overruns. Mr. Sihota –– 3343

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Mr. Rose

Mr. Michael

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Williams

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

MR. S.D. SMITH: In our midst today, returned from a recent

convalescence, is the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), back to

do his duty to this House and to be, as he always has been, its true

and honourable servant. Would all members please join me in welcoming

him.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon is a

gentleman who was previously the planner in the district of Surrey and

is now with Kelowna. I would ask the House to please make Mr. Louke

Kleyn welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: In quite a number of places in the gallery this

afternoon are members of the Douglas College community social service

workers program with their instructors, Lorna Kirkham, Sally Nordman

and Bob Shebib. This group comes annually to the House as part of a

full day's visitation and consultation in the city. I’m sure all of us

will join together in welcoming them to this part of their very, very

busy day.

HON. MR. DUECK: Yesterday I introduced to the House Eleanor

and Walter Stobbe. I could not see them in the gallery, and the reason

I couldn't see them is because they weren't there. They're here today.

Would the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. Stobbe.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are Don and

Iola Boyce and Mr. and Mrs. Peter McDonald from Maple Ridge. On behalf

of the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) and myself, I'd like the

House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. WElSGERBER: Today I have the pleasure of having two

guests in the members' gallery from the beautiful community of Tumbler

Ridge: His Worship Mayor Mike Caisley and his administrator, Mr. Bob

Miles. Please join me in welcoming them.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, on behalf of the Speaker I would

like to make two introductions today. First of all, I would ask you to

give a warm welcome to Mr. and Mrs. Max Bushby, who are from

Launceston, Tasmania. Mr. Bushby is a former Speaker for the State of

Tasmania in Australia. Would you welcome them, please.

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

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we

have two people from my riding: Mrs. Mary MaeQueen, who comes from Yale

and is a director of the Fraser-Cheam regional district; also, the

chairman of the regional district, who lives in Boston Bar, Lloyd

Forman. With them we have administrator Bob Moore and planner Peter

Cave. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to bring forward our

tribute to International Women's Day today. I'm sure that all members

of the House will join with us in paying tribute to the great strides that have

been made in achieving equality for women — and men — and in recognizing that

there is still a great deal to do. International Women's Day started in

1910 as a way for women to protest unfair working conditions and low wages.

The symbol of International Women's Day is bread and roses: bread to symbolize

economic security and roses as the symbol of a better life. So I would like

to express our support for, participation in and contribution to the struggle

for equality for women on this day, International Women's Day.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in the precinct today and in the

House this afternoon we have the honour of having the Very Reverend

Canon Borden Purcell, who is special adviser to the Secretary of State,

the Hon. David Crombie, and Olivia Jacobs. They're visiting British

Columbia today to take note of what will be happening in the year of

the disabled, particularly evaluation of the publication of accepting

the challenge in bringing forward the awareness week that will take

place in May in British Columbia and across Canada. I would ask the

House to please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Oral Questions

ABORTION FUNDING

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. In view of the B.C.

Supreme Court decision that the government must pay for abortions as of

today, are abortions in this province publicly funded under the Medical

Services Plan?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They are today.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. Will the Premier

assure the women of British Columbia that abortions performed since his

withdrawal of public funding will be paid for retroactively?

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

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the Premier. Can the Premier

then advise this House if he is consulting with the Premier, and will

you be making recommendations regarding retroactivity?

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

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I just returned from a great free trade

conference in Saskatoon. I'll certainly be meeting at the earliest

opportunity, but we've just returned.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the Premier. What directive has

the government given to hospitals telling them that abortions are now

to be publicly funded?

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

[ Page 3342 ]

HON. MR. DUECK: I have instructed our staff to communicate

with the hospitals and instruct them to fund abortions that are

approved by a doctor and by a woman's request.

MRS. BOONE: A question — I'll go to the Minister of Health on

this one too. What directives has the Minister of Health given the B.C.

Medical Association telling doctors that abortions are now to be

publicly funded?

HON. MR. DUECK: The notice will be going out to hospitals and

to the doctors that the law was struck down, and that they are now to

proceed the way they were prior to the

section being struck down.

MRS. BOONE: On January 29 the Minister of Health publicly

stated that we the government will not use public moneys to pay for

abortions. Will the Minister of Health categorically assure the House

that he no longer believes this and is now prepared to defend B.C.'s

health care services, including publicly funded abortions?

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Premier. Will the Premier

explain why he publicly stated this morning that it was doctors who

wouldn't cooperate with government to find a more reasonable abortion

policy in the first place?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask the

member to listen to the tape again that was obviously provided her, and

maybe she would then rephrase her question, because I never said that.

I said that an attempt was made to try to work it out with the doctors

prior to our adopting the policy which was in place until yesterday.

This attempt failed at the time. However, we might try to do this

again. We're certainly hoping — expecting — that the medical profession

would agree to cooperate.

MRS. BOONE: Question to the Premier. On February 10, almost

two weeks after the government's introduction of its abortion policy,

Dr. David Jones of the BCMA publicly stated: "Neither the Health

minister nor the Premier has contacted us for our advice, opinion or

otherwise in this whole controversy." What assurance can the Premier

give this House that full consultation with the BCMA, who have stated

that abortion is an issue to be decided between a woman and her doctor,

will occur? Will that consultation occur, Mr. Premier?

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

HON. MR. DUECK: I don't think I have to answer any more than

that. We're in constant contact with the BCMA. As a matter of fact, I

meet with them on a regular basis.

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

I want to go back to a matter that was raised before, and the

question is to the Premier. Yesterday the government policy on abortion

was struck down by the courts. Up until then, government had not been

funding abortions, and I guess in a strange sort of way saving money.

Does the Premier believe that his government should be benefiting from

an illegality?

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the Premier is: yesterday the

government policy on abortion was struck down by the courts. It was

deemed to be illegal. The government, up until then, had not been

funding abortions, hence, in a funny sort of way, saving money. Does

the Premier believe that the government ought to benefit from its

illegality?

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I take it the Premier's stumped. I can only

assume by his silence that the Premier is answering in the affirmative,

unless he clarifies the matter.

My question to the Premier — we'll try something different for him —

is as follows. Yesterday the Supreme Court said in its decision that

"the cabinet may have been within its authority if it had made a

regulation that provided that an abortion would not be an insured

service." Does the Premier intend to pursue that direction?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This government believes that taxpayers

should not be funding abortion on demand. This government is also

extremely concerned by the concerns expressed by the Supreme Court,

where they certainly said that at some point in time the fetus, the

baby, was deserving of protection in society and by the community. All

of this needs to be addressed and we'll be looking at all of the

options available to government in how this might best be addressed.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can only assure the hon. member that

we do not agree with the philosophy or the policy obviously held by him

and members of the opposition that abortion ought to be available on

demand by all people at any time for any reason, and that we will take

whatever action necessary in order to assure that we have a reasonable

policy in place.

MR. SIHOTA: Apart from other things, the Premier is in a

vacuum when it comes to understanding our policy. A question, again, to

the Premier: given that such a regulation amounts to a non-funding

policy, and the Attorney-General said yesterday that this would not

survive a constitutional challenge, is the Premier ready to accept the

Attorney-General's opinion?

[ Page 3343 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Attorney-General, the Ministry of

the Attorney-General, the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health

and I will certainly be addressing this over the next number of weeks.

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday the

Premier "vowed to find another way to cut off payments." I quote: "He

will try to prevent" public funding for abortion "despite advice from

his Attorney-General that any roadblock he puts up will likely be

struck down by the courts." And he said he has "not ruled out an appeal

of the court ruling, despite the Attorney-General's advice that either

an appeal or a new regulation will likely be tossed aside in another

court challenge." My question....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: No, those are the Premier's quotes, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to know if the Premier can explain why he

continues his personal crusade to deny women their legal right to

publicly funded abortions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the

opposition leader go back to the newspaper from which he took the

quote, and he'll see that it wasn't me who was being quoted; it was

obviously a statement by whoever was doing the reporting in the

article. I think that's evident from what he has read here. So I would

suggest he go back, read it again, study it a bit more and rephrase the

question.

MR. HARCOURT: I will do just that. I'll read it to the

Premier. "Don't Fight Abortion Ruling, Smith Warns Vander Zalm." Would

you like to read it, Mr. Speaker? Here it is. 'Abortions Free — Chief

Justice Vetoes Socred Policy." It's very clear. The question is

straightforward: when will the Premier obey the law? When will the

Premier obey the Supreme Court of Canada, our constitution, the Canada

Health Act and the Hospital Act and stop interfering with the decision

of women and doctors in this province for proper health care?

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

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says he always obeys the law. Will

the Premier then agree to retroactively fund those abortions which have

been provided? Will he obey the law on that point? Will he agree to

meet the provisions of the Canada Health Act, which says no user fees

can be charged? Third, will he agree to respect the provisions of the

Canada Health Act, which says that no "financial or other barriers" may

be established to the provision of health care? Will he agree to

respect those two principles of law and the other point that I make

with respect to retroactive funding? If he says he always obeys the

law, then I assume that his answer must be yes. But will he do that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member is making a number of

assumptions, and one of the assumptions obviously is that through

question period he can help determine the future policy of government.

That's not the intent of question period. We will be dealing with that

in future.

[2:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, earlier during question

period I expressed concern about a member in question period seeking

legal opinion, and Your Honour will know that that is not allowed. As

much as the member does need it from time to time — which will be

obvious in the upcoming debate — it is not allowed during question

period.

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

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

Motions

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COST OVERRUNS

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in allowing the motion to be moved

by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, I am mindful of the

observations of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, to be found in the Journals ,

House of Commons. Canada, June 9, 1969, pages 1136-8. That opinion is:

"Such a motion cannot merely ask that the committee investigate whether

or not there has been a breach of privilege; it must allege a breach of

privilege. It should not simply propose that a matter be investigated

to determine if there is or is not a breach of privilege." Such an

allegation has already been made in the House. and in this case that

should suffice.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in the same decision states: "In my view, the motion

should follow the question of privilege as a logical sequence." Therefore,

in allowing the motion in the form presented, the Chair must nevertheless point

out to all hon. members that the scope of debate on such motions must be conducted

within permissible limits.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that guidance, and I

appreciate the fact that it was distributed in advance — much in

advance — and hence provided all of us in our caucus an opportunity to

consider the parameters that are established.

