1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3905 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Vogel report on Eckardt commission. Mr. Lauk –– 3905

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 3906

Pollution of coastal waters of southern Vancouver Island. Mr. Hanson –– 3906

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 3906

Effect of logging on salmon streams. Mr. King –– 3907

Administration of medicine in schools. Mr. Lauk –– 3907

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Attorney-General estimates. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3907

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 3928

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to introduce Mr. Scotty Almond, who hails from the

village of Vanderhoof in my constituency of Omineca. Accompanying Mr.

Almond is Baroness von Einen, from Dusseldorf, Germany. The baroness is

looking to invest and take up residence in the beautiful province of

British Columbia. I would ask the House to make these two individuals

very welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce to the House Mr. Art Theurer from the village of

Oliver. He's in the tourist industry, and he is down here to meet with

some representatives of the Ministry of Tourism today. I would like the

House to bid him welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

members, quite surprisingly, there was a call at noon today from

Speaker Schroeder, less than 18 hours after a double bypass heart

operation. He phoned to say hello to all. His secretary has asked for a

card to be circulated. I would ask all members to sign it.

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney-General

on the Vogel report on the Eckardt commission. Were statements taken from

Shona Sutherland and Vi Barton, two members of the commission staff, during

the course of the investigation of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised that all the commission staff were interviewed.

MR. LAUK:

Can the Attorney-General confirm that Shona Sutherland's statement

reveals that the entire interim report was completed and printed on

June 16, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I cannot.

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General undertake to provide that answer to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be happy to make inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and give the member the answer.

MR. LAUK:

Were statements taken from the Queen's Printer's office, and are

records available from the Queen's Printer's office that would indicate

their work log from June 14 to June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Members of the Queen's Printer's staff were interviewed. It was

disclosed in the course of that interview that the Queen's Printer did

not keep work logs.

MR. LAUK: From the statements taken from the Queen's Printer's

office, did their statements reveal that printing of all or part of the interim

report took place on June 16, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

As the report clearly indicates, the officials of the Queen's Printer

who were interviewed acknowledged that there was printing done on the

Friday, but not the complete report.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General now decided to make those statements available to the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK:

Will the Attorney-General confirm that statements taken from Vi Barton,

in which she reported that Susan Thompson, now Susan Geisler, stated to

her — that is to say, Vi Barton — "Grace McCarthy got to Eckardt," and

that this statement was made to Vi Barton either on the day the report

was submitted to the House or shortly after? Can the Attorney-General

confirm that that statement was in her statement of evidence?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The statement by Ms. Barton was disclosed during the course of the

interview. It was checked out with Susan Thompson and other members of

the commission staff who were alleged to have been present, and it was

not substantiated. The alleged statement was not made on the date which

the member suggests, but prior thereto.

MR. LAUK: My

information has it that Vi Barton said that on a day after the 15th or

16th — she could not be sure of the exact day — she attended at the

commission office where that statement was made by now Susan Geisler.

Is that in accord with the Attorney-General's reading of the transcript?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It's not in accord with the information that was provided for us during

the course of the interviews, Mr. Speaker. It was not on the days that

the member suggests.

MR. LAUK: This statement — the

Attorney-General will agree — is somewhat corroborative of the

statement of the affidavit of Miss Tamoto, yet those facts are not

reflected in the Vogel report. Has the Attorney-General an explanation

for that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the

statements of Miss Barton in this respect were checked by the

interviewers with other persons who are alleged to have been involved

and were not substantiated.

MR. LAUK: Has the Attorney-General now decided to release or table the transcript of the interview with Vi Barton?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I told the member before, I don't propose to make those statements available.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness the Attorney-General will agree that

the Vogel report should not be based on a finding of credibility of two

commission staff as opposed to the credibility of another two

commission staff. Surely the Attorney-General agrees with that

proposition, does he not?

[ Page 3906 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with that proposition. The report was based

upon an examination which was made of all of the persons who were

involved and could have contributed to the resolution of the matter,

and if statements can't be substantiated and are based upon rumour,

then they have to be rejected.

MR. LAUK: Was Susan Geisler employed by Larry Eckardt as a lawyer in his private law practice at the time of the commission?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the answer to that question; I'll take it on notice.

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that Susan Geisler is presently employed by Larry Eckardt as a solicitor in his office?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what Mrs. Geisler's present occupation is.

I'll take it on notice and will provide the member with an answer.

MR. LAUK:

The so-called Vogel report says on page 5 that on Saturday, June 18,

1978, Eckardt "made his decisions in respect of the electoral

boundaries of the city of Vancouver." Having regard for the

Attorney-General's answers of Monday and today, can the

Attorney-General advise whether maps or metes and bounds of the

electoral boundaries of the city of Vancouver were printed by the

Queen's Printer before this decision was made on June 18, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that June 18 was a Sunday. I'll have

to take the other question as notice. I don't have the details with me.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD:

My question is to the Attorney-General on another subject. In January

of this year the Attorney-General communicated to me that he was

awaiting further information with respect to the extent of foreign

ownership of land in British Columbia. When I checked with the land

registry office this morning I was told that no start has yet been made

on analyzing the forms which contain the information about the

citizenship of those purchasing land. The Institute of Agrologists,

Peace River division, has again expressed alarm at the extent of

farmland purchases by absentee foreigners in that region. Has the

minister now decided to conduct an investigation of the extent of

foreign absentee purchases of B.C. land?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the official who had been

requested to do that study is no longer with the ministry, and

therefore the study has not yet been commenced. With respect to the

question of foreign ownership of land in this province or the right of

persons who are not resident to acquire land, that's a matter of policy.

POLLUTION OF COASTAL WATERS

OF SOUTHERN VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On July

30 Dr. A.S. Arneil, the regional health officer for the Capital Regional District,

submitted a report to the health committee of the CRD asking them to bring marine

waters to bathing standards. As the minister responsible for water quality,

Dr. Arneil pointed out that a comprehensive survey of all pollution sources

in the southern Vancouver Island area was required to identify and tackle the

problems. Have you now decided to establish within your ministry a team — a

task force or a survey team; I don't mind what you call it — to review all

possible pollution sites and sources in the southern Vancouver Island area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON:

Dr. Arneil had other recommendations, and I would like the minister to

take these as well. Dr. Arneil has indicated that it may very well be

the fact that the quality of the water may not be brought up to

standard by the outfall extensions as they are presently proposed.

Therefore a treatment plant site must be set aside in that eventuality.

Is the minister in agreement that full sewage treatment must be in

place if the outfall extensions do not bring the water quality to his

ministry's standards?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I've also advised the Capital Regional District of that opinion.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS, WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It's my understanding

that the purchase of the Maplewood Poultry processing plant, which has

been undertaken with federal assistance by an Alberta firm known as

Lilydale in cooperation and conjunction with the B.C. turkey growers,

is still not finalized. It's further understood that the finalization

depends on this minister's guaranteeing a $1.5 million operating loan.

question is: has the minister decided to delay this decision until the

deal falls through and Maplewood falls into the hands of Cargill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Unless the question is rephrased, I cannot

allow the question in that form. The member is free to rephrase the

question.

MRS. WALLACE: Has the minister decided to grant the loan?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

First of all, the deal is not being delayed by any decision of my

office. I had a very constructive meeting with Mr. Berry of Lilydale in

my office the day before yesterday. We had a good discussion in regard

to what Lilydale's activity is in the acquisition of Maplewood. I can

tell the member that I have advised Mr. Berry that through our ARDSA

program we would certainly be looking at any assistance that would be

available to them in their capital improvements of the Maplewood plant.

I also advised Mr. Berry that I was quite prepared to recommend that a

loan guarantee be made to the new company or the new cooperative that

will be put into place which will have B.C. turkey growers' and

Lilydale's equity in it and our assistance, along with the federal

government's assistance. I'm looking for-

[ Page 3907 ]

ward to seeing that plant back in operation within a very few days.

EFFECT OF LOGGING ON SALMON STREAMS

MR. KING:

I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The ministry has

arranged for the five-year management and working plans for tree-farm

licences 20 and 21 to be reviewed by federal fisheries officials before

approval is given by the ministry. Has the minister decided now to

follow this particular procedure for all management plans where

salmon-bearing streams are involved?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KING:

Can the minister tell me if this particular procedure was restricted to

the two licences which I referred to — 20 and 21 — and will not be

followed in any circumstance in the future?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: No, I'm not saying that.

ADMINISTRATION OF

MEDICINE IN SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: I have a question to

the Minister of Education. On June 5 and June 6, and again on July 24,

I asked a question with respect to school medication which the minister

took on notice. Since then several further inquiries have been received

about ministry policy in the administering of medication in schools.

July 24 the minister said that a policy was coming in due course. Can

the minister report to the House just when members may expect the

policy to be announced?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thought

that I had given pretty full answers to that question already, Mr.

Speaker. I've spoken on it. An express circular to the field hasn't yet

been finalized. I have a draft of it that I'm working on, but I made a

general and full policy statement to this House, and it's not a case of

the House waiting for further information. A policy circular will be

going to the field in ample time before the opening of school, as I

told the member last time.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I ask leave to file answers to questions standing under my name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for North Island asks leave for introductions.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon is the mayor of

Campbell River, a long-time member of the House of Commons. I'd like

the House to welcome Mr. Tom Barnett.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: minister's office, $155,343.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, out of great admiration and respect, I will defer to the first member for Vancouver East.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Skeena defers to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the reason for the delay is to allow

the press time to get out of here. I haven't said too much this session

— that is, in terms of quality, but I've never lacked in quantity. In

my own humble way I'm going to continue to make that assessment.

have a few words to say in private, just among us chaps and ladies here

in the House, about the Attorney-General, his relationship to the job

and what has gone on. I don't want to say anything to embarrass anybody

or anything like that, so if those cabinet members who are not Liberals

want to leave, they can leave now. We know that this really is a

coalition government, and my remarks are directly focused on the

Liberal members.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Have you got your suspenders on today?

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the survivor from Columbia River. He and I, as

long-time members of this House, enjoy a very amiable relationship

outside of the chamber.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Show us your suspenders!

MR. BARRETT:

This is my twentieth year, this month, in this chamber. It took me all

these years to learn that when you are dealing with the Socreds you had

better have your pants hitched up really well. They'll take anything

off you, if they get a chance.

I want to just chat a little

bit about the Liberals — the remnants of the Liberal Party that now sit

on the government benches representing the name Social Credit. I

suppose once you get over the handicap of allowing yourself to be

labelled a Social Crediter, anything goes. I remember when the

Attorney-General, the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) were Liberal members in this House. I remember the very great

speeches they used to make, with impassioned commitment and sincerity,

attacking the Social Credit administration of the day, and particularly

the former Attorneys-General in the Social Credit administration, Mr.

Bonner and Mr. Peterson. I think it's an interesting thing to observe,

as I've done today, how the now Attorney-General — all his words are

not on record, but some are, in his attacks of the previous

Attorneys-General — has switched completely in terms of defence

mechanisms and rationalizations now that he's Attorney-General with a

Social Credit government — not with a Liberal government, but with a

Social Credit government, although I am convinced that the remnants of

the Liberals still define themselves as Liberals in the coalition only

to stop socialism. That rationa-

[ Page 3908 ]

lization

has allowed for anything to go in terms of those who jump to the Social

Credit label. Can you envisage, Mr. Member for Vancouver East — also

sharing your twentieth anniversary in this chamber this month...?

MR. MACDONALD: Not so loud.

MR. BARRETT:

In your case I'll be quiet about it since you are about 40 years older

than I am, Mr. Member — 40 years older in wisdom and life experience.

Yes,

I have so much to learn. I'm still trying to figure out how Liberals,

making the speeches they could make, could swallow all that and allow

themselves to be identified as Socreds, and then sit over there and

defend exactly the same thing Mr. Bonner and Mr. Peterson did when they

were being attacked.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

You just be careful down there, Alec. You and I have been here a long

time. We're going to be around a long time together, you and 1. When

all else are gone you and I will still be here, Alec. Everything rolls

right off your back; nothing bothers you. I'm with you, pal. I wish you

120 years of life. I appreciate the interruptions from the member for

Cariboo (Hon Mr. Fraser). After all, he succeeded Mr. Bonner in that

seat. Do you remember Mr. Bonner?

I want those in the House

who have been around for a while to just cast their minds back a few

years. Let us just pretend, for a little while, that the present

Attorney-General is sitting down there like he did in the old days as a

Liberal member, and Mr. Bonner brings in the Attorney-General's report

on the investigation of the charges against the Eckardt commission. I

ask this House to do a little checklist, a little quiz; and keep the

results to yourself. Who would be the first lawyer in the Liberal Party

on his feet demanding that the transcripts of interviews under that

inquiry be made public? I want to know, in your minds, who would jump

up first? Would it be the member for Point Grey, sitting next to the

Attorney-General, who used to sit as a Liberal, or the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound who would be the first to protest Bonner's

introduction into this House of a report that allows the members only

the Attorney-General's word about what the transcripts have to say? Who

would be the first up savaging Social Credit? Mr. Member, you have

seniority — what's your guess?

MR. MACDONALD: I think Howe Sound would have beaten out Pat McGeer.

MR. BARRETT: That's interesting. I think all of those three Liberals

would have been up in their sanctimonious pose, in their pious Liberal-establishment

best point of view, criticizing Mr. Bonner for covering up and hiding transcripts.

That's what they'd say. I cannot believe that member would stand up

and say: "Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for bringing in this report. Thank you,

Mr. Bonner, for keeping the transcripts secret. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for handling

it this way. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for being Attorney-General. We trust you

and we'll vote for your salary." There may be some new members in

this chamber who believe that member would have stood up and praised Mr. Bonner

for keeping the interviews secret, for making the decision in-house, and for

having no public inquiry. But I would never accuse that member of defending

Mr. Bonner for doing such a thing. How can he do it himself? That's a puzzle

to me.

have always been a student of human behaviour, an observer of how

people change politics, attitudes and ideas, but I thought that the

role of the Attorney-General was immutable. I thought it was above us

ordinary peon members that weren't members of the law profession —

those of us without the skills and talents to understand British

jurisprudence that goes beyond any party affiliation, beyond any mere

political partisanship; that commitment to the law profession that says

that the law must be seen to be done as well as be done. I can envision

that that member, having crossed the floor and becoming a Socred, would

never have abandoned the positions he had as a Liberal attacking Mr.

Bonner. He would have been the first up to demand that the Eckardt

inquiry transcripts be released here in this House.

I've waited all day. I've waited through the questions by his legal

colleague — the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — asking if those

interviews would be released. His answer was no. Were those statements taken

under oath? "No."

Here

we have a situation, Mr. Chairman, that will not go reported in detail

in all the mass media of this province, will not go reported in

intimate detail on hotline shows; it's just too complicated for most

voters to understand. What we have is a case of principles dropping on

the rug on the way across the floor.

I can remember the

speeches by that member when he was a Liberal, and the member sitting

next to him, as a Liberal, and the other ex-Liberal, savaging Mr.

Bonner for handling the Attorney-General's role that way.

can remember the snide remarks, the aspersions cast across the floor of

the House, and that hand-washing aloofness that those nicey-nicey

Liberals used to have when they dealt with the baddie-baddie Social

Credit. And who's ended up being exactly the same?

In the

novel there was only one Dorian Gray, Mr. Chairman. Here we have a

literary phenomenon; in fact, we have three Dorian Grays in British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ah,

yes, it's important for a little feigned laughter. Lift the glass and

be jolly, my friend. I don't have to live with that kind of

floor-crossing and the history of what I was like in fighting Social

Credit. You have to live with that, and good luck to you; I know you'll

survive and rationalize it on any basis that you think is necessary.

for one am not satisfied with the answers that those transcripts will

not be released and that they weren't taken under oath. We're supposed

to believe his private

interpretation of those transcripts? What right

does any Attorney-General have anywhere in the Commonwealth to keep the

information secret and announce what he's decided out of the secret

information, and expect us to believe that it's correct? Is there

anybody in this province who doesn't wear suspenders and still trusts

Social Credit, who believes that they will tell you exactly what you

should know out of those transcripts? If you do, folks, let me offer

you my suspenders free of charge, because you're going to be skinned,

and skinned hard, by anybody who's abandoned what he was as a Liberal

only to jump over as a Socred and adopt the very worst features of the

previous Social Credit Attorneys-General.

[ Page 3909 ]

Don't kid me with all your nice, dulcet monotones about: "No, the transcripts won't be released; no, we won't

be looking at this conflict; no, everything is okay in the garden, just take

my word for it. "You're not kidding me, and you're not kidding anybody in this province

who understands that the fairness of law, the fairness of the role of the Attorney General,

and that the appearance of justice must be served, means that those

transcripts should be laid on the table for every citizen of this

province to see. You want to keep them secret? Keep them secret. You

want to tell us what you think is in them? You tell us that. But if you

want us to believe what you're saying without us having reference to

those statements, then you're absolutely wrong; and I'm convinced that

over 80 percent of the people in this province won't believe it unless

they see the evidence themselves.

I have to ask the

question: what are you afraid of? If you feel that your

interpretation

of the evidence that's been laid in front of you is correct, then what

are you afraid of by laying that evidence down in front of every hon.

member in this House and letting the chips fall where they may?

If any member is irresponsible in misinterpreting those documents,

then they have access to the courts. They can risk their political

careers by making wild charges. But the last person I need protection

from in terms of making up my mind of what went on with the "dirty

finger," Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney-General, who is hiding the

statements from the people of British Columbia for whatever reason.

The decision to hide those

transcripts is worthy of the worst traditions of Social Credit. You

know, Mr. Chairman, what they say about human behaviour: when one

becomes a convert, one becomes more zealous than those born into that

particular philosophy. The converts from Liberalism to Social Credit

have become more zealous about defining the coverups that have been the

history of Social Credit than even Mr. Bonner or Mr. Peterson were

during their time in office.

You remember the famous 707

days and the speeches we used to get from those ex-Liberals about that.

Where are those speeches now? Where are those memories of commitment to

honest Liberal principles? You see what happens when you walk across

the floor and change principles like changing a coat? The coat may be

shiny and gather votes, but underneath it is the syndrome of Dorian

Gray in spades, Mr. Chairman. There are three Dorian Grays. I don't

mind changing political philosophy, jumping on a bandwagon, or anybody

seeking a little role in power. After all, politics is politics. It's

not the cleanest thing in the world. Nothing is clean or absolute in

the world. Somebody has to be in politics. But those of us who are here

don't have to be treated to the spectacle that somehow secrets and

transcripts and statements must be kept from us. We are told that we

must believe what the Attorney-General says simply because he puts A-G

behind his name. That myth disappeared with Mr. Bonner.