I will be dealing largely with the matter of the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), and subsequent speakers — the next speaker to

myself, in particular — will deal with your ruling and the procedure

that flows from it, in the form of the government House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say at the outset that we should never be

here debating this issue. We should never have been required to go

through the somersaults of the process and the procedure that we went

through to get here. I say that because the honourable thing for the

Premier and the government to have done a long time ago, after the

MacKay commission came down, was to have demonstrated some leadership,

taken the recommendations of the MacKay commission, recognized the

limited terms of reference of that commission, recognized that the

commission took the matters up to the cabinet doorstep and chose not to

go any further, and then assumed the leadership necessary to answer all

those questions that remained unanswered from the MacKay commission.

They should have assumed the leadership necessary to bring about those

statutory reforms that are required as a consequence of the MacKay

commission and have taken the

[ Page 3344 ]

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

But the government chose instead to deny this province that

leadership. It chose to allow this forum to get into this extraordinary

debate. The government sadly, because of its attitude, chose to further

its role, in my submission, in preventing the public from gaining full

knowledge of the facts that transpired on the Coquihalla issue, and

that's a shame.

When one takes a look at the conclusions of the MacKay commission,

there are a whole number of questions that remain unanswered that this

government on its own initiative ought to have referred to a committee.

What are some of those questions? I want to go over them quickly.

It should have referred to a legislative committee the question of

who oversaw the Coquihalla project; which members of cabinet were

responsible for overseeing the activities of the Coquihalla project;

which officials, for example, in the Premier's office were responsible

for overseeing the matter of the Coquihalla project.

Who thought of the plan, the concept — the idea, if you want to put

it that way — to transfer some of the work from vote 74 to 69? Where

was this concocted? Why was that seen as an opportunity? Why was it

that certain information that related to the famous $118.8 million

special warrant was provided in the fashion that it was?

Why was Treasury Board so submissive? When one looks at the process

and the structure in terms of Treasury Board procedures, Treasury Board

mandate, Treasury Board operations and the way it's supposed to be set

up and arranged in theory the way it's done in practice, given all the

checks and balances that exist in the Treasury Board process, why was

Treasury Board so submissive?

Why did the Treasury Board acquiesce so quickly to the

representations that were being made? Why did the definition of the

project narrow as expenditures went up, and who decided to deal with

that issue? We know, Mr. Speaker, that $281 million was originally

allocated, and we know which projects were assigned to the $281

million. But as the process went on, fewer of those projects were

assigned to the $281 million and more and more were assigned to the

capital construction program with respect to the Coquihalla. Who were

the various cabinet members who played a role in the affair and dealt

with it in the fashion that it was?

When I started off speaking, the Premier was here, the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) was here, the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith) was here, the government House Leader was here, the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) was here, the Minister of Social Services

(Hon. Mr. Richmond) was here, and they're all leaving. Is that the

extent of respect the members have for this serious matter of

privilege, especially when a prima facie case has been made? It's

astounding that they've chosen to walk out at this juncture of the

debate; a calculated move on their part, obviously — I saw the quick

caucus that occurred. Regrettable, I think, but yet indicative of the

attitude of the government on this issue.

This was the largest cost overrun in B.C. political history — $500

million. The position of the government on this issue since the MacKay

commission has come down is highly contemptuous. They walk out of the

Legislature. They don't want to hear the facts. They want to sweep the

entire matter under the carpet. They want to pretend it didn't happen.

And worse still, they don't want to take any responsibility or

leadership in terms of finding out what transpired, in terms of being

honest about their role in the matter, in terms of bringing about

reform with respect to the matters that require reform in light of what

transpired. It's a shame to watch that contemptuous attitude manifest

itself....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I

believe you instructed the assembly earlier that scope must be within

limits in terms of this debate, and it was a quotation from Speaker

Lamoureux. I believe we have no problem in accepting that. However, in

looking at the motion that's in the hon. member's name and listening to

the last 15 minutes of his debate, I can't see any relevance between

his debate and what the motion actually says. I wonder if you could

instruct the member to be relevant in speaking to his motion.

MR. ROSE: I think the hon. House Leader is being rather

narrow and rigid in his approach to this. I think the member was merely

setting the stage. He was also trying to base his contention that a

committee is needed to look into the facts, because obviously members

of the government aren't interested in looking into it. They're not

even here listening to him. I really feel that that is his point, and I

think he will be guided in terms of order on the important parts of Mr.

Speaker's admonition to us before we started this debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank both of the hon. members for their

presentations. As you know, the Speaker is always in a difficult

position. I assume, when members are speaking, that they're always

building a background to get to their case, and I would assume that the

hon. member is doing that also. I'm quite anxious to hear him get to

his points.

MR. SIHOTA: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure the

government House Leader would rather heckle than pay attention to

relevance. If he chose not to heckle, I think he would quickly gather

what I'm trying to do here.

Let me say that what we're dealing with in part are reasons as to

why we should have a committee. I think I'm laying out some of the

questions that would be appropriate for a committee to consider. I said

at the very outset that part of what I will be saying later on refers

to the matter of the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser). Some of

it refers to why we need a committee. Some of it refers to the

surrounding facts. I believe, in all respect, that if the government

House Leader would read the motion and realize that the motion does

talk about those three things.... I'm quite free to talk about those

three things, and I intend to do so.

I'm sure the government House Leader would prefer to cover up this

matter and hope that it's not proceeded with. Like I say, if he would

listen instead of heckle, perhaps we'd get through this a lot quicker.

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

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

[2:45]

As I was saying before the point of order was raised, this was the

largest cost overrun in political history — $500 million. A whole

series of other questions remain unanswered. I want to share some of

those as well, because I

[ Page 3345 ]

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

It seems to me that one of the issues that arises out of what

transpired on the Coquihalla matter was the breadth of cabinet powers

and the ease with which cabinet was allowed to, chose to and, indeed,

did proceed with an extraordinary amount of funding without prior

public scrutiny. And I think that is a legitimate question for anyone

who is investigating this issue, particularly a committee, because I've

always maintained that the committee must deal with issues that fall

well beyond the personal issue, that the committee ought to take a look

at cabinet powers. It should determine whether or not special warrant

rules should be changed. It should determine whether special

authorizations are an adequate alternative.

We've seen a lot happen with special warrants in this province, both

during the Coquihalla matter and subsequently, in my experience, in

terms of decentralization. Certainly those are legitimate issues for a

committee to take a look at and pass judgment on. Those are not issues,

in my submission, that must be dealt with only by cabinet, if indeed

there has been an internal review of those types of matters.

Another legitimate issue to be looked at by a committee of the

Legislature on this whole issue, Mr. Speaker, in my submission, is

whether or not the provisions of the Financial Administration Act need

to be amended, to be clarified, to be strengthened. In my original

submission on this matter I went through a whole series of provisions

within the Financial Administration Act — I think, starting from

section 5 and ending at

section 25 — which were, in my view, misapplied

given the spirit and the intent of that enactment. And I think that a

legitimate matter to be looked at by a committee of this Legislature is

the matter of the Financial Administration Act, matters of special

warrants and special authorizations.

Treasury Board process must be a matter that a committee of this

nature should have reviewed. As I have often said outside this House —

and not had the opportunity to say within this House because of the

limited nature of the first opportunity that I had to speak on this — a

legislative committee should be asking itself: what checks, balances

and safeguards must we put in place to prevent a repeat of a $500

million overrun? What checks and balances? And yet this government

would prefer not to deal with those issues. This government, Mr.

Speaker, would rather not investigate the role of the political

principals on the Coquihalla issue. This government would rather not

reform the system. It would rather not explain its role in the affair.

And as I said before, three pieces of evidence: the forty-sixth

economic review, the public accounts and finally the Ministry of

Highways brief of September 1987, all of which contained inaccurate

figures.

This government, in my submission, prefers to cover up. It prefers

to blame others for what happened on the Coquihalla. It prefers to

spend money on a commission of inquiry in the form of the MacKay

commission and then ignore its findings.

I don't hear this, but if it is the view of members opposite that

I'm wrong, that that isn't the government's preference, then the clear

way to prove me wrong is for the government to vote in favour of this

motion and to allow for a full and exhaustive review of the issues that

remain unanswered from the MacKay commission. Is the government

prepared to do that? It is not adequate, in my submission, for the

government to say: well, we appointed the MacKay commission. True, it

did, and it ought to be applauded for it. It did it after the matter

was raised in this House by myself and the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Miller), but it did it. and I applaud the government for it. But

the MacKay report gave the government a body of evidence. The

government now has an obligation to act upon that body of evidence, not

to ignore it. It's not sufficient to say: "We did the MacKay

commission.- What's required of a government that is prepared to

provide leadership is for it to act on the matters that remain

unanswered as a result of the MacKay commission. That leadership can be

demonstrated, should the government choose to support this motion.

That's the challenge, and I wanted to put it out that way. I wanted

to start out by focusing in on the reasons we ought to have a

committee. I wanted to focus in on the questions that arose for the

MacKay commission. I wanted to focus in on the non-personality issues.

I wanted to appeal to the sense of reform that the government ought to

have. I wanted to appeal to the imagery of a fresh start — as the

government still tries to pass it off. Is it prepared to do that?

That's what this whole debate will be about. That's why we need a

committee. That's why we should never have been here in the first

place. That's why the government should have moved right off the top,

after the MacKay commission came down with its report and with its

findings. If it doesn't want to demonstrate that leadership, I guess it

has got one last opportunity, one last avenue, and that is that which

flows from this motion.

I want to turn to the second large issue I wanted to deal with,

which is, legitimately, the matter of the first member for Cariboo (Mr.

A. Fraser). I want to go through some of the facts that in my view are

salient, in order to establish the basic case. In doing that, I want to

make it clear — and I've said this before — that this is not a personal

vendetta on the part of members on this side of the House. It's a

matter that the rules require us to deal with, and it's a matter that

the government could easily have dealt with well in advance of us

getting to this stage.

Nonetheless, on February 11, 1985, an announcement was made by the

provincial government that it intended to build the Coquihalla Highway.

At the time of that announcement, the government provided an indication

of what the cost would be for construction of the Coquihalla Highway.

The cost figure which was provided to the public at the time was $375

million for the entire project.

In July 1985, some five and a half months after the announcement was

made, the government of the day was well aware that the project was

over budget. Substantiation for knowledge of that fact comes from the

MacKay commission, and the knowledge that was available to Mr. Curtis

at the time, as Minister of Finance. and the information that was

shared between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Highways.

Other speakers who will be dealing with this matter, Mr. Speaker, will

deal more specifically with the knowledge that was available to the

Ministry of Finance, in order to build the case of knowledge; I want to

deal specifically with the member named here. That information was

shared with the Ministry of Highways.

At that time the former Minister of Highways asked Mr. Curtis for

$37 million for Coquihalla projects — $37 million over and above that

which had been allocated. As substantiation of that fact I point to the

transcript of evidence from the MacKay commission, and the documents

that the MacKay commission received. In August 1985 that request was

renewed.