You

go ahead and keep them secret. You go on ahead and hide them. That's

you're decision. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman: anywhere I speak

in this province to voters, citizens, and taxpayers, I will tell them

very clearly that unless I see those transcripts for myself I do not

believe a word of the

interpretation from this government.

want to talk about some of the other things that my colleagues have

raised — the Moran case and the Rigg case. In a civilized state we

can't have policemen at every corner. Thank goodness 99.9 percent of

all citizens respect the law. In a civilized society the only thing

that preserves us in terms of our freedoms is a community commitment by

all of us that the law is there to serve us blindly, equally and fairly

and see that there is no interference in the administration of justice,

and even if there is no interference, see that there is no appearance

of interference.

The most important thing in stabilizing a

free society and a democracy under the British parliamentary system is

the security every citizen must have that the law has been handled

equally on every citizen by every citizen. I don't know if there was

favouritism in the Rigg case or the Moran case, but once the questions

were raised the people of British Columbia were entitled to a full

explanation as to why those charges were not laid, why there was

interference, and what went on.

The Lord rest the soul of

Mickey Moran. Who made the decision that Mickey Moran should not be

forced to have a breathalyser test he refused? Who made the decision

that there would be no prosecution because he refused a breathalyser

test? Who made that decision? On what criteria was that decision made?

I want every other citizen who is drunk and driving a car, or who

appears to be drunk and driving a car, to know that if they get out of

their car and refuse a breathalyser test, maybe the odds are they won't

be charged for refusing a breathalyser test. Is that so?

an MLA, I have had constituents and other citizens of this province

write me when they have been inebriated and driving a car, asking me to

help them. My standard answer to anybody who is foolish and

irresponsible enough to drink and get behind the wheel of a car is: "No

help for you, brother or sister. You've brought this on yourself." No

one should drive if they've been drinking and any penalty they get or

any consequence of the law is based on the decision they made. Why is

it that Mr. Moran was not prosecuted for not blowing into the balloon

like every other citizen would be if they had refused to blow into the

balloon? Don't think that that kind of question is not being asked in

beer parlours, cabarets, church halls and anywhere there is a

collection of citizens of this province. Why was the law not applied

equally in this case? Why was the Rigg case pulled out separately? How

did it happen to fall on the desk?

Those two instances give

lie to the belief that politicians are impartial and the

Attorney-General's office is above impartiality. Every citizen who's

had any difficulty with a 17-year-old son or someone who's been

inebriated while driving a car will be allowed the rationalization:

"Too bad I didn't know somebody in high places to take care of my

situation." That's the impression that is left, and it probably does

more damage than the substance of the facts. What does even more damage

is when the impression is left and the substance of the facts are

suppressed and suspicion is ingrained by the Attorney-General himself

in not acting on these cases.

I think that there is enough

cynicism in our society without a Social Credit Attorney-General

contributing to that cynicism. I think that there is enough distrust of

law and authority without the Attorney-General adding to that distrust.

Law and order can be maintained in a free society only if law and order

are maintained equally by those charged with the responsibility of

maintaining law and order. Let it be perfectly clear that none of us

will be able to survive in a democratic society unless law and order

are maintained with equal hands and blind eyes for all citizens of this

province.

I know that the former Liberal member would have gotten up and demanded the resignation of a Social Credit

[ Page 3910 ]

Attorney-General

who handled these cases this way. It must be embarrassing for the

Attorney-General to have to deal with this. In the case of the dirty

tricks affair with the letters, the former Attorney-General had the

courage to call in the cops. Yes, when the heat was bad the former

Attorney-General, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom), called in the RCMP to check out the forgeries in the

letters. Good for you; you did the right thing. It took you a while,

but you called in the RCMP.

MR. LAUK: That's why he was fired.

MR. BARRETT:

That's exactly right. As soon as he called in the police he was fired

from being Attorney-General by the Premier. Somebody cooler had to come

in and clean up the mess. How is the mess cleaned up by the former

Liberal? The statements come out saying: "Oh, it was naughty-naughty to

forge letters. Oh, it was reprehensible to do such a thing. Oh, don't

do it again, whoever did it." And it's all forgotten. Who gets fired?

Mr. Kelly goes down the road. That young lady goes down the road. Mr.

Grieg from the Premier's office disappears off the face of the earth.

We don't know if he was interviewed, what he said about those letters,

or anything else. When the Premier was asked about Ron Grieg, he first

said: "Who?" They said: "Ron Grieg used to work for you." He said: "Oh,

yes, that guy — I asked him what went wrong."

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, maybe at this point I could remind the committee that we

have to be relevant when we are in committee. We are on the votes of

the Attorney-General.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, and I'm

relevant because I'm referring to the Attorney-General's report

released after he investigated the forged letters. There was no denial

that signatures were forged. How could you deny that signatures were

forged when on television we have the spectacle of an upright citizen

being interviewed and saying, "I never signed my name to that letter,"

and then we have a former member of the staff saying, "Oh, she

couldn't have signed that, because we picked her name out of the phone

book"? When a citizen puts his name in the phone book, according to

Social Credit campaign strategies, it is free to be used by anybody.

You don't have to write away for hidden lists; just use any name in the

phone book. A Social Credit executive member on Vancouver Island

admitted doing the same thing.

I want to know why forgery

charges weren't laid against some of these people. I want to tell you

this: if you went around forging my name to campaign material, you'd

probably get me elected, but aside from that.... You sure would

have charged an NDPer. That's the way I feel. It may not be fair, but I

feel that in that case the law was applied politically.

However,

there is a liberal

interpretation of their role as Social Crediters.

They dumped on the people who did the forgery, and by that they

rationalized washing their hands. Remember Macbeth? Mr. Chairman, you

know it well. Poor Lady Macbeth: she had urged her husband on to that

vile deed and then later on she started feeling guilty about it. She

took the liberal position: "Out, damned spot. What, will these hands

ne'er be clean?" It was the Liberals who washed their hands of this

dripping bad business by saying: "It was naughty; it shouldn't be done;

but we're not going to charge anybody with forgery, because we can't

find out who did it." Kelly knew who did it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Kempf knew.

MR. BARRETT:

Jack Kempf was the chairman of the caucus. He must have known who did

it. The Human Resources minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who used to be a

vicious opponent of the present Attorney-General....

Can you

remember the venom that went across the floor before those strange

political bedfellows got together? Oh, they would never be seen

publicly with Socreds.

MR. LAUK: Both ways.

MR. BARRETT:

Both ways. Now took who is cozying up to each other. And — irony of

ironies — look who is covering up for the cozying. Yes, some forgeries

took place, but don't worry about it, folks.

It wasn't the first time Social Credit was involved in forgeries; I remember

when a certain Mr. Weeks forged a statement on the back of a cheque of one of

my colleagues, Mr. Levi. Yes, he was a Social Credit researcher at the time. The

pattern of forgeries by Social Credit was established years ago, well

known and understood, and now protected by the Attorney-General.

Yes,

Mr. Chairman, I know this is not headline stuff that I'm saying. I

know, Mr. Chairman, that it will all be forgotten in 24 hours. I know,

Mr. Chairman, that it's the hated socialists who are saying these

things. As the socialists say it, then it's all right to ignore it. Oh,

would I dearly love, Mr. Chairman, to have had one lone Liberal elected

sitting here today. Oh, would I have loved that! My, oh, my, I would

have sat glued in my chair watching that lone Liberal just take it out

and rake that Attorney-General and the former Attorney-General and the

other Liberal who crossed the floor for ending up being worse Socreds

than the baddest Socreds that anyone can imagine. Anything is okay when

you're fighting socialists is the rationalization.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I've seen it all in my 20 years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Three minutes in my 20 years left.

I've

seen it all, Mr. Chairman. Nothing surprises me any more in human

behaviour. But I want to tell you — and I have a lot more to say, but

I'll have to forget it — that I want to publicly thank the present

Attorney-General, from a political point of view, for ensuring that the

New Democratic Party wins the next election, simply because of the

behaviour and the conduct of his office. And I want to add a personal

note as I sit down: I want to thank the Attorney-General personally for

having some standards. At least he has not yet publicly praised the

Premier. At least, Mr. Chairman, there are some standards left; there

are some lines you don't cross; there are some roles you don't play. I

have never yet heard that Attorney-General stand up and say: "We have

the wisest, the greatest, the most imaginative leader in all of North

America." I have not yet heard him stand up and sing the praises of

our Premier. I have not yet seen him sink to the last depths of being a

loyal Social Crediter and cross that Rubicon in politics and praise the

present Premier. I want to thank him for that. At least he's maintained

some dignity. But I want to warn my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that when

the day

[ Page 3911 ]

comes

that he publicly gets up and praises that Premier as the best, the most

imaginative, the most capable and competent administrator, we know that

everything is gone, including the memory that he ever was a Liberal.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to respond, and in

so responding may I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't been here

20 years. I think I came here in 1967 for my first session — I was

elected in 1966 — so that 13 or 14 years is about the extent of my

record. And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I've enjoyed these 14 years

and the opportunities that I have had to contribute to debates in this

House.

I've enjoyed the opportunity of listening to other

great debaters that there have been in this House, and through all

those years I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) make these great speeches in the House — a little short on

facts, but great speeches — and I suppose what we have had today is

20-year vintage of that member. I remember when he used to sit in the

corner of the chamber and make those great speeches, but of course in

those days there were also other great debaters in that party. He

gradually moved from there down to there and progressed until he was

able to get himself into the position of responsibility which he

currently enjoys. The only difficulty is that while the quality of his

rhetoric has improved, his reliability and reliance on the facts remain

about the same as it was when I first heard him 13 years ago.

With regard to some of the incidents that he raises, may I just correct the

record in case anyone is confused.

With regard to the forged letter situation, it's true that my colleague,

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), then Attorney-General,

did direct the police investigation into the matter. The police investigation

continued under a special unit assigned to that responsibility. Their report

was presented through regional Crown counsel, and with the assistance of highly

qualified criminal lawyers. The report was examined and it was determined that

while there were letters which obviously had been signed by persons other than

those whose names were indicated, it had been impossible to determine who the

authors of those letters were.

Now

it's all very well to say that charges should have been laid, but, Mr.

Chairman, if you want to lay charges of fraud or forgery or any crime,

you've got to have the person who is alleged to have perpetrated that

crime. If the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to suggest that

the police officers who were responsible for that investigation — a

special unit, as I said, that was established for that purpose — were

somehow or other failing to disclose the results of their inquiry, then

I would simply ask the Leader of the Opposition to make those facts in

his possession known to the Attorney-General and appropriate action

will be taken.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

statements he has made, he says, will not be forgotten. I sincerely

hope that they aren't forgotten, because he indicated a subject of

which I am fully supportive — that there should be even-handed

administration of the law, that that's the principle to be followed.

It's the principle which I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, I follow.

said that in the course of raising the case of the 17-year-old boy who

was involved in an impaired driving charge he would suggest that there

was some special favour extended to that boy. He forgets to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, that that young man went to court on his charge. Evidence

was heard and he was acquitted.

MR. BARRETT: The appeal was dropped.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Proper consideration was given to whether in those circumstances, with

a person who has gone through his trial and been acquitted, the

evidence existed which would sustain an appeal. It was examined and it

was determined that the appeal in the circumstances should not

provide.... The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald),

when he raised this matter this morning, talked about other avenues

which were available for dealing with these young people. He talked

about diversion, and diversion is one which involves some careful

consideration of the accused and the extension of some compassion with

regard to criminal cases of this kind. I trust that he's not suggesting

that compassion should be shown before a charge is laid, but that

somehow or other once there's an acquittal there should be a change in

that consideration.

MR. MACDONALD: You know that appeal should have gone ahead from that Bewley decision. You know that.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The second member for Vancouver East calls across the floor that I know

it should have gone ahead from the Bewley decision. He speaks of His

Honour Judge Bewley, who heard the case. Quite frankly, I know no such

thing, Mr. Chairman. Consideration of the evidence and consideration of

the transcript do not disclose that there was a basis for the Crown to

take an appeal; because one of the few things that the Crown does, and

does often, is to take appeals on such matters. As a matter of fact, it

is the policy in other jurisdictions in the British system that the

Crown take appeals from acquittals. It's almost the universal rule in

Britain. It's one which we don't follow here, but in other

jurisdictions it is certainly the case. Where the citizen has stood his

trial and has been acquitted by the court, it is considered

inappropriate for the Crown to take that further step by going to

appeal, unless there is a clear error in law that needs to be corrected

and which may have an effect on the administration of justice.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is somewhat concerned about the

continual interference that is coming during the speech of the

Attorney-General. I would ask that members respect the rules of this

House, and that only one member speak at a time. Other members will

have an opportunity to address the House. In the meantime, the member

speaking has the floor and shall be afforded that courtesy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The Leader of the Opposition also dealt with a case which has come to

be known as the Moran case. In the course of his remarks he asked a

question. He said: "Who made the decision not to take the breathalyser

test?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Mickey did.

[ Page 3912 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, now he knows the answer, you see. He didn't tell us during his

speech that the person who decided not to take the test was Mr. Moran.

MR. BARRETT: Why wasn't he prosecuted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

He was charged with the offence. He was also charged with the offence

of "impaired." A decision was made by counsel, unconnected with Mr.

Moran, unconnected with the office of the Attorney-General, directly

under no instructions from anybody in....

MR. BARRETT: How many times does that happen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

If the Leader of the Opposition would like to consult with some

qualified lawyers, he'd understand what the concerns are in proceeding

to trial with a charge of "failing to blow" and a charge of "impaired"

at the same time. There was a third charge laid by Crown counsel and,

again, it was without any interference. It was one of dangerous

driving. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the examination was made

into the basis for the decisions on the matter, which were made

independently by senior Crown counsel. The steps that were taken were

based upon the evidence which was available to be called at the trial.

A consideration of that evidence led to the decision, which was to

proceed only with the dangerous driving charge. Those decisions were

made, independent of any interference by the Attorney-General, by a

person who is qualified in this field. One must accept his decision.

They were difficult decisions to be made.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Of course, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would

like to supplant his view with respect to every decision which is made

by competent professional people in the Attorney-General's ministry. He

didn't make that kind of decision when he was the Attorney-General — or

maybe he did. Maybe that's why we had so many difficulties during those

years that he enforced his decisions in those particular cases.

I say, we've had vintage remarks from the Leader of the Opposition.

Twenty year-old wine is sometimes pretty good; unfortunately, sometimes

with age wine loses its value and becomes vinegar.

MR. KING:

I've been most interested in the debate, both this morning and this

afternoon. Primarily, it's been carried on by people from the legal

profession. In terms of responsibility and obligation to ensure that

fair laws are not only designed to be but are applied fairly and

even-handedly, the responsibility does not rest alone on the

Attorney-General or the legal members of this Legislature; it falls to

each and every member of the House to be properly concerned. While

those of us not trained in the law perhaps have difficulty with some of

the finer points and legal nuances involved, I think we do have a fair

grasp, in an overall way, of what kind of system of justice we should

have, how it should function, and how it should be seen to be fair and

equitably applied to each and every citizen of the province of British

Columbia.

My great concern, Mr. Chairman, and that of my

constituents is that that particular standard has been called into

question in the province of British Columbia in the wake of the

Attorney-General's handling of at least five cases that have come to

light in the province. They're not the ordinary kind of criminal

offence, but each one of these particular cases has political

significance and political implication to the government, the party

which the Attorney-General belongs to. That's why there's a difference

between the procedure that needed to be followed in these particular

cases as opposed to those normal run-of-the-mill cases where there is

no political implication whatsoever, and that the regional Crown

prosecutors, the police, the defence counsel and the prosecuting

attorneys do their job untainted by any question of special favour.

What

is of interest in these cases that have been raised the Rigg case, the

Moran case, the Ritchie case, the Eckardt report, and the allegations

of impropriety surrounding gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries —

is that in each and every one of these cases there was a serious

political implication about the existing government. That's what's

different.

While I'm not a lawyer, it seems very, very clear

to me that the thing which the Attorney-General refuses to acknowledge

and seeks to obscure is that very political difference. Hence we have

the feeling that through the prosecution of the investigations of these

cases, and the handling of them as to whether or not there should be

charges laid, there is the taint of a coverup by the government of the

day.

The Attorney-General answered my colleagues from

Vancouver East by saying he hoped our Attorney-General did not

intervene. Our Attorney-General was not bedevilled by constant

allegations of wrongdoing by members of his government. He was not

constantly bedevilled by allegations of forgery in the fighting of an

election campaign. He did not have to explain why a close associate and

former candidate for our party had refused to blow in a breathalyser

after it being suspected that he was drunk. None of those things

happened to our government.

Quite frankly, I honestly and

sincerely believe that our Attorney-General would have handled it much,

much differently. I honestly believe that. I believe he would have

handled it in a way that the current Attorney-General used to advocate

when he was a Liberal — that is in a hands-off relationship through

some kind of independent inquiry which recognized the political

implications and the visions of favouritism which would be conjured up

in the public mind unless all of the investigation was made public,

unless there was sworn testimony and the evidence received the light of

day so that all the citizens of this province could be satisfied that

impartiality had been the characteristic of the investigation. That's

not the case today.

It's interesting that the

Attorney-General seizes on these little points of law, which I don't

understand too well. But he said Crown counsel decided not to appeal in

the Moran case, and he chastised my colleague by saying: "Are you

suggesting that I should have interfered politically with Crown counsel

in the Moran case?" Well, perhaps we could accept that, if that were

the standard. But if that is his defence, how then does he justify his

position when Crown counsel advocated prosecuting the member for

Central Fraser Valley — his own colleague — and his office overturned

the decision of regional Crown counsel, which was to prosecute the

member for Central Fraser Valley? What kind of consistency is that?

I'm not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman, but if you're going to

[ Page 3913 ]

hide

behind that kind of thin veil, you should be prepared to subject it to

a test of consistency. It seems to be a highly selective policy, as the

Attorney-General articulated it.

His other proposition is

that there wasn't enough evidence to lay charges. Therefore evidence

could not be taken under oath. Again, I'm a lay person, but as I

understand it there are two ways that evidence may be taken under oath.

One is in a courtroom procedure where charges have been laid. The other

is through a judicial inquiry — a royal commission investigation —

which is precisely what virtually every editorial in the major daily

papers in this province has called for, and it's what the official

opposition has consistently called for, so there would not be the taint

of political partisanship in the decisions flowing from the

Attorney-General's office.

I'm not satisfied that there has

been even-handed justice meted out. I think if anyone wants to study

the anatomy of the four cases, at least — the Rigg case, the Moran

case, the Ritchie case and the Eckardt case.... I would conclude

that any fair-minded citizen in the province of British Columbia

studying the chronology of events and the handling of those cases,

which the Attorney-General presents to this House as being

adequate.... I would suggest that 80 percent of the people of

British Columbia would say it doesn't smell right, and we do not

believe that our sons and daughters would be quite as fortuitous as the

people who benefited from the coverup of evidence in these cases — the

fact that no public evidence was taken. Certainly no evidence was taken

under oath, as far as we know. We don't think that's nearly good enough

in light of the very serious circumstances surrounding these cases.