[ Page 3346 ]

In September 1985 the former Minister of Highways was told by Mr.

Curtis to request the funds by way of a special warrant. By this time

the project was considerably over budget. Again, from the evidence that

was provided to the MacKay commission, the government was aware of the

extent to which it was over budget, and that information was

particularly known by the former Minister of Highways and the former

Minister of Finance.

Subsequent to September 1985, the Legislature was called back into

session. Despite the knowledge that the matter was over budget — and I

think it's reasonable to assume, but other members, as I said, later in

their presentation will talk about the knowledge that was wedded to the

mind of the Minister of Highways — the matter was raised in the

Legislature and on November 20, 1985, the former Minister of Highways

indicated in the House that the project would still cost $375 million.

On November 21, 1985 — and I would draw members' attention to Hansard

of both those days — those statements were repeated in the House. Yet

by November 30, 1985, the ministry's own figures, the information that

the ministry had in its possession, indicated that the total spending

on the project had risen to $415 million, well above the $375 million

originally projected. The member would only talk about phase 1 at this

stage of the game.

So the project was considerably over budget by November 30, 1985,

and it's reasonable to assume that if that was the case on November 30,

1985, then it must have been ten days before, on November 20, 1985. It

is also important to note at this stage that various people who

testified during the course of the MacKay commission, and in particular

Mr. Rhodes, indicated that the matter of the Coquihalla was a top

agenda item at the weekly briefings between staff and the minister.

On December 9, 1985, the former Minister of Highways, the first

member for Cariboo, made application for a special warrant in keeping

with the September 23, 1985, letter; in other words, the September 1985

request that I referred to earlier. We have then, on December 9,

requests being made for additional funds, some ten days after the House

was adjourned.

[3:00]

As a result of that special warrant request, a briefing note was

prepared by Treasury Board staff. That briefing note would explain why

the additional funds were required, where the funds were to be applied

and what matters ought to be taken into consideration by cabinet,

Treasury Board and the Minister of Highways at the time, in terms of

resolving how to deal with the issue.

I must bring to the attention of members of the House — the few

government members who remain in here — that the background documents

and papers provided by staff to support the request to Treasury Board

indicated that the project was $82 million over budget. This is on

December 9, 1985, some scant 11 days after the request was made on

November 30, and some scant 19 days after the matter was raised in the

Legislature and we were told effectively that it was within the budget

target of $375 million.

On January 8, 1986, the special warrant as requested was approved.

On January 20, 1986, a special warrant of $118.8 million was requested

by the Ministry of Highways. That $118.8 million made no mention of the

Coquihalla, no reference at all to the fact that the funds were going

to be utilized for or applied to the Coquihalla project. Yet

interestingly enough, on January 21, 1986, Mr. Emerson, an employee of

government, circulated a memo — which I filed with you as an exhibit in

this matter, so I don't think it's necessary for me to file it again —

effectively indicating that the scope of the Coquihalla project was

going to be narrowed in light of the fact that it was costing more than

originally estimated.

In other words, some of the projects that were originally part of

the Coquihalla budget — some of the projects shown in the original maps

released by government — would no longer be paid out of the Coquihalla

budget but out of another budget: the general government operations

budget. In keeping with that, a special warrant request of $118.8

million was issued, but no mention of the Coquihalla was made in the

matter of the special warrant. If you think about that, the money was

going to be used for Coquihalla projects, but the special warrant made

no reference to that.

Again, if it wasn't the former Minister of Highways who was

responsible for that, then who was it? Perhaps the committee ought to

be looking at that matter as well, because, Mr. Speaker, it's clear

from your ruling that you did not consider that I had put out enough

evidence to convince you of a prima facie case. That, of course,

doesn't conclude that there is no case. Of course, if the committee

should determine that the first member for Cariboo was not responsible

for that, then perhaps we should find out who was,

On January 31, 1986, the special warrant of $118.8 million was

approved. No mention was made of the Coquihalla. A fair bit of time

elapsed between the issuing of that money, which was obviously applied

to the Coquihalla, and March 26, 1986. But a pivotal event occurred on

March 26, 1986. I must say, before I get to March 26, 1986, that the

provincial government of the day, in its throne speech — other members

will talk about this in further detail — indicated that the project was

on budget and on time, despite the $118.8 million request for

additional funding, despite the fact that the project was $82 million

over budget. But as I say, other colleagues will elaborate on that

matter in order to establish knowledge and intent.

Nonetheless, on March 26, 1986, the interim Supply Act was debated

in the House. It dealt with $118.8 million, a phenomenal amount of

money that the government had secured by way of a special warrant. When

that was considered, a question was asked by Mr. Lockstead, the former

member for Mackenzie, of the Minister of Highways at the time, the

first member for Cariboo, about whether or not any of the moneys

requested — the $118.8 million — related to the Coquihalla. The answer

that came back, Mr. Speaker, was: "None of it applies to the

Coquihalla." That can be found in Hansard

for March 26, 1986. I think it's fair to say, if I can be generous in

my statement, that that was not, in my submission, indicative or

representative of the truth or the facts as we now know them, in light

of the MacKay commission.

I think that fairly sketches out the facts as they apply to the

member named in the motion. I've tried to stick only to those matters

that were reported by the Mackay commission, only to that evidence

which was given under oath, and only, generally speaking, to the

evidence subject to cross-examination — which of course stands in

contrast to some of the other material we've seen, including the Auditor-General's report.

From the MacKay commission, Mr. Speaker, we know now that the

government knew better all along. We know that these matters were

discussed on a regular and frequent basis with the former Minister of

Highways and his staff and with other government members, including

members of cabinet. It was discussed regularly in Treasury Board; it

was discussed

[ Page 3347 ]

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

MR. CLARK: And his staff.

MR. SIHOTA: And his staff.

It was also known to the member named in the motion. But it is

important to note at this juncture that the MacKay commission in its

findings — and I say this in fairness to the member named in the motion

— concluded that very little of this emanated from the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways. I think that should be put on the record,

because it reinforces the need for the committee to look at the

surrounding facts.

There's no doubt that this knowledge was in the possession of the

member named, but there's no doubt in the minds of the MacKay

commissioners, in light of their report, that others not only had

knowledge of it but were the directing and controlling minds of the

$500 million overrun. They were the ones who directed the will of

government, Mr. Speaker, and I think that that matter has to be looked

at by a committee of the Legislature in assessing. And I think it would

be particularly relevant at this stage for me to refer to your words:

"Nothing, however, that the Chair has observed with respect

to the inquiry report or Mr. MacKay's conclusions in the realm of parliamentary

procedure or parliamentary conduct is in any way intended to be by way of criticism

or adverse reflection upon the commissioner. Nor, of course, are the commissioner's

findings of large overruns of expenditure and patent inadequacies within the

Ministry of Transportation and Highways in any way questioned by the Chair."

Commissioner MacKay's conclusions remain unquestioned and may be considered

to be reinforced, Mr. Speaker, by your comments in that regard. So the MacKay

commission stands.

I want to bring to the attention of the members of this House, in

summing up my comments, that this is an essentially unprecedented

decision by the Speaker. This House functions on trust. The public

relies on the statements which emanate from it, as do members of this

House.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, the public was denied the truth, and it's

my submission that it wasn't simply the former Minister of Highways

acting in isolation. It is difficult to believe that the former Premier

did not know, that for some reason the former Minister of Highways kept

it to himself, that he kept it away from the former Minister of Finance

and from members of this government, that it was one issue done in the

laboratory of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with no

consultation or knowledge on the part of Treasury Board, the former

Minister of Finance, the former Premier or his staff. I find that

difficult to believe.

In concluding, let me say this: this is the first opportunity for

this government to live up to its promise of open government. If it

truly believes in its promises of open government, it would allow for a

full and exhaustive inquiry into this issue. That's the challenge

before this government.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to finally

have the opportunity to rise in this House and speak to the question

put by the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

I want to remind the House, first of all, that we are bound by the

words contained in the specious allegations: "deliberately misled."

That at all times must be the focus for our remarks.

The first point I want to make is this: in my judgment the need for

an inquiry is absolutely unnecessary and, Mr. Speaker, I make that

statement not without some substantiation from the other side of the

House. May I remind this House that when the Leader of the Opposition

appeared before the Coquihalla commission, he said: "The commission

offers British Columbia the best hope for a definitive account of the

Coquihalla's construction and the effectiveness of the financial

safeguards of the taxpayers' money."

That's what we did, Mr. Speaker; we provided that. Those are the

words of the hon. Leader of the Opposition from across the floor.

Surely in an abundance of justice it should be conceded by those

members across the floor that we did exactly what they wanted and, more

specifically, we followed exactly the request of the Leader of the

Opposition.

Then when they get what they want, they cry "foul." They try to

create some sort of misunderstanding, misperception that there has been

some skulduggery. Nothing could be further from the truth. Furthermore,

may I suggest respectfully that to have a relatively junior member of

this assembly apparently contradict in a public manner the opinion and

views of their leader who, as I say, has said that that's what he

expected the commission to produce and it was the best way to get the

answers....

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I submit, with respect, that this

characterizes the approach this opposition has taken throughout these

relatively short proceedings. It shows they are disorganized and

undisciplined. As a consequence, we've all had great difficulty sitting

here silently while we listen to this diatribe.

The fact of the matter is that this inquiry has brought out all of

the information that could have been obtained. Furthermore, to suggest

that a committee of this House might be able to get more information is

absolutely without foundation, and anyone who understands the rules and

procedures would agree with that comment. The inquiry that this

government created followed the terms of reference set by the Leader of

the Opposition. When speaking to the MacKay inquiry, the Leader of the

Opposition said: "The main task for this inquiry is to report on the

costs of building the Coquihalla Highway and to ensure there will not

be a recurrence of massive cost overruns."

I remind the House of a comment made just 45 long minutes ago by the

hon. member, who said that it's time we addressed the limited terms of

reference of the commission. His own leader gave us his comments of

what he thought of the terms of reference of the commission, once again

a classic illustration of a disorganized, all-over-the-map approach

these poor people are taking to the question.

Both the tasks requested of this government regarding the inquiry

were completed satisfactorily. The costs have been identified as

requested and, secondly, there has been adequate comment about the

changes we have implemented to ensure there is no recurrence of the

kind of thing that happened at that time.

[ Page 3348 ]

Other speakers will develop at some length the measures and

initiatives we have undertaken to ensure that we have some

administrative changes. I think it is fair for me to say that if the

hon. members' research wasn't so selective in their material they might

have adequately determined to their own satisfaction that the minister

in charge has publicly recounted the changes that have been implemented

in the ministry as a consequence of the inquiry's recommendations.

Furthermore, we have accepted almost unilaterally every single

recommendation made by that inquiry commission. We now know, as a

consequence of the inquiry, that there was no conspiracy to mislead

this House. We now know that the blue book of estimates and the public

accounts were not misleading and that the vote descriptions were

accurate.

There can only be two motives that occur to me as to why the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would have the temerity to raise this

issue in such a public profile way as he has done. One of them might be

to attach blame so that some sort of punishment can be meted out, or

the second one might be to ensure that it doesn't happen again in the

future.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, we've already, I believe, publicly proven

that such an occurrence will not occur, because we have made some

administrative changes. Other speakers will deal with that a little

later. I find it somewhat ironic and difficult to deal with when I hear

the hon. member, the junior member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, publicly

accuse this government of trying to hide something.

We appointed the commission to ensure that there was full and frank

and open revelation of all of the facts and, as requested by the Leader

of the Opposition, we provided all of that information and everyone was

given an opportunity to comment and give evidence.

[3:15]

I think it can fairly be said that the inquiry has produced much

good. I do believe that as a consequence of the inquiry's

recommendations it has been possible for us to validate the need for

change in terms of the operation of the ministry, and that is a most

useful purpose.

Anyone who has any experience with dealing with government at any

level will understand that if you are going to make any significant

changes affecting the operating styles of a function, you must have

some validating authority to do so, and in that respect the inquiry was

valuable.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could the minister take his seat

for one minute, please. Could the members just let the minister make

his speech. They will have an opportunity to be heard themselves and

will expect the same respect from the other side, and the debate will

continue a little better.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate

your calling the other side into some semblance of decorum and

appreciation of the wisdom of my comments.

I am concerned by some of the statements made in the MacKay report

as are, I am sure, many members of the House, possibly on both sides of

the floor. One of them deals with, specifically, the question of deceit

and prevarication, and I have to get it on the record that that

particular comment, in my judgment, is totally rebutted by the letter

submitted by the Auditor-General referred to earlier. I can't help but

Wonder why the Auditor-General wasn't called by the commission, and it

does seem to me that the explanation given by the commissioner for not

calling him was valid at the time. No one in his right mind would have

believed that there would have been this kind of vindictiveness

exhibited by the opposition such that we are dealing here with

nonsensical allegations.

No one could have predicted that, but I suspect that had the

commissioner realized the use to which his honestly obtained material

was to be put he would have called the Auditor-General, and I suspect

that that would have eliminated the whole basis of this motion we're

asked here to debate.

The commission, in my judgment, makes two basic oversights, in

addition to the one, in retrospect, of not calling the Auditor-General.

There were two misunderstandings, I believe, which have coloured the

comments of the commissioner and caused us all much needless trouble.

The first misunderstanding, in my judgment, is that the commissioner

clearly did not understand government procedures for vote reporting.

That is brought out by the Auditor-General's letter of January 22, and

further on page 5 of his most recent special report dealing with this

subject in which he describes that the projects in vote 69 were tabled

in the House and ample opportunity had been provided to the House to

get into those matters had they so wished. So the first

misunderstanding, I believe, would have been failure to understand or

appreciate the procedures for the reporting of voted expenditures.

The second misunderstanding, in my judgment, is the failure of the

commission to adequately explain the possible various

definitions of

the Coquihalla's start and ending. That also is made mention of in the

Auditor-General's special report on page 4. Quite clearly, that's a key

element of this debate. If the debaters can't agree on the boundaries

of the road they're describing or trying to cost, you're obviously

going to have some disagreements about that cost.

I say again, I do not make that comment without some basis of fact.

I refer the House to page 4 of the Auditor-General's special report

which you yourself, Mr. Speaker, gave to us a few days ago. Quite

clearly, that's the basis on which much of this confusion arises.

The report provides many findings, and the hon. members from the

opposition have elucidated those that suit their purpose. Let me

elucidate a few that might add some balance to the debate. The first

finding that I want to draw your attention to is that nobody benefited

illegally out of the Coquihalla construction project. That is a direct

quote from the commission's findings and I just happened to notice that

it was continuously absent from any commentary provided by the

opposition.

Furthermore, the report said there were no excessive profits

realized by the private sector in the construction of this highway —

once again, an oversight in terms of the material presented by the

opposition. The findings of the report clearly point to the reason for

this confusion in terms of costing. It's rooted, of course, in the

long-standing ministerial practice of not attaching a great deal of

attention or profile to cost estimates of roads to be built.

The opposition's sanctimonious stand would be more easily defended

had they themselves not had the mantle of government from 1972 to 1975,

because during that period of time they didn't see fit to change the

system. They didn't see fit to demand all of the changes or implement

the changes they're now demanding of us; and, in fairness, neither did

this side of the House see that need until this experience.

[ Page 3349 ]

So first of all, this question of poor estimates was something that

was always done. It was never paid a whole lot of attention to. It was

something that was developed only in a ballpark kind of sense. If you

couple that with the difficulty of defining the boundaries of these

roads themselves and the approaches to the highway, I think everyone

can better understand how this contradiction occurs.

The other reason for the differences between estimates and actual

costs, obviously, was the decision to fast-track. The commissioner

makes comment about that fast-tracking decision. But let me take the

minds of this House back to the economic times when the decision was

made to proceed with this highway. Let me remind this House that at the

time of the cabinet decision in 1984, the unemployment rate among

construction workers, in particular heavy and road construction

workers, was over 30 percent. There was a very real and profound need

to diversify the economy.

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was some heckling, I'll admit, on my

part when the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) was

speaking, but since the Minister of Finance has risen to his feet the

NDP benches have not stopped heckling. I guess to paraphrase

Shakespeare, methinks they protest too much. They're awfully nervous

about something.

But that aside, I think the minister should be allowed, as every

member should be allowed, to continue his remarks with some courtesy

shown by members in this assembly, and he should be heard.

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

remarks, and I would ask members of the House to allow the Minister of

Finance to continue and to listen to his debate. I'm sure he'll offer

the same courtesy on the other side.

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

To continue, at the time the decision was made to proceed with the

construction of the Coquihalla Highway, there was a very real and

profound need to diversify the economy of the interior, which was

plagued with an unemployment rate three to five points above the

provincial average. Construction of that highway provided a total of

10,600 direct jobs and 15,900 spin off jobs during the life of the

project. That highway has reduced the travel time between Vancouver and

Peachland by one and one-half hours. It has reduced the travel time

from Kamloops to the lower mainland by one hour.

From 1981 to 1986, 85 people lost their lives traveling the

Trans-Canada Highway between Hope and Kamloops. May I respectfully

remind the hon. members across the floor that since the opening of the

Coquihalla Highway, there has been only one recorded traffic fatality

on this new route. In addition, may I remind members opposite that the

construction of this highway has the effect of annually saving

travelers on that portion of the road $40 million in fuel and operating

costs and over 20 million litres of fuel. In addition, it makes a

valuable contribution towards tourism development in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the Coquihalla Highway is a good road. It's worth its

cost and it achieved the public policy goals of the provincial

government. The Coquihalla Highway connected the Okanagan Valley, the

Nicola Valley and the Thompson Valley into a cohesive whole, serving a

market of a quarter of a million people at distances of only one and a

half hours apart. The interior is now linked to the Seattle-Vancouver

market of 4.5 million people. If that's not making a valuable

contribution to economic development in this province, I wonder what

else would have done better.

[3:30]

At that time the government had to make a decision: how does it

create more spending power: how does it get the economy moving again:

how does it get some level of optimism in our people, and most

importantly, how does it make sure Expo is a wild success? Rather than

handing out money in terms of largess, in social assistance payments,

it preferred to build some infrastructure which will be there for all

of our children to use in the future.

An important part of the hon. member's allegations dealt with the

question of special warrants. I'd like to make a few comments about

that.

It is suggested that the use of special warrants in this instance

deprived the Legislature of the right to vote on real estimates. As I

mentioned earlier, the Auditor-General's report makes mush of that

allegation. May I now take the opportunity to get into the record

something that I've been sitting on for months, and that is to say how

special warrants have been used by previous governments who have served

the people of this province.

I first of all would like to make the point that back in the nasty

old days of 1972-75, different legislation was in place governing how

the votes and proceedings of the House would be dealt with than is in

place today. But I am assured by people who are professionals in the

field that the requirements and the wordine of those acts then and now

are similar; so one can safely assume that the application of those

rules and instructions has been followed religiously in both cases.

Let me put on the record a few facts. During the first session of

the thirtieth parliament of the Legislature of British Columbia, in

which, as I mentioned earlier, leadership was provided by the now

opposition — Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — they introduced four

warrants the week prior to the session. In the second session they

introduced 19 special warrants, all but one of them issued the day

prior to the opening of the Legislature. In the third session they

introduced eight special warrants, all in the week immediately

preceding the opening. In the fourth session they introduced 40 special

warrants, 17 on the day the Legislature opened. In the third sitting of

that session they introduced ten special warrants the week before

opening, and in the fourth session they introduced 19 the week before

opening,

Just to put that in perspective, may I point out that during that

brief, wild fling in the heady rounds of powerage held by this official

opposition, their count on special warrants, using the same rules we

use today, was in '73, 76 special warrants; in '74, 122 special

warrants; and in 1975, 116 special warrants. May I respectfully point

out, on the record, that our record this session is 11. More than that,

our traditional record has consistently been far fewer than those

harumscarum without-forethought decisions made by the government of

that day, who had to run to the bank every next day to cover their

overdrafts.

[ Page 3350 ]

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. COUVELIER: After getting those comments on the

record, I'd like to say that, in my judgment, special warrants is an

appropriate use of government authority and necessary many times. I

have some doubt it is necessary 128 times, but nevertheless, during the

session it has its place.

I'd like to talk about the way this motion we're dealing with seems

to have unfolded. As I mentioned, I find it ironic that this

government, open and full and complete, is the one that somehow is

being characterized as having something to hide. We're faced almost

every day with a newspaper headline with some sanctimonious

breast-beating that suggests that the only ones who are protectors of

the public interests are those who don't presently hold the mantle of

power.

I suspect that headline-hunting does a disservice to the issue. The

hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tried to inject a serious note

in the debate this afternoon by dealing in a very tender way with the

one member whose actions we're discussing here today. But the fact that

we are discussing this matter at all, Mr. Speaker, I find an offensive

overreach, an attempt for headline-grabbing which I think does a

disservice to this House and certainly does a disservice to the

intentions of the MacKay commission itself, which was surely all that

is required in order to provide, and it has provided, all the full

facts surrounding the matter.