The

main issue, in my view, is the conflict that was inherent in these

particular cases because of political connections. On the face of it,

that may not have been valid; we don't know. But because those

political implications were there, the Attorney-General had a clear

obligation, in my view, to divest himself of any responsibility for

presiding over an internal investigation which would appear to give

preference to those people because they had some association with the

Social Credit Party. That's the issue he will not recognize; that is

the issue he refuses to address himself to.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

principle, it seems to me, is very similar to that of selecting a jury.

Our system of justice is based on complete impartiality — the blindness

of the law, as my colleague says. Defence attorneys under our system

take great pains to ensure that any jury of peers which is to sit and

hear the evidence and hand down a decision is free of bias, free of any

relationship with the accused, or free of any preconceived notions as

to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Why is it that such care and

time is taken in the selection of a jury? It's to ensure that a fair

measure of justice is meted out, which is decided strictly on the basis

of the evidence presented. It may not be precisely analogous, but the

principle is the same. The principle is the same if there's any

conflict of interest whatsoever between the person chosen to sit on a

jury and the case. They stand back and find another juror who is

independent and completely dissociated from the case.

seems to me that that simple principle is the one at issue here. The

Attorney-General had a vested interest — at least a political one.

Indeed, some of his senior staff members, who were basically his

employees and loyal to him — without calling into question their

integrity in any way.... There was a bit of conflict here — the

pull and the tug of allegiance to a minister and a government and their

handling of a particular in-house investigation which was commissioned

by their minister. There was a bit of conflict there — certainly in the

eyes of the public. I accept without reservation that the senior staff

and the Attorney-General's people are competent lawyers and honourable

people, but that conflict inherently exists. In my view, the

Attorney-General had an obligation and responsibility to ensure that he

and his office stood back from cases where there was an impact on

Social Credit Party fortunes in this province. That's really what's at

issue.

He didn't do that, and now he's asking us, on the

face of an in-house investigation conducted by his senior officials,

whom he commissioned, to come in with a report which fails to reveal

any of the evidence, which does indicate that no evidence was taken

under oath, and say that this clears the matter up adequately and that

justice has indeed been served impartially in the province of British

Columbia. It's totally a sham, in my view. It's not going to go away.

My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, talked about the degree of

cynicism that exists out in the community with respect to the law, and

that's an unfortunate thing to have rampant in the province or the

nation. The law is only as good and reliable as the people who are

prepared to accept it and operate under it. If it's called into

question in any way, particularly in terms of the impartiality of its

application, that is a grave and serious disservice to the whole system

of justice.

So there should have been an open inquiry. If

there was not, in the Attorney-General's opinion, sufficient evidence

on which to base charges, at least a judicial inquiry would have

provided the opportunity in public for all of the people affected to be

called as witnesses and placed under oath, so that they could have

given evidence that would have been available to the public and opened

the opportunity for cross-examination. What's wrong with that approach?

What's wrong with that system, unless indeed one has something to hide?

Mr. Chairman, I find it most difficult to understand how in the case of the

hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) both the police who were

investigating the case and the regional Crown counsel advocating the laying

of charges against that member, only to have that order countermanded by the

senior staff of the Attorney-General, and at the same time, ask the people of

the province of British Columbia to accept that that is even-handed justice,

rather than interference with the administration of justice.... I would

have thought, under those circumstances, one dedicated to upholding the good

name and the principle of law in this province would have said: "Look,

even if the evidence is shaky or even if we may not win in a prosecution of

this case, for the sake of the appearance of justice, let's have the day

in court so the charges can be made, the witnesses called and the evidence weighed."

And if that hon. member indeed was innocent, his good name would be cleared

by having his day in court, the same as any other citizen of the province of

British Columbia would have been subjected to. That he's a direct political

colleague of the Attorney-General and that the police who investigated and the

regional Crown counsel who advocated proceeding with the charges had that recommendation

overridden by the Attorney-General's senior staff is, in my view, inviting

interpretations which are most odious about the administration of justice in

the province.

[ Page

3914 ]

In the face of all of this type of thing, in the case of the

inherent political conflict, there was only one method in which justice

could be done and be seen to be done clearly, and that was through open

and impartial hearings, through making sure that the public had results

of investigations available to them and that the people accused had

their day on the witness stand — their day in court — to answer the

charges against them to ensure that their day in court was no different

than is afforded to any other citizen. When the Attorney-General

provides in his defence that it's improper somehow to intrude on a

regional Crown counsel's recommendation, accosts my colleague with that

response and at one and the same time says that it's completely normal

and acceptable for his office — his staff — to overrule regional Crown

counsel and the police, when they recommended charging his colleague,

the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, I have to say that his

perspective is completely gone awry or he fails to appreciate the

serious implications of the cases that have come before him.

the face of it, I believe that the people of British Columbia in no way

accept the rationalizations that have been brought forth by the

Attorney-General. In my view, the people of the province of British

Columbia are entitled to believe that there has been a different

standard of treatment for friends of this government. Unfortunately,

that is the belief and feeling, and without more weighty evidence than

anything the Attorney-General has provided so far, I have to say,

somewhat reluctantly, that their conclusion seems to be absolutely

justified.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very

briefly, I thank the member for his comments and his views on matters

that are of significant importance. I particularly want to make it

abundantly clear to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the member that the staff

which serves me and the Ministry of the Attorney-General are selected

for their competence and they have demonstrated by their performance

that there can be no question with respect to their honour or their

commitment to the service of the administration of justice. I will not

accept from anyone any suggestion, by implication or otherwise, that

such officials would act otherwise than in the proper administration of

justice, no matter who the Attorney-General might be or whatever

political party he might support.

MR. KING: You should protect them from that position too.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the difficulty the member has is the same difficulty that

was experienced by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald). They can't make up their minds whether the Attorney-General

should step in and make a decision or stay out and not make a decision.

The member said that the Attorney-General and his office, in

circumstances such as these, must stand back from a case; the member

for Vancouver East said we should get in and make the decision. The

fact of the matter is, they will not comprehend that there is only one

standard to be employed in these particular cases, and that's to treat

every individual in exactly the same way.

They speak of having your day in court the same as any other citizen. Yes,

the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley was entitled to his day in court the

same as any other citizen, and that means that before he's put into the

position of answering a charge, there must be clear evidence, supported by the

law, that there is a prima facie case which he's called upon to answer.

MR. LORIMER:

Mr. Chairman, in opening I would also mention that I was in the House

at the time the present Attorney-General was making those speeches from

this side of the House. He was sitting in this front desk here and made

some very good speeches about the administration of justice, and I am

convinced that this member could well be a very able Attorney-General

if he would follow his own beliefs — at least the beliefs that he

expressed at that time — and carried out the commitment, which I

believe that he felt at that time, that justice not only should be done

but should seem to be done.

I'm not going into detail

regarding the great number of investigations that have taken place. I

am going to say, though, that the Ministry of Attorney-General is not

the large ministry that we always hear about in this House. A senior

portfolio it may well be, but as far as the workload is concerned the

Attorney-General's department is probably, one of the lightest. A

former Social Credit Attorney-General was also Minister of Labour at

the same time. Since that time a number of responsibilities which were

formerly assumed by the Attorney-General's ministry have been removed:

the registrar of companies is no longer within that portfolio; credit

unions, co-ops, liquor, the motor-vehicle branch and others have been

removed. The Attorney-General's portfolio is a very light portfolio.

About the only thing left is corrections, the police and justice. It

should not be too great a chore for any member of cabinet to keep a

close tab on what's going on in this particular ministry.

have an able minister. No one is questioning this minister's ability;

he's an able person and could be one of the greatest Attorneys-General

this province has ever seen. But in my opinion he has failed miserably

in his responsibilities. I suggest that the public respect for the

administration of justice today is probably lower than it's been

probably in the history of this province. People are laughing now,

saying there is no fairness in the court system.

I will

agree that the minister has been Attorney-General at a very difficult

time in history. He's been bogged down with scandals and problems. He

had the problem of the Eckardt commission. He was making a report; he

made an internal review of this report instead of a public or royal

commission or some other commission outside the Attorney-General's

department which, there is no question, should have looked after this

problem of the Eckardt report. It should not have been an in-house

look, a Through-the-Looking-Glass look at what's going on in his

department.

The Vogel case. I'm not going into that, but I

just want to point out that that was also a private report, and the

person making the report was a junior in the Attorney-General's

ministry — at least junior to the person he was investigating or

reporting on. Well, I don't say that a civil servant who is carrying

out this onerous responsibility will not do it in the best interest of

the province. However, it certainly appears — and could well appear to

the general public — that this was a whitewash.

The Ritchie

case. There, again, was a private look by the Attorney-General's

ministry into a provincial issue that was well reported in the press,

and was referred to by a number of people in the coffee-houses and so

on. Here was a case which was looked at internally. No independent

review was made of this particular case. I think it's right to say that

the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley did say that if it hadn't

[ Page 3915 ]

been for the Attorney-General he wouldn't be sitting in the House.

Then

we have Lettergate, and so on, and we've probably had other reviews

that I haven't mentioned. But there's no question that the

Attorney-General's ministry had a lot of chores to do other than the

standard administration of justice. They had a special problem of

political justice, political interference, political crimes being

committed in the public affairs of the province of British Columbia.

answer to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the

Attorney-General expressed his view of his responsibilities. His view

is certainly a very narrow view. If I understood him correctly, his

position was that he must remain out of the administration of justice,

that he should remain aloof from it in order that there could be no

statement that there was political interference. In my opinion, that is

a very narrow view and a view that won't stand up. If that were to be

the case, we might say there's no need for an Attorney-General. The

Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of justice. He's

responsible for the activities and the actions of those within his

ministry, and for those people over which he has responsibility. He is

answerable to them all.