The member who has introduced this motion could have, had he had the

wit or maybe the intention to be fair, stopped these proceedings far

sooner than at the point we're now finding ourselves. I find it passing

strange that someone who tries to characterize himself as being so

concerned with justice and honesty and fairness could have deliberately

omitted from his submission of evidence to you, Mr. Speaker, the one

most critical piece of evidence of all, which kneecaps his proposition

that an inquiry is needed at all. I find that pretty hard to accept. In

an abundance of fairness, I always thought, the legal profession and

any profession that claims to be representing honesty and openness and

fair-minded treatment to all would have ensured that you, sit, had all

of the evidence before you were required to make your deliberations. I

learn to my astonishment, after the fact, that you did not have access

to that most critical piece of information. Without it, of course, the

prospects for the opposition's claim were dramatically increased.

However, the member's actions are not offensive only for that

reason. In my judgment, the hon. member's actions are offensive for a

few other reasons which I will now put on the record. This member, this

junior member with the vast sum of two years' experience in local

government and one and a half years' experience in this House, has

attacked an employee of this House, the acting Auditor-General, with

his public comments. I want to get in the record one of these comments.

The hon. member described the acting Auditor-General's letter: "A

Swiss-cheese opinion; it's full of holes." Back when I was in the area

of local government, it was deemed most inappropriate for any elected

person to make accusations of a staff member knowing full well that the

staff member could not respond, that the staff member was legally

constrained. I think that such actions by an elected member are

reprehensible.

Furthermore, this same member, this same honourable protector of

public rights and all that's good, attacked you, Mr. Speaker, in a

statement that he gave to the Vancouver Sun on March 2. This

hon. member said — I'll put this in the record: "...It was

'incongruous' that Reynolds could reject one of the MacKay commission's

key findings in favour of 'one paragraph from one letter. I'm

astonished and somewhat disappointed by the Speaker's decision.' "

Mr. Speaker, may I tell this House, if anyone's disappointed about

the consequences and the actions and this journey we're embarked on, it

is I. And it's all caused entirely by some of this headline-grabbing

exercise by the hon. member opposite.

Then, to add insult to injury, we have a third case of an attack on

a staff member who cannot respond — all for the purpose of providing

pulp for the fourth estate. The reference I make here is in today's Vancouver Sun ;

there is a comment from the same hon. member dealing with the new

Auditor-General. He makes the point that the new Auditor-General's

"reliance on the...evidence the Legislature must have been aware of the

transfer of funds and therefore approved it is proof 'the report

crumbles on its very foundations."'

The hon. member obviously doesn't like hearing what professionals

who are paid by this House, not by this government, advise us upon. In

an abundance of fairness, surely, had he not been so determined to grab

the next headline or the next deadline, he might have acted a little

more responsibly in terms of what he said.

I'd like to introduce the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to

the hon. first member from the riding of the Cariboo. Alexander Vaughan

Fraser has served this province, my friends, for 38 years of public

service. Alex Fraser served as chairman and mayor of Quesnel for 19

years. He served in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps during the

war. He's won six re-elections to this House. He's served this House

for 19 years.

How do you equate these allegations made by the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to the record of service of this man, this giant

of B.C. politics, this man who has in 19 years of leadership in this

House had the largest say in terms of putting highways into British

Columbia, all over this province? If there is one single architect of

economic strength and vitality in this province, it is the hon. first

member for Cariboo; and he's done it responsibly by spending taxpayers'

money building infrastructure for us and our children.

Here we have the hon. member entering this House to defend himself

against these unnecessary and, in my judgment, spurious allegations.

This government has recognized the service of the first member for

Cariboo by naming our newest and biggest and most beautiful bridge

after him. His memory will survive these sad days in this House, my

friends, long after you are gone. And we take much pride and comfort

from that truth.

In the final analysis, the allegations the hon. member makes — the

member either knew or he didn't know when he commented on the cost of

construction in the House. In the final analysis, he either knew or he

didn't. Using your own words in your report, Mr. Speaker, it would take

a quantum leap to assume that the hon. member knew. But what if he did?

What is the retribution expected as a consequence?

I am advised by those more experienced than I that the absolute most

consequential event of this allegation, if proven — and, believe me, it

will not be.... The best that can be expected is an apology. I would

take no pleasure in that

[ Page 3351 ]

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

If, as I think is far more likely, the hon. member didn't know,

there would be adequate reason to believe and support that thesis.

First of all, it was a matter of record that the records were poorly

kept. There was no....

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order. Not to interrupt the

hon. member, I think the standing orders will show that both sides are

allotted a designated speaker. If the Minister of Finance wants to

designate himself that way, he certainly can.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

[3:45]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cariboo

either knew or he didn't know. As you yourself said, it would take a

quantum leap to assume he did know, and even if he did know, what's the

retribution — an apology?

Mr. Speaker, I submit it's far more likely that he didn't know. It's

already a matter of record that there was not a great deal of

discipline in terms of accounting records in that ministry, and that

had been historic, going back into the days when members of the

opposition were in power. There was never any great focus on estimated

costs. The decision was always: shall we build the road, and if we're

going to build the road, from where to where? Once that decision was

made, funds were provided, because this is a government of action, and

this is a government that provides work to the people when they need it.

The MacKay commission clearly pointed out that proper procedures

were followed at all times by this government and by our predecessor

government. There is absolutely no case to be made, both in the opinion

of the comptroller-general — who is an employee of government, a public

employee — and in the opinion of the Auditor-General, who is hired by

this House to ensure that the government acts responsibly. The hon.

members opposite had the authority and certainly the freedom, and they

did participate in the selection of that individual. I find it

incongruous in the extreme: all of a sudden, within months of his

appointment, they're already finding some fault with the decisions that

they pay him to provide them with.

It surely is nitpicking, Mr. Speaker. It surely doesn't deserve the

attention that has been given this subject. The case for the motion has

not been proven, quite clearly, in my estimation. But most important of

all, who are we talking about? We're talking about one of the great

heroes of British Columbia politics. I think it's time to end this

needless charade.

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

The Minister of Finance started with an arm-waving defence of the

indefensible, and he ended with a tacky, spurious appeal to

sentimentality. It was tacky and it was spurious, because the record of

service to this province by the former Minister of Highways, the member

for Cariboo, is not in question here. We are not questioning his

service to the province. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, made the ruling

that there was at least a prima facie case, and I think it's quite

traditional in a House of this kind, according to our precedents, that

you don't make critical reflections on the Speaker or his decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance attempted to justify the

Coquihalla on some pretty flimsy grounds. The minister said we needed

construction jobs. Agreed; we needed construction jobs. We needed lots

of jobs, because we were firing people left and right at that point.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: That's got nothing to do with it. Wasn't it the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) who was complaining here a little

while ago about people heckling? Well, he can take his own advice.

The minister attempted to justify the Coquihalla on public safety

grounds; on fuel-saving; on time-saving; on everything but the glories

to God, as far as I can see. This is what he did. That was spurious,

too. It had nothing to do with the question that confronts us. The

question confronting us is: is the minister in a prima facie position

of contempt of the House? Is the House justified in providing a motion

of privilege? That's the question we're dealing with.

The minister may talk about public safety and everything else if he

likes, but what he has done is widened the debate to the point where

you could drive a truck through it. What can't you talk about anymore?

The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is not the value of the

highway. The question is: was there a conspiracy to cover up the $500

million overrun? Forget about all the diversions, about whether my hon.

friend from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was attempting to malign a public

servant. It's just another diversion. His speech was just laden with

diversions.

I think we should remind ourselves why we're here, Mr. Speaker. I

think we should remind all the hon. members why we're here: to decide

whether or not members of this House were deliberately — I repeat,

deliberately — misled in the matter of costs of the Coquihalla Highway.

That's why we're here. It is not Mr. Speaker's role to determine that.

Mr. Speaker's role is quite clearly to determine whether or not there

is a prima facie case to be made that this House was deliberately

misled. The House — all its members, not just the opposition — is

charged with the responsibility of deciding that matter, not Mr.

Speaker.

I think everyone knows — it was mentioned by my hon. friend — that

the House in a parliamentary democracy rests on trust and truth. When a

minister is asked a question, it is a responsibility of that minister,

so far as he is able. so far as he

[ Page 3352 ]

has knowledge, to tell the truth, to 'fess up. When ministers in

other jurisdictions — notably the Mother of Parliaments, upon whose

rules our rules rest — come under a cloud, they resign. When they are

named by a royal commission as stridently and aggressively as they were

by the MacKay commission, most honourable ministers would have

resigned; we wouldn't be dealing with this today at all.

The motion before you, Mr. Speaker, asks for a special committee to

be struck to consider the facts surrounding the prima facie case

against the first member for Cariboo. Prima facie: that case has been

made in the matter of one individual only — the hon. first member for

Cariboo and former Minister of Transportation. A prima facie case has

not been made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, according to

you, Mr. Speaker, against the others named. Who were the others named?

Mr. Bennett, the former Premier; Mr. Curtis; the current Premier; the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Convelier ; and the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael). That does not mean that some of the

others didn't conspire to deliberately mislead the House. It means only

that — on the basis of the evidence presented by my hon. friend, the

evidence available to Mr. Speaker, presented by my hon. friend and

others, such as the acting Auditor-General — at that time it wasn't

convincing enough for you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on a case beyond the

one you did, in which only one person was named. That's why we're

having this debate: so that the House can enlighten itself on that

subject this afternoon.

In other words, Mr. Speaker's ruling doesn't find innocent the

former Premier, Mr. Bennett; Mr. Curtis; the current Premier; the

Minister of Finance; and the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Mr. Speaker

has not found these people innocent. What he has ruled is that we did

not present enough evidence to find them guilty, prima facie, or enough

evidence to suggest that there might be a conspiracy. But it's a little

different that assuming that because they were not found guilty in

terms of the prima facie case, they are in fact not involved. It

doesn't prove that at all. I don't think that that's an escape hatch

for anybody.

Only a prima facie case has been established against the former

Minister of Highways from Cariboo for attempting to deliberately

mislead the House — a coverup of some $500 million on the Coquihalla

Highway construction, the largest overrun in B.C.'s history. Welcome to

Alabama north.

I'm going to come back to these matters later, but before I go on, I

think it's important to observe the precedents relating to the

references to the Speaker's ruling and subsequent debates in this

House. I say, too, that I hope I won't offend the Deputy Clerk when I

do this, because I intend to cite from rules established in the federal

House by Beauchesne in the fifth edition.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I cite

section 117, subsection (1), which states in part: "His" —

meaning the Speaker's — "actions cannot be criticized incidentally in

debate or upon any form of proceeding except by way of a substantive

motion." I assume that's for impeachment, which is rather rare.

Beauchesne,

section 119, says: "Speakers' rulings, once given,

belong to the House which, under standing order 12" — of the federal

House — "must accept them" — in the case of more than one ruling —

"without appeal or debate."

Two things stand out here, and I'm attempting to set the parameters

that were all shot to pieces when I listened to the minister of bombast

over there just a minute ago. I'm attempting to set the parameters of

what we might speak about in this debate.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: I think that what I have to say about rulings apply

to both sides of the House. At least I'm entitled to express my views

on them. I don't need any guidance through heckling.

Interjections.

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

Two things stand out from these citations. First, Speakers' rulings

are no longer appealable. We don't question that. It's gone. It was

once upon a time a fact of any Legislature that if you didn't like a

Speaker's ruling, you could appeal it. That is no longer a valid

approach to our proceedings.

The second thing is: Mr. Speaker's "actions cannot be criticized

incidentally in debate." I don't question that ruling at all either.

But hon. members should note that nowhere does it say that a ruling by

Mr. Speaker cannot be discussed and referred to in debate. It doesn't

say that. It can be praised, even. It can be analyzed, but it cannot be

criticized or appealed anymore, once it is called. I accept that too.

I think it's important to establish this because, as Mr. Speaker

said at the outset, the scope of the debate "on such motions must be

conducted within reasonable limits." I think this side of the House

doesn't intend to violate those reasonable limits, but I wonder about

the previous speaker.

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

"Nothing, however, that the Chair has observed with

respect to the inquiry report or Mr. MacKay's conclusions in the realm

of parliamentary procedure or parliamentary conduct is any way intended

to be by way of criticism or adverse reflection upon the commissioner.

Nor, of course, are the commissioner's findings of large overruns of

expenditure and patent inadequacies within the Ministry of

Transportation and Highways in any way questioned by the Chair."

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

It's absolutely spurious for the Minister of Finance, as he did just

a moment ago, to suggest that somehow we were unfairly attacking some

member of the House who has an unblemished and long record. It's just

patent nonsense, and another spurious tiptoe through the tulips.

[4:00]

What did Mr. MacKay find? If Mr. Speaker has not questioned his

findings, it might be worthwhile noting what his findings were. Here

are his findings: "(

a) established that the costs of the Coquihalla

Highway and related projects grossly exceeded the estimate of costs,

both as announced to the public and reasserted in the House." That's

pretty heavy stuff. That's one of his findings. Remember, Mr. Speaker

hasn't questioned these findings.

Mr. MacKay "(

b) expressed an opinion based on the commissioner and

his consultants' understanding of the parliamentary process" — and that

has something to say about

[ Page 3353 ]

the acting Auditor-General's understanding of the parliamentary

process — "involving statements made and documents tabled in the House

that the House, was misled and that the 'financial reporting of the

Coquihalla Highway project' was 'tainted with an atmosphere of deceit

and prevarication both by politicians and public servants.' " And he

continues to say: "(

c) that neither the Ministry of Transportation and

Highways nor Treasury Board had an inadequate system for auditing,

controlling and reporting the Coquihalla project." And: "(

d) that

while the published information presented to the Legislature would have

allowed anyone interested to have deduced" — now we're talking about

deduction; we're not talking about explicit statements — "that the

final costs would exceed the ministry's published estimates, staff

within the ministry knew the amount of work yet to be done and the

costs of the upcoming construction season."

The highways department servants knew. Right? And Mr. MacKay says

the reporting of the financial aspect of it was tainted with an

atmosphere of deceit and prevarication on the part of politicians — not

one politician; politicians. "Politicians and civil servants." I didn't

write his report. That's what he said.

What are some crucial questions arising out of all this, Mr.

Speaker? First of all, "prevarication" means "lying." Politicians and

public servants were lying. That's what it means. So much for

democracy. So much for trust. They were lying, according to the royal

commissioner, Mr. MacKay. Which politicians were lying? That's why we

want the committee — to find out which politicians were lying.

MR. RABBITT: Witch hunt?

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

As far as deceit is concerned, "deceit" means the opposite of being

open. Being deceitful means you're trying to hide something, something

that people should know but you're hiding it. Why were they deceitful

and who was deceitful? Again, we don't want a witch hunt. We don't want

a whitewash either.

So these are questions really for the committee to decide, so it can

consider, as the motion said, the facts surrounding the prima facie

evidence that the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) misled the

House.

A lot has been made about this shell game with votes 69 and 74. I

don't think the question is whether it was technically legal for the

funds to be shell-garned from one vote to another. We've heard from the

Auditor-General and his successor, the acting Auditor-General, on that

topic. That's not the point. That's a technicality at this point,

although several assertions have been made that the acting

Auditor-General did not appear at the commission and did not give

testimony. All of a sudden, when asked, he was prepared to say he would

have given it a clean bill of health, no matter what happened. That's

what he said. My information........

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I haven't said anything about it. I'm just stating

what he's done. But I want to say that it is my information that there

were in camera meetings with the commissioner and the auditor-

general's department. All right. There were.

Okay, let's suppose it is legal. Let's suppose the shell game is

legal. The fact is the funds were shifted from one vote to another, and

I believe for a deceitful purpose. The legality of such a shift is

really irrelevant because it doesn't alter the public perception of

what went on. I mean, these are fine little Druid games we play in

here, but not everybody understands them outside, and a lot of us don't

understand them inside the House. But that isn't the point. It's the

public perception that there was a wilful attempt, a deliberate attempt

to cover up a massive overspending on the Coquihalla by politicians and

public servants. Mr. MacKay believes this. He says so in his report.

The opposition believes this because we all said so. More importantly,

the public continues to believe that there was a massive and deliberate

coverup. No amount of fancy footwork is going to escape that fact. No

amount of fancy footwork is going to change that public perception. No

amount of saying no to a request for a committee is going to change

that at all.

You, sir, made your ruling that the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew had not made his case, except for the member for Cariboo, the

former Minister of Highways. It comes down to just one person that

we're supposed to be attacking. We named six people, not just one. The

government has seen fit somehow.... Again, I mustn't reflect on the

Speaker's ruling, but the point is that there is only one person named

in the Speaker's reply to our motion. We would have much preferred it

to be broader than that.

We want that kind of commission. We want a committee to examine the

facts surrounding it; this is the reason for this. Are we really being

asked to believe that the hon. first member for Cariboo acted alone,

that he was the only one involved? It's kind of stretching credulity,

in my view, to believe that he and his officials fooled the Premier,

Mr. Bennett; that he and his officials fooled Mr. Curtis. I believe

that granting the member for Cariboo powers of deception almost

matching or even exceeding those of Harry Houdini is granting him far

more than he deserves in this.

Did the member for Cariboo transfer funds from one vote to another?

Of course he didn't do it by himself. How could he? He didn't have the

power to do it by himself. Did the member for Cariboo sign the warrants

to spend money by himself, or were there other signatories, such as Mr.

Curtis or Mr. Bennett, on those warrants? To give the member for

Cariboo the kind of powers suggested here in this debate, certainly by

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), is to suggest that he ran

the show. Nobody believes that either.

Mr. Bennett, then Premier, so careless.... Was Mr. Bennett so

careless or stupid not to have known what was going on, or was he less

than candid with the public about fast-tracking the Coquihalla? What

fast-tracking means here is "cover your tracks fast."

Mr. Speaker, you've decided that there's at least a prima facie case

of deliberately misleading the House against the member for Cariboo,

and we accept that. But I and my party cannot accept the fact that the

member could have acted alone. We don't accept that. He did not act

alone, without the knowledge of his colleagues and superiors: quite to

the contrary.

The first member wrote letters to Treasury Board chairman Hugh

Curtis, who approved the money. His staff met with the Finance ministry

and the Premier's office staff. Cost data were regularly supplied to

the first member for Cariboo and discussed at his weekly staff meetings

and with his office. Funding was approved by Treasury Board. He could

hardly have been acting alone.

[ Page 3354 ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to conclude now. We are calling for complete

committee hearings and feel confident that if we haven't already done

so, we can make an extremely strong case for this committee to act, to

travel, to hear witnesses, to call for papers. We need a lot more

ventilation of this, and the government needs to bring more controls in

so this kind of financial Coquihallacaust doesn't happen again.

MR. MICHAEL: I'm sorry there aren't more members of the

opposition present during this debate; however, I suspect that part of

the reason might be that the lines are buzzing between here and

Manitoba. I've just heard that the government of Manitoba has gone down

to defeat after having lost a vote of confidence. I'm sure that is

causing a lot of concern with members opposite, and perhaps that's some

of the reason why many of them aren't here to participate in this

debate.

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

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I know that the members across

there are jubilant over what has happened in Manitoba, but I don't see

what this has to do with the debate on the overrun of the Coquihalla.

I'd also like to point out that we were quite pleased about the court

decision yesterday, but we didn't interrupt the debate on the Election

Act to gloat over that decision because it happened to embarrass the

government.

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

MR. MICHAEL: For the record, if that was an embarrassment to

members opposite, I apologize and I withdraw. I want not to spend too

much time on the document delivered to the House yesterday by George

Morfitt, the Auditor-General, an officer of this House, but I do think

that it's important to take just a couple of minutes and read a couple

of the paragraphs in that document. For the record, the paragraphs are

at the bottom of page 5, and simply say: "Accordingly, and

notwithstanding the matters raised by the hon. member for

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew in his submission to the House, we do not

believe the March 31, 1986, financial statements of the government to

be misleading."

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

"Based on this work, and based on the knowledge that

the government was within its authority to account for highway

construction costs as it did, and in the belief this accounting

treatment was in keeping with the intentions of the Legislature, we

expressed our opinion on the financial statements of the government

without reservation. After considering the matters raised during the

commission of inquiry and the submission to the House by the hon.

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, we believe that such opinion remains

valid."

[4:15]

From there, I would like to move on to some other areas and show to

this House how the NDP opposition has failed the province of British

Columbia, and I would like to put into question some of the statements

made by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota), indeed

challenging and questioning his accountability.

I do not want to take any time, as it's already been said, over some

of the tremendous service given to this House and to this province by

the former Minister of Highways, so I will leave that part out of my

address. But I do feel that it's important to pay attention to those

two simple sections out of the Auditor-General's report.

Now we could talk about how the NDP failed in four areas in

providing good opposition on behalf of the people of the province of

British Columbia regarding the Coquihalla Highway. They have four

opportunities, four formal methods, basically, of questioning

ministerial estimates and overruns.