Now in a case which is of great

political concern, of provincial concern and that concerns the general

public — not a common case of impaired driving or something of that

sort, but an issue which involves a political party, involves an

election, involves a commission, and so on — the Attorney-General has

to make sure not only that justice is done, but that it seems to be

done. I suggest that in these respects, internal reviews can well lead

to the suspicion by the general public and by the members of this House

that the matters covered and the decisions made were not the proper

decisions that would be made, nor the decisions that would be made by a

private or independent review committee. It's obvious that what has

gone on has been a look within bounds to protect the different matters

that were under review. If that isn't true, then I suggest that these

matters should be put to another review, an independent review, an

independent tribunal, to determine the truth or falsity of the reports

that have been given with reference to the internal reviews, to

determine the validity of those reviews.

I say that the

Attorney-General has been a respected member of this House for a great

number of years. He has been respected in legal circles in Vancouver. I

believe that that is no longer the case. I believe that activities over

the past ten months — these internal reviews instead of independent

reviews — have not only damaged the province of British Columbia but

have been a personal problem and a mistake as far as the

Attorney-General's concerned. I'm sorry to see it. I've respected this

Attorney-General for a great number of years. It's a sad time for me

and I'm sure for many other people in this House that the

administration of justice has fallen to a very low ebb.

would hope that the Attorney-General will take a look at some of his

old speeches, take a look at the province as a whole, and come to the

decision that it's not too late to have the air cleared and to have

these matters disposed of one way or another. They will never be

disposed of until there is an independent review board looking into the

allegations that have been made.

MR. BARBER: The

Social Credit was re-elected on December 11, 1975. Late in the evening

a group of young people, understanding the significance, late in the

evening went down to the lawn of the Legislature and raised on the

great flagpole that stands at the corner of Government and Belleville

Streets a special flag to signify the event. It was a Jolly Roger.

Little did they know how accurate that would prove.

It must

be very difficult to be Attorney-General in a government that has been

so plagued with allegations and proofs of scandal, criminal offences,

political corruption, false declarations, dirty tricks, Gracie's

Finger, staff being fired wholesale, and the clearest evidence that

Social Credit was prepared to do and say anything in order to get

reelected. The young people who hauled the Jolly Roger to the top of

the mast didn't realize just how right they were.

It must be

exceptionally difficult to be an Attorney-General on board such a ship

as the ship of Social Credit. I concur with my colleague for Burnaby. I

think the Attorney-General has damaged his personal and professional

reputation by association with this outfit. He's hurt himself among his

own peers.

I too have personal respect for the

Attorney-General on this basis. I respect intelligence, and the man is

clearly intelligent. I respect articulateness, and he is clearly

articulate. I respect experience, and his is vastly greater than mine.

I respect his learning, and his is also greater than mine, most

certainly in law. I respect him for all those things. But I cannot

respect him for his lack of judgment. It is because of his lack of

judgment that he has lost a major part of the professional and personal

respect he earned in his years in this House.

Every member

of this House forms a personal opinion of the members opposite. I have

no idea what the current Attorney-General's personal opinion is of me.

I suspect it's rather low. I doubt very much he feels warmly toward me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ask me the question.

MR. BARBER:

I don't care what the Minister of Lands' personal opinion of me is, but

I do have respect, again, for the intelligence, the learning,

articulateness, and the experience of the Attorney-General. I respect

him as a man for those things. I honour those qualities in people in

public life. But it is the clearly poor judgment he has exercised in

dealing with a number of the charges and proofs of wrongdoing that is

costing him his reputation.

Quite apart from whatever

personal relationships, or lack of them, members of this House may

enjoy with one another from time to time, the issue I propose to raise

is that of the Attorney-General's judgment.

I want to deal

specifically with the Eckardt report. I want, again, in a sympathetic

way, to point out how difficult it is to be an Attorney-General in a

Social Credit government that was so foolish and stupid as to appoint a

Social Credit candidate to be a one-man commission looking into

electoral boundaries.

You don't have to be a great prophet

to realize what trouble you could get into when you appoint one of your

own to such a delicate position. You don't necessarily have to be more

prescient than a stone to realize that when a Socred government

appoints a Socred candidate to head a Socred commission on electoral

boundaries, something just might go wrong in the process.

I'm sure that the political experience of the Attorney-General must in cabinet have counselled against such a

[ Page 3916 ]

dangerous

course. I am sure that a man of the Attorney-General's learning would

have remembered that a higher standard was set by the previous

administration.

Let me remind the committee briefly what

that standard was. Our administration did not appoint a New Democratic

candidate to head a one-person commission looking into electoral

reform. That would have been insane. Instead we appointed someone of

the calibre of Lawrie Wallace; we appointed someone of the calibre of a

professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, Fred

Bowers; and we appointed as its chairman a judge of the supreme court,

Thomas Norris. This was the precedent that the Attorney-General of

British Columbia knew about and no doubt advised his colleagues in

cabinet about. Apparently he must have lost the fight, because surely

he put up a fight against the spectacle of a Socred government

appointing a Socred candidate to head a one-man commission. He

presumably lost the fight to the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy),

who, after all, was bound and determined to appoint her admitted close

personal friend, Lawrence Eckardt, the Socred candidate, to this most

sensitive public position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

once again I must remind the committee that we are recanvassing the

votes and estimates of the Provincial Secretary. If we could stick to

the administrative actions of the Attorney-General and the

Attorney-General's department, that would be appreciated by the

committee. The hon. member continues.

MR. BARBER: I

quite agree, Mr. Chairman. In one of his administrative actions the

Attorney-General was mistaken in judgment, and that was to believe that

the people and this House would be satisfied with a private,

behind-closed doors inquiry into the Eckardt report. The

Attorney-General was badly advised; the Attorney-General acted on the

basis of the poorest rather than the best judgment. Let me illustrate

further, if I may.

We know full well that when a Socred

government appoints a Socred candidate to head such a delicate matter,

they are bound to get into trouble. Now if we dumb bunnies in the

official opposition could figure that one out, no doubt the

Attorney-General figured it out long before. If the dumbbell members of

the fifth estate could figure that one out, judging by the opinion the

Deputy Premier holds of them, then surely the Attorney-General would

have figured it out that a Socred government appointing a Socred

candidate to head a royal commission on electoral reform was making a

ridiculously stupid mistake. The Attorney-General's current problems

derive from that original error.

MR. KEMPF: You wanted a socialist.

MR. BARBER:

No, we wanted impartial people; that's why we appointed Wallace, Bowers

and Norris. What did you do? You appointed a Socred hack, dummies!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I will call all hon. members to order, and I think at

this time the committee deserves a brief citation from Beauchesne's

fifth edition, where it says: "When a judge has been employed as a

royal commissioner...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's not a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "...i t is proper in the House to criticize his report but not the author."

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, Mr. Eckardt has evidently returned, at least

partly, to private practice and is no longer a judge. What is your

point of order? Why did you read that? He was not acting as a judge

when chairing that commission; he is not currently a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then that point is well taken, hon. member. I was just citing what Beauchesne says.

MR. BARBER: But what you cited was totally irrelevant — with all respect, Mr. Chairman.

The

original error of Social Credit was to appoint a Socred to such a

position. Now it is the duty of the Attorney-General currently to

account to the people of this province for what went wrong, following

that original mistake. What went wrong is a matter of public record and

need not be repeated here — everyone knows about Gracie's finger — but

what should be put right is the duty of the Attorney-General to correct

these errors openly, publicly, without favour, and with nothing to

hide. What went wrong with the private inquiry was a set of five basic

factors.

The first thing that went wrong was the

Attorney-General's decision to hold his inquiry in private where the

right of the public to know and be informed would be ignored. That's

the first thing that went wrong. Secondly, it would appear that many,

if not all, of the interviews conducted in this private inquiry were

conducted without the benefit of oath or sworn testimony. Now I stand

to be corrected on that, because the Attorney-General took some of

these questions along these lines as notice during question period. But

it's our reading of the report that that is the case, and until we are

contradicted by sworn evidence to the contrary we can only believe that

the second major error among the five made by the Attorney-General was

the failure to obtain, in a sworn and substantiated way, the testimony

of witnesses key to the events.

The third thing that has

gone wrong with this private inquiry is that it is clearly possessed of

internal contradictions. There are discrepancies in the report, and on

virtually every occasion when these discrepancies are observed by

members of this House the Attorney-General is required to take on

notice yet another one and attempt, at yet a later date, to account for

it. That's a hard thing to do, but would never have had to be done had

the inquiry been public in the first place. And that's the third

problem: internal discrepancies which may or may not result from

persons telling only part of the truth about their involvement in the

whole mess.

The fourth problem for the Attorney-General

facing these three problems is that he refuses to allow us to call Mr.

Eckardt before the bar of the House in order to be questioned publicly.

He refuses to allow this Legislature to have at the bar of the House

one of the few people who could, if he were honest — and we trust he

would be honest — answer all of the questions directly and clearly for

the public record about what consultations he did have when coming up

with his report. This is the fourth mistake of the Attorney-General. If

there were nothing wrong with the whole report procedure as followed by

Mr. Eckardt, surely there can be no objection to calling him before the

bar of the House. After all, Mr. Eckardt also has a reputation to

maintain, and surely he would welcome the opportunity to appear here in

the Legisla-

[ Page 3917 ]

ture,

on the floor, giving sworn evidence as to what in fact happened in this

one-man commission of inquiry. Surely Mr. Eckardt himself would welcome

the opportunity to appear at the bar of the House. What can Mr. Eckardt

gain from a private interview apparently not taken on oath, the text of

which the Attorney-General will not release?