First of all, they can write the Minister of Transportation and

Highways a letter and ask him questions on a formal, straightforward

basis. I can tell you that during my term as the Minister of

Transportation and Highways I received not one single letter from a

member opposite asking questions about the Coquihalla costs or the

overruns in general.

The second thing they can do is put a written question on the order

paper. They did put some questions on the order paper directed to the

Minister of Highways, a position that I held at that time, and I can

tell you two things: there wasn't one single question dealing with the

Coquihalla overruns, and every question directed to me that was on the

order paper was answered forthwith.

The third thing I would like to point out to the House is that they

have an opportunity to place questions before the minister during

question period and they also, fourthly, have the opportunity to

question the minister during his estimates. On those two points, we've

already pointed out that there were no letters sent to the Minister of

Highways. We would have to grade the opposition with a failure in that

respect. There were no notices put on the order paper for questions. We

would have to grade the opposition with a failure in that respect.

Regarding question period, on July 13, 1987, there was one question

asked by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) about a segment of

overruns, and it was limited to the Great Bear snowshed. The question

simply was:

"I wonder if the minister could confirm that a project

let on the Coquihalla Highway — namely, the Great Bear snowshed project

— which was originally tendered for some $5 million, has in fact come

in at just about double that, at about $10.5 million."

MR. LOVICK: What day?

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

The response from the minister was: "Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm

the exact dollars. He's talking about a project in Coquihalla 1, and

there was a significant overrun on that particular project because of

the seasonal nature of the work."

I suggest to you, speaking of the Great Bear snowshed, that the

questioner did not do his job in this Legislative Assembly by following

through and asking the minister of that time how the seasonal nature of

the work caused the overruns on that particular project. He failed to

do that. However, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, in his

[ Page 3355 ]

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

"On July 13, 1987, my colleague, the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Miller), asked the then Minister of Transportation and

Highways, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke...whether the Great

Bear snowshed — originally tendered for $5 million — had come in at or

about $10.5 million. The member for Shuswap replied — and this can be

evidenced through Hansard, page 2413 — that: '...there was a

significant overrun on that particular project because of the seasonal

nature of the work."'

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

"In September, the Deputy Minister of Transportation

and Highways, Mr. Illing, presented a ministry brief to the MacKay

commission. That brief flatly contradicted the July 13, 1987, answer of

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke about the Great Bear snowshed. At

that time, according to his own ministry's brief, the most important

reason for the additional payment was that the site was not available

to the contractor on time, and in support of that fact and evidence, I

draw your attention to page 30 of the MacKay report."

As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, he is charging me with

deliberately misleading the House. That's the accusation against me

which has blackened my name in the press and in editorials throughout

the province. I suggest to you that the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew deliberately did that. He knew full well, for on July 15 he was

in the House. His name is in Hansard as being present during this

particular ministerial estimate.

If you look to page 2539 of Hansard dated July 15, 1987, you will

see that the member for Prince Rupert asked questions to the minister

again regarding the project of the Great Bear snowshed, the Kerkhoff

Construction Group of Chilliwack — project B-2882. I want to read into

the record my response on that day. To me, this will clearly point out

to the House that that member, who was present while I was giving this

response — his name is shown at the bottom of that same page — heard

what I had to say, is deliberately misleading this House by not

acknowledging — refusing to acknowledge — that I answered the question

in the following way, which clearly contradicts what he said on

February 23, 1988. Here is my response to that question during my

estimates:

"Mr. Chairman, that's a very good question and a very

good issue. The original bid price was $5.5 million. The total payment

to the contractor was $10.5 million. Some of the reasoning is the fact

that the tender was let with the understanding that the work would

commence on a certain date. Unfortunately the contractor involved was

not able to get into the area for some two months after the date that

he was told he could enter the area.

"He had worked and bid on the project on the basis of

completion by November 1985, and we all know what the Coquihalla is

like in that particular region of the project — a tremendous, heavy

snowload factor. As a result of the two-month delay in his getting into

the project, of course, he wasn't able to complete the project until a

long time after that, having had to work through the very heavy winter

months. There was an extremely heavy snowload factor, and it was very

expensive to keep the project going.

"Along with that — again no blame on the contractor — he

had difficulty as a result of our efforts and not having adequate access. He

had access to only part of the site, again resulting in delays. Also, the contractor

had poor rock. which was not anticipated. Much more money than anticipated had

to be spent to set these anchors in place as a result of the poor rock. Along

with that, as in many other major contracts that have been let, there were other

extra work items that our staff had laid on the contractor which resulted in

this figure."

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you: how could the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew

be present in this House, hear what I had to say and make the accusations that

were made against me in his statement to this House, impugning not only myself

but five other members of this assembly? I would suggest to you he either did

not do his homework or he is deliberately making accusations that are not valid,

because the record clearly refutes the accusations as made against me dated

February 23, 1988.

Mr. Speaker, in looking at the estimates of the minister in 1987,

it's interesting to look at the work the opposition did during those

estimates. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew asked me no fewer than

25 questions. None of them had to do with the tremendous overruns in

the entire Coquihalla project. Rather, the opposition in this House

zeroed in on one particular project, the Great Bear snowshed, the

contractor being Kerkhoff. I wonder why that was the only project that

the opposition zeroed in on. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

in their blind submission to the labour leaders in the province they

completely neglected an issue of paramount interest to the people of

British Columbia. They were taking orders from headquarters, and

zeroing in on Kerkhoff, and they completely let down the people of the

province in analyzing the ministerial estimates and looking at overruns

in the length and breadth of Coquihalla 1 and Coquihalla 2.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: What was it?

MR. MICHAEL: Let's talk about it. It wasn't through the

efforts of the opposition, Mr. First Member for Vancouver East. It was

no thanks to you or any of your colleagues. You failed to ask proper

questions. You failed to make proper cross-examination of the minister

during his estimates.

There is one reason and one reason only why there was a MacKay

inquiry and an inquiry into the overrun, and that was the result of a

Vancouver Sun columnist who approached me on leaving the House

on July 13 and asked me several questions, at which time I asked him to

put those questions in writing, which he did within an hour. He had the

response to those four questions in less than 24 hours. He asked in the

afternoon; he had it the morning of the next day. One reporter had more

moxie than the entire 22 members opposite.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the audacity to accuse me

of deliberately misleading the House. The facts are plain and simple:

we gave them all of the answers to the questions that they asked, all

on the order paper, and all those questions asked during the

ministerial estimates.

[ Page 3356 ]

I don't wish to get into it, Mr. Speaker, because I'm no longer the

Minister of Highways, but I could suggest to you that there were many

changes taking place during this entire period, changes that I can

assure this House.... I will leave the details of those to the

Minister of Highways when he returns to participate in this debate. But

I can tell you that there were changes regarding the organization

within the ministry — reporting changes and changes in the control

procedures. There were a lot of changes going on, to make sure that

overruns of this nature would not happen again.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the charges being made about

deliberately misleading this House.... I have a note that was made

here during the speech given by the opposition House Leader. He was

talking about deceitful being the opposite of openness. I would ask

that member to search the records and to show that at any time I was

not open with this House, open with the press, open to any questions

asked on the order paper, and open to answering questions delivered to

my ministry. It was the opposite: we were continually open with any

inquiries made by the members opposite. We attempted continually to

work with them in answering questions in the interests of the residents

of the province of British Columbia.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP have failed on all counts

in their responsibilities as an effective opposition party in this

House. They did not ask the proper questions. The only reason, I

repeat, that this inquiry was brought about was through a single member

of the press gallery, and not as a result of their efforts.

[4:30]

I would suggest that if the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, being

so good at using the old scattergun approach to deliberately blacken

names, as he did for me back in November 1987.... I would love to

have the opportunity to talk to him or to some of the other members in

person about the type of bed-mates that that member chooses to receive

information from, but we will get into that.... I'm sure, Mr.

Speaker, I would be ruled out of order if I got into that too heavily.

But I want to say that when that member talks about honour and trust, I

have to tell you, I sit here and shake my head somewhat.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the comment you made just a few

moments ago is entirely unparliamentary, and I'll have to ask you to

withdraw it, please.

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

Interjection.

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

With that, I will take my seat, and I'll look forward to hearing the

balance of the debate. But I just wanted to put on the record how the

opposition has failed in this assembly in doing its proper job and,

again, for the history books, how the inquiry was brought about in the

first place, because it sure wasn't any credit to any of the members

over there.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, some astonishing remarks from the former Minister

of Highways, who said that it's our fault. It's the opposition's

fault that we didn't ask questions, that they were $500 million over budget.

He knew it; he made those allegations. He said today, the former Minister of

Highways: "The opposition never asked about the tremendous overruns in

all the projects associated with the Coquihalla Highway." He never made

that clear to this House. He never clarified the remarks of the ministry's

submission, while he was the Minister of Highways, to the MacKay commission,

which had clearly false and misleading statements in it. It clearly violated

— and he never took the opportunity today to clarify the ministry's remarks

before the MacKay commission, which have been refuted clearly in every case.

Mr. Speaker, it's important to reflect upon why we're here today and

what we're here to discuss. We're here to talk about a question of

privilege about one member and the facts surrounding it, as to whether

we were deceived in this House and misled. And the reason this arose is

because of the monumental overrun, the likes of which we have never

seen before in British Columbia: the Coquihalla Highway in total cost

about a billion dollars, almost $500 million over budget.

This overrun was not made public, in spite of the fact that the

minister's remarks clearly allude to the fact that they knew there were

tremendous overruns — to use the former minister's own words — in this

project.

There can be only two explanations: first, that the government was

so incompetent that they couldn't find $500 million, that they lost it

somewhere in the shuffle — half a billion dollars; or the other

alternative is that the government knew, and they systematically moved

to hide from and deceive the House and to cover up the fact that these

overruns were taking place. I submit that the remarks just made by the

former Minister of Highways indicate very clearly that they knew that

this was tremendously over budget. They never came clean; they never

took any opportunity in this House to establish the facts. And they

blame it on us for not asking the appropriate questions.

Well, $500 million over budget is enormous. But one of the problems

with the amount — $500 million — is that it's almost too big. No one

knows what it means. Five hundred million dollars — how much is that?

I've never had $500 million in my hand, and neither have other members

here.

Mr. Speaker, I want to just give two examples to indicate how much

$500 million is. Let me just give you two little examples. Say, for

example, that someone was hired to do a job eight hours a day, five

days a week, 50 weeks out of the year, and his job was to count $1

bills one second at a time — one, two, three...40,990,000. One

dollar at a time, he worked at that job. How long would it take for

that person to count to $500 million? It would take 69.4 years.

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

MR. CLARK: Well, I think one second a dollar bill, Mr.