That brings me

to the fifth and final error we believe has been made by the

Attorney-General. For whatever reasons, he actually refuses to release

the transcripts. What justification is there for that? Are there

matters of so intimately personal conduct and behaviour that persons

would be improperly embarrassed by this? We doubt it. We're not asking

about anyone's personal behaviour; we're asking about their execution

of their public responsibilities. It would appear that no case can be

made that someone's family life or personal relationships would

improperly be exposed by the release of these transcripts. No one has

even hinted at that case, and we doubt there is such a case to be made.

But we know this case can be made, Mr. Chairman. As long as the

Attorney-General refuses to release these transcripts, inquiring and

intelligent people will wonder what the government has to hide. It's as

simple as that, really.

If the transcripts substantiate the

conclusions, why not make them public? If the transcripts add weight to

the Attorney-General's case, why not make the transcripts public? If

the transcripts back up the government's position that there was no

political interference, why not make the transcripts public? If the

transcripts do all of the things that they are alleged to do to verify

and give credence to the government's position, why not release the

transcripts? The Attorney-General has yet to give a candid reply to

those questions. Until he does the people of British Columbia will

continue to ask their own basic simple question: what does the

government have to hide?

The Attorney-General is an

experienced politician. He surely recognizes the troubles governments

cause for themselves when they try to do in secret what they should

ruddy well be doing in public. He knows that; he knows the history of

Social Credit in this province fantastically better than I or any of

the other members of this House who haven't had his years of service

do. In a way it's a bit of a joke that anyone who has been here only

two terms should be telling this guy what the public response would be;

he knows it better than we do. If the government tries to do it in

private, they will surely be criticized by the public. And if the

government, having done it in private, then refuses to table in public

the actual evidence they obtained, surely he knows better than anyone

else in this House that the government will only fall farther into

public disrepute.

Now because he knows those things better

than we do, we can only conclude logically that there must be some

other, more compelling reason to risk that trouble, those dangers and

that problem. There must be another, more compelling argument to

overcome the one I have just presented. Because after all, the one I

and my colleagues have just presented is hardly original. It is, in

fact, not original at all. It is traditional and self-evident. If

you've got nothing to hide, why not disclose it? If you do have

something to hide, we can understand why you refuse. It is a simple,

straightforward conclusion that people draw.

We ask again,

in perfect sincerity, that the Attorney-General table the transcripts.

We ask again that he be prepared to call Mr. Eckardt before the bar of

the House. We ask again that the Attorney-General call a public

commission of inquiry into the whole affair in order that the apparent

discrepancies in the report, so far published, may be resolved in an

arena where the public has confidence that the right questions have

been asked and honest answers given.

Currently the public

has no right to have such confidence in this government. They don't

know what questions were asked — or not asked. They don't know what

answers were given. They don't know what oaths were sworn. All they

know is that they are expected to take the word of an Attorney-General

that the right thing was done.

We know — and the Leader of

the Opposition demonstrated it extremely ably earlier this afternoon —

that the now Attorney-General, when a Liberal, would never have taken

the word of a Socred Attorney-General for these things. And rightly so.

We also know that when a Liberal he would never have taken the word of

a New Democratic Attorney-General for these things. And rightly so. The

only word that should be taken is the word of evidence under oath given

in public by the parties directly concerned. That's the word worth

listening to. That's the word the public wants to hear.

The

Attorney-General has made five significant errors in his handling of

the latest mess to plague his government. I would point out that the

original error was not his. I presume he argued against a Socred

government appointing a Socred candidate to head such a commission.

However, not wanting to blame him for that one directly — the Deputy

Premier (Hon. Mrs, McCarthy) won that fight — we can ask him to ask

himself if the judgment he has exercised subsequently has been

adequate. And we ask him to remind himself of what he would have

thought, when he was a Liberal, had a Socred A-G done these things that

we've seen in the last few months and in the last couple of years. It's

a fair test to apply. It's a fair question to ask: what he would have

done in our position, today, confronted by a government which holds

inquiries in secret, apparently does not obtain sworn oaths, will not

publish the transcripts and the evidence, and refuses to call the

principal party before the bar of the House? We ask him to put himself

in our position, and what he would have done under those circumstances.

I suspect he would do what we are doing today. He would ask the same

questions in the same way, and for the same reasons of public interest.

The

Attorney-General may have been advised that at Public Accounts this

morning we were able to get Mr. Eckardt's name on a list of some six or

seven others, and we're going to try to call Mr. Eckardt before the

public accounts committee.

The Attorney-General should also

know that when we did this, we were denied, by the Socred majority, our

interest and our desire to call Mr. Eckardt first, and to call him next

Wednesday, before this Legislature closes.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It's a political, public and personal interest. It's all three.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: For the benefit of Hansard , the member for North Peace River (MR. Brummet) just said: "Yeah, I've got political interests, but not that blatant."

Interjections.

[ Page 3918 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order.

MR. BARBER:

The Attorney-General would be well advised to release the transcripts.

He would have been well advised to call a public commission of inquiry.

He would still be well advised to do the same today. He would be well

advised to allow Mr. Eckardt to be called before the bar of this House

for clear, open and public examination and cross-examination as to

exactly what happened when his one-man report was put together — when

Gracie's Finger and other aberrations occurred. He would be further

well advised, I think, with all respect, to consider the possibility

that his decision to deny the public access to this information is

going to hurt his personal and professional reputation for years to

come. If for no other sake, the sake of that would surely prompt the

Attorney-General to reconsider and to hold out the possibility that he

might have made a wrong decision when he decided to try to handle all

of this matter behind closed doors instead of doing it the proper way,

where the public could be satisfied that the public's interest had been

served.

I ask the minister again, for the final time, to

reconsider and release the transcripts and all of the other evidence

which was apparently obtained by the internal inquiry which he ordered.

Until he does that, neither the public nor the opposition will ever be

satisfied that the correct, fair and proper thing was done in looking

into the Eckardt report. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider and

release all that information now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I think that the remarks made by the first member for Victoria would

bear some weight if, however, he would take some time to reflect upon

what the inquiry was that was undertaken by the Deputy Attorney-General

at my request. The inquiry was not into the royal commission, Mr.

Member, and the report makes it abundantly clear that that was not the

case. It is not within my responsibility to make such an inquiry and

there was no basis upon which I would have sought authority in other

ways. Let me say again — and I will keep saying for as long as the

opposition continues to obfuscate and confuse — that the report which

was delivered to me and which was tabled in this House was a report

into allegations of wrongdoing — perhaps crime — on the part of a

cabinet minister.

MR. LEA: What crime?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would have thought that the member who was present in the House this

morning, when I dealt with this matter at considerable length, would

have recollected even until 4 o'clock this afternoon what the situation

was.

That's what the report dealt with and that was what the

inquiry was about. It was not an inquiry into the royal commission,

over which I have no jurisdiction. As I indicated in January of this

year, the request was to determine what action, if any, I was obliged

to take as the Attorney-General as a result of certain allegations made

in a statutory declaration. It is true that the inquiry, by reason of

evidence which came to the attention of the officials who made the

inquiry, resulted in our examination of members of the commission and

the staff to determine what was done during particular days which were

of significance to the allegations, but to suggest that it was an

inquiry into a royal commission, and therefore was something which

should have been done in public, entirely misses the point. I trust

that the member will recognize that.

As I said this morning

— and I repeat again and I will continue to repeat — if as a result of

the inquiry which was undertaken by my officials — and you have to

start somewhere — there was evidence of criminal acts or improper

conduct, then it would have been my responsibility as Attorney-General

to take very specific action. That was not disclosed, and we can't have

our society function where the elements for the administration of the

law are suddenly thrust fully into motion merely because someone makes

an allegation. Life would be intolerable if that were the situation.

No, allegations are made and inquiries are undertaken and, if the

allegation is supported, then specific action takes place. That would

have been the case here.

The member speaks of the releasing

of transcripts. I'm sorry if he has misunderstood. There are no

transcripts. Transcripts, as I understand it, are those typewritten

statements which come from recorded conversations. In fact, the minutes

of evidence that were taken by the interviewer were produced in the

form of statements, which were submitted to the people interviewed for

purposes of checking accuracy and having it confirmed. As I said

before, the inquiry was conducted for the purpose of determining what

action, if any, should be taken by the Attorney-General either in the

criminal or other fields. It is not my proposal to release that

information, because in many respects those statements, those minutes

of evidence, were given by public servants who conduct their

responsibilities under oath of confidentiality. All of the commission

employees were, of course, sworn to an oath of confidentiality. These

persons who were involved respect that oath.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to address you, and through you, the

Attorney-General, on certain things. But I cannot let this moment pass

without saying that, to my knowledge, this is the first time in this

Legislature that I have heard the name of an honourable judge sullied

within these walls.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not a judge.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

A judge? Yes, Judge Eckardt was referred to as a political hack.

Forever and a day society will always complain about appointments being

made by one person or another. It has always been so and it will always

be so. I will not tell the hon. member about an NDP candidate who,

since the election, has been appointed to a most honourable position on

the parole board of British Columbia. I should not mention him, of

course. Why would I mention that? I will not mention the name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go ahead!

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Would I mention the name of a high appointment they made to the Hydro

commission? Would I mention his name? He went for three years on his

appointment and did not at any time sit within those walls. He

travelled the world and wrote books and walked off with a pension of

$10,000 a year. Will I mention that? No, I will not mention that — not

by name.