Speaker, might be a bit too conservative. It seems to me it would take

longer, especially with those big numbers when we get up around

499,999,999. So I'm being conservative. Sixty-nine years for someone

working full-time eight hours a day counting $1 bills, with no coffee

break and no lunch break, by the way. Sixty-nine years.

One other little example — and I don't want to make light of this.

But I think it's important to recognize the enormity of the overrun.

This is just the overrun. This isn't the estimated cost of building the

highway; this is the amount the government went over on one project.

[ Page 3357 ]

Mr. Speaker, if those one-dollar bills were laid end to end, how far

would they go? I'll tell you: 47,349 miles end to end with no break.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's farther than Kelowna.

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

These numbers are so big that they become unreal for people. The

government can laugh off the suggestion and say that these overruns are

simply that: little overruns, little oversights. We have never seen in

British Columbia the likes of the magnitude of this overrun. It is

staggering that this government, which professes to get elected on

business acumen and efficiency, can come in here and not only be $500

million over on one project, but then systematically lie and cover up

the fact that that $500 million overrun has taken place. In passing

comment, the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith) said: "Oh,

we've had other overruns — more than that, even. For example, the rapid

transit project was estimated at $200 million and came in at over $1

billion."

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier was the minister.

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

We have seen other systematic overruns with the previous

administration and this administration that have been phenomenal,

unbelievable. At the same time, of course, that this horrendous overrun

was taking place, this same government was cutting back on every

service to people in British Columbia. Every social service was being

cut back and thousands of people were being laid off at the same time

as we saw a half-billion dollar overrun on concrete and highways. That's

a large amount of money by any measure.

That there has been this overrun is absolutely clear. It is my

contention that the overruns were systematically hidden from public

view, not because of incompetence.... That's the other choice: simple

incompetence. In fact, the Minister of Finance, in his remarks

purportedly defending the comments, made it very clear that the system

was at fault. Essentially he was saying that he thought it was

incompetence. I don't think it was incompetence, but a deliberate and

planned deceit on the part of the government of B.C. Certainly the

first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) played a role in that coverup

— no question about it — but he was clearly not alone. Through a review

of the evidence....

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

MR. CLARK: I think it will become obvious as I go through the

evidence with respect to the first member for Cariboo and his

associates at that time that the first member for Cariboo deceived the

House. It is absolutely clear that Mr. Hugh Curtis, the former Minister

of Finance, was an accomplice in that deceit.

I will go through it for the members of the back bench. He, Mr.

Curtis, aided and abetted the coverup, and it is my belief that a

coverup of this magnitude happening in the private sector, which is

accountable to shareholders, would mean that people would very likely

be put in jail. People would be put in jail if this happened in the

private sector and the board of directors systematically hid $500

million and deliberately misled the shareholders in that regard. Mr.

Curtis is an accomplice because he sat on Treasury Board. Indeed, he

was chairman of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, and the

Treasury Board facilitated the coverup perpetrated by the first member

for Cariboo.

I would like to concentrate on two methods used by the government to

conceal the very existence of overruns, let alone their magnitude. I

think it's clear when you look through the MacKay commission report,

when you look through the evidence that we've seen across the board,

that there were really two methods used. First was the use of special

spending warrants to conceal votes that would have come before the

Legislature, second was the switch to vote 69 of moneys allocated to

vote 74. I would like to go through those two methods that the

government used to systematically hide the facts from the public and

from the Legislature.

Special spending warrants are to be used extraordinarily. The

members across the way know that, and the Financial Administration Act

is very clear. Only when the House is adjourned and only in a matter of

urgent and pressing necessity, or unforeseen circumstances, are

spending warrants to be issued.

Spending warrants were used in the Coquihalla coverup. The issuance

of special warrants clearly indicates, firstly, that the government

knew that costs were soaring — that evidence will become clear — and

that they were over budget, all the while maintaining in this House

that the Coquihalla project was on time and on budget. The evidence is

absolutely clear and irrefutable: special warrants were issued to cover

overruns, while at the same time the former Minister of Highways, the

first member for Cariboo, was in the House maintaining the fiction that

the costs of the Coquihalla were on time and on budget.

The first mention of special warrants was made on July 15, 1985,

where the first member for Cariboo, the former Minister of Highways,

sent a letter to Mr. Curtis, the former Minister of Finance, requesting

a special warrant. On July 15 that first letter was sent:

"Supplementary Highway Capital Construction Program," asking for

approval in the amount of $156 million, of which $37 million was for

the Coquihalla Highway. The projects were described as "...of the

highest priority as outlined at a recent meeting between staffs of the

Ministry of Finance, this ministry" — the Ministry of Transportation

and Highways — "and the office of the Premier." Clearly, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister of Highways was acting in concert with the Minister of

Finance and the Premier's office.

On August 2, which is only two weeks later, another request was

made. After intervention by the Minister of Finance and the Premier's

office — that's very clear from the evidence — a second letter was sent

by the first member for Cariboo clarifying his request. He wrote a

letter to Mr. Curtis asking that his previous letter be cancelled, and

asking for approval in the amount of $128.8 million. So he reduced it

by roughly $30 million as a result of his conversations with the

Minister of Finance and with the office of the Premier. For the

Coquihalla, $37 million more was required than the estimates approved

less than eight weeks before. The estimates were approved in the House,

and eight weeks later, the minister is going in concert with the

Minister of Finance for a special spending warrant asking for $37

million more. The letter

[ Page 3358 ]

made reference to a specific meeting between Finance, Highways and

the Premier's staff. The reference was also made that if the program

was approved as agreed to by the cabinet, then it was necessary for a

special warrant to be issued.

[4:45]

On September 23, about a month later, that resulted in a personal

and confidential letter being sent to the first member for Cariboo

indicating that that request was approved by Treasury Board. Mr.

Speaker, it should be known that Treasury Board, of which the chairman

was Mr. Curtis, approved a special warrant to the tune of $30 million

over and above what had been approved in estimates.

On November 20 in the House the first member for Cariboo continued

the falsehood that it was on time and on budget. He asked for a special

warrant to cover $30 million over budget, and then on November 20, he

came in the House and announced that it was on time and on budget. How

much clearer can one get? How could one argue that it's incompetence

and not deliberately misleading? On November 21, the next day, in

response to a question from the former member for New Westminster, the

member for Cariboo again advised the House that no additional requests

have been made to Treasury Board for funding of the Coquihalla Highway.

That's a quote from the former Minister of Highways — that he had made

no request from Treasury Board for further funding of the Coquihalla

Highway, when in fact he had. The factual and hard evidence is clear

that he had. However — and this is how people have hidden behind this

fact — even though the approval had been agreed to by Treasury Board,

it had not been formally written out and approved by Treasury Board.

The House adjourned, Mr. Speaker, on December 2 of that year, and on

December 9, seven days later, the member for Cariboo made the formal

application, referring to the private letter he had received, asking

then for the special warrant to be approved. That was formally approved

on December 20 by Treasury Board — which was chaired, of course, by Mr.

Curtis. So we know that on November 21 he said in the Legislature that

they had not made any requests for further funding of the Coquihalla

Highway, even though the evidence is that he did. We know that he

didn't take the opportunity to raise that in the House at that time,

and we know that he got money from Treasury Board, approved by Treasury

Board, for overruns on the Coquihalla Highway a week after the

Legislature adjourned. Mr. Speaker, I think the evidence in that

respect is absolutely clear.

The December 20 agreement by Treasury Board to fund the overruns on

the Coquihalla Highway included a Treasury Board briefing note which

indicated that $61.8 million of the warrant was for the Coquihalla

Highway, and that the expenditure on the project was going to be $363

million, or $82 million higher than the estimates figure of $281

million.

The former Minister of Highways and the former Minister of Finance

can't plead ignorance, because the facts are absolutely clear that the

Treasury Board briefing note states categorically that the spending

warrant, if approved, would result in $82 million over budget. That

spending warrant was approved. It was approved in principle in

September, and in November the former minister lied to the House by

saying that in fact he had not made an approach to Treasury Board. The

facts are absolutely clear in that regard.

The Treasury Board, chaired by Mr. Curtis, knew that the highway was

significantly over budget. The use of the special spending warrant hid

the fact from the Legislature, and the timing of the warrant seven days

after the House adjourned could only lead to the conclusion that it was

a deliberate, political manipulation — absolutely deliberate. There is

no other conclusion that members of the House can come to.

On January 20, a month later, the first member for Cariboo requested

another special warrant. This would be, I believe, the third special

warrant with respect to the Coquihalla requested. The member asked for

$118.8 million for the Coquihalla Highway in addition to the previous

special warrant that was issued.

It was here that Mr. Curtis played a pivotal role. In deliberately

concealing the facts.... I said there were two ways in which the

government deliberately concealed the facts. The first was the

selective and deliberate use of special warrants; the second was the

selective switching of authorization of votes; in other words, the

movement of moneys between votes to disguise the fact that it was over.

When the second warrant — actually it was the fourth special warrant

requested but the second in this series — was requested, the former

Minister of Finance decided that the vote switch from vote 74 to vote

69 would be in order, in order to conceal the fact. In his submission

to Treasury Board, the former Minister of Highways, the member for

Cariboo, referred to the previous request for funds relating to the

Coquihalla Highway and said, in effect, we need more money. However,

the letter sent in this regard said that it was for highway projects

other than the Coquihalla.

On January 21, one day later, the Treasury Board secretary, David

Emerson, wrote to Mr. Curtis a memo which said that the Highways

ministry's intention was to use vote 74 only for those projects

directly related to the Coquihalla. In other words, on January 21, when

they got another spending warrant from the former Minister of Highways

to the tune of $118 million, having just approved one that they knew

was making it over budget, Treasury Board decided to arbitrarily

allocate those funds to vote 69 instead of vote 74.

Even though this was a deliberate manipulation of the estimates

procedure, and Mr. Emerson suggested it apparently, according to the

evidence we have, Mr. Curtis agreed. It is interesting that Mr. Emerson

has now been hired by the Premier as one of the major consultants on

the privatization initiative, and we see his name all the time.

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

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

So this individual played a key role in supporting the political

manipulations desired by the government. Perhaps the only reason to

question.... The only person probably in this whole area that comes

out unscathed, I think, by the documents we have seen is the former

Attorney-General, Garde Gardom, who, when he saw the memo from Mr.

Emerson that documented this manipulation, the switch of money from one

vote to another, suggested that he wouldn't approve that as a member of

Treasury Board, and that it should go to the entire cabinet for

discussion as to why it was warranted that this switch take place.

Instead of going to the entire cabinet as Mr. Gardom suggested, Hugh

Curtis, in his position as chairman of Treasury Board, approved the

warrant.