These remarks and these statements, Mr. Chairman, are

[ Page 3919 ]

pointless;

they serve no purpose. One is reminded of the words of Shakespeare. May

I say them to you? "He who filches my purse takes trash; but he who

robs me of my good name makes me poor indeed, but himself none the

richer." Perhaps the hon. member could take that to his heart and

wonder why they delve into these low tactics and have this negative

attitude. It's shocking to this House and shocking to the sensibilities

of hon. members. It need not be done. It is not required. It does not

serve the debate. It is deteriorating and destroying. We've sung the

song.... The statements that are made are within the judgment of

the public. Why play them over again like a symphony, chord after

chord, any other way, a hundred times, a new symphony. We've heard it

all day. We've heard it enough. The people will make the final

judgment, not this side. I fear for them that the judgment will be in

reverse.

Mr. Chairman, I come to address you on another subject. These are off-the-cuff remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could consider vote 21.

MR. MUSSALLEM: My remarks are far more serious and very important. I must follow this entirely.

want to address the Attorney-General on the question of helmets for

motorcyclists, of which there are about 40,000 in this province. I

observe that a similar thing to what happened in British Columbia has

happened in Alberta. An Alberta judge overturned the helmet law, and

these words were said: "In an interview after the ruling Tuesday,

provincial court judge Ray Thomas said: 'The province's law is

legislating me against myself. How far can they go in protecting

persons from themselves?'" This helmet law has been found defective. I

urge the Attorney-General to leave it where it lies; leave it

defective. The financial factors will govern the law of helmets. The

judgment of the people will govern the law. The seatbelt legislation is

much the same thing. We have legislated that everybody must wear a

seatbelt, and we hope everyone does for their safety. But I'm going to

tell you that less than half of the people are doing so. There are laws

and there are penalties. It's better to wear seatbelts. I implore

people to wear seatbelts and to wear helmets. But we cannot legislate

people against themselves.

We have that law, and you find in

the courts today, Mr. Chairman, that when an accident happens and

someone is hurt, they lose considerable sums of money due to the fact

that they were not wearing seatbelts. The same thing will apply on the

helmet law. I appeal to the Attorney-General to drop this matter and

let it go. Do we legislate against smoking? It's far more disastrous.

Do we legislate against the greatest disaster in our society, drinking?

No, we sell it in our stores. There are arguments in all directions,

but I appeal to the Attorney-General: drop this matter. Let them go

with or without helmets. I think we've had enough of it. I recommend

that it not be appealed.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll try to

make this clear to the last speaker, although his estimates are not up.

The issue that we're confronting here with the Attorney-General and his

estimates is an issue of moral integrity in government. That member who

has just left doesn't even seem to understand that that's what the

issue is on the floor today. You know, the very fact that the Social

Credit members don't understand what we're discussing is why I most

despair.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Attorney-General, who

has always been an honourable man and an honourable member of this

House, does know what we're discussing. This is what I find very, very

disappointing, because I too was elected to the Legislature in 1966 and

sat for the first time in 1967 with that hon. member. I think I can say

that the two of us have been good friends throughout those years.

But,

of course, we're here in the political sphere. We're not talking about

personal friendships or acquaintances. We are here to discuss the moral

integrity of the Social Credit government. Mr. Chairman, that hon.

minister, as has been pointed out by other speakers, has always been a

champion for decency and for ethics in the political arena. That is why

I, as a member who has worked with him in this Legislature for 14

years, am so disappointed. Because as other speakers on the opposition

side have said, the very points that we're bringing up, and that we are

condemning the Attorney-General for — for his complete intention,

apparently, to ignore these valid points — are the very points that he

himself would have been sounding off over on this side of the House

when he sat in opposition as a Liberal member.

I know

there's a saying that power corrupts, and I would not want to use that

with reference to any hon. member in this House. But there are all

kinds of corruption, as we know, and there is a moral corruption that

can take place within governments. Until the Attorney-General is

willing to have open inquiries, not in-house inquiries, on these vital

matters, the whole question of the morality of the Social Credit

government is at stake.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I listen very

carefully to the words of the Attorney-General as he replies to the

questions that are being posed by the opposition. Because in the past I

have had a great respect for that member, I've tried very hard to

reason in my own mind: why is he refusing to have open inquiries on

these matters? When he last spoke in the House a few moments ago, he

made an interesting point. When we asked for a royal commission instead

of an interministerial inquiry, he said: "Well, that doesn't come under

my jurisdiction. That comes under the Provincial Secretary." When the

Attorney-General has to stretch his arguments in debate to that kind of

statement, it's obvious that he is struggling very hard to rationalize

with this House and the people of British Columbia why he will not go

for open inquiries.

A few moments ago the Attorney-General

also referred to the matter of crime and criminal charges. At no time

has the official opposition suggested that criminal charges immediately

be laid on any of the people in government who at this moment are

suspect of being involved in something that we consider is a shame to

the integrity of government in this province. At no time have we asked

for that. Mr. Chairman, when the Attorney-General suggests that, I

consider that his arguments have really a basis of great weakness.

All

the official opposition has asked for are open inquiries. There is no

way, Mr. Chairman, that that Attorney-General can stand there when he's

speaking and try to convince the opposition and the people of British

Columbia that we should be satisfied with the results of his in-house

investigations. No way! Let's face it, he has been investigating one of

his own colleagues.

When he talks about justice being done

and asks why we want to impose unequal justice in this investigation,

the fact is that he is the Attorney-General of this province who has

[ Page 3920 ]

stated

many times that he believes he must keep his role as Attorney-General

separate from his role as a member of the cabinet. We applaud that. But

if he wishes to keep that role separate, if he wishes to truly show

that he's going to separate the two, there is no way he can continue to

avoid the request for an open public inquiry into this whole matter.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to repeat that he is investigating one of his own

colleagues. The public may be getting somewhat tired at times of

reading the discussion on these matters but there's one thing that

comes through loud and clear, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

said earlier this morning. We're just lay people, we're not lawyers,

and a lot of the language that has been used here may be beyond the

scope of many of us. But there's one thing everyone understands: if

you're up under investigation, you don't get one of your own friends

and colleagues to investigate you; it must be done on an independent

basis. It must be done on a basis that's open to the public, on a basis

where the reports and the testimonies are made public.

These

allegations that have been made by people who worked on the commission

are exceptionally serious. They bring before the public of B.C. the

spectre of a government that will do anything to maintain itself in

power. That Attorney-General, through his years in this House, would,

I'm sure, have been the first one to demand that this kind of thing be

erased from the public's mind. As long as he remains Attorney-General

and continues to sit there and refuses to have a public inquiry,

refuses to release the testimony that has been presented to him, the

government that he represents, the government that he chose to cross

the floor and join, will remain under suspicion.

Mr.

Chairman, it is too bad that all this should fall on the head of the

Attorney-General. It makes us wonder what has happened. Why would a man

of his background be willing to let himself into this position? As

someone said earlier, is it the Premier who's telling him what to do or

is it the Deputy Premier? Whatever, it does not appear to me to be a

path that could be followed by this hon. member who has served in this

House for 14 years, and I'm wondering what has happened to him. Until

that Attorney-General is willing to take these investigations on a

public route, may I say that suspicion will remain on him and on his

government.

When these estimates are over, if the

Attorney-General still refuses to go public with this in a proper way,

may I say, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion he has nothing left to do but

resign as Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I

just correct what is apparently a mistaken impression that the member

for Burnaby North has with respect to earlier remarks made by me. At no

time did I say that the responsibility for public inquiries came under

the Provincial Secretary. The legislation makes it quite clear that the

decision to proceed with a public inquiry is made by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I also never suggested that

the opposition had asked for the laying of criminal charges. I wished

only to make it clear that following the inquiry which was undertaken

at my instigation in January, that was one of the two possible results

that could have arisen — provided that the allegations which were made

had been substantiated.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to join with my colleagues on this

side to ask for either a public inquiry or a legislative committee to

study all the reports that the government and the Attorney-General have

in the way of dirty tricks, the forging of letters and the inquiry

dealing with the Eckardt report. I make this request following some of

the statements that the Attorney-General made earlier on in debate.

This is the reason that evidence is gathered by members of the police

force or by members of his department, that this evidence is to be

prepared and to be studied by Crown counsel or by legal authorities in

his own ministry, that it is to be studied and to be brought out in a

proper charge or a proper report to give direction to the courts or the

government on what action they will take. One of the members requested

that we have certain transcripts released, and I noticed that the

Attorney-General was very quick to say that he had very few transcripts

— the Attorney-General, who represents the government, who represents

justice, who represents the actions of all courts in the province of

British Columbia. But we do have one transcript that has been released,

and it is a copy of a transcript of the Michael Moran case where he

originally was charged with impaired driving or failing to blow. The

interesting part, when you study that transcript, is the evidence that

the late Mr. Moran was convicted on. I feel it is important, Mr.

Chairman, as a resident and as a citizen of British Columbia, that the

evidence that any person is convicted on in any court.... Any precedent

set is a danger to each and every one of us, and if a person is

convicted of an offence in a court where there is not sufficient

evidence to convict him on that case, then that case should never have

appeared or should never have been recommended by any Crown counsel,

who is in turn represented by the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Guilty until proven innocent.

MR. MITCHELL:

No, you are innocent until proven guilty. And this is the important

part — that every person who appears in court should be convicted on

evidence. Some of our members have said that there are certain laws for

certain people, and it seems that if you are a Social Credit candidate

or an ex-Social Credit candidate or a Social Credit member or a Social

Credit cabinet minister, there are different laws that affect people in

different ways. When you go through that barrel it takes one rotten

apple to ruin the whole barrel, and this is why I feel, Mr. Chairman —

through you to the Attorney-General — we should review the transcript

of this particular case. While we go through the case, I would like to

take it out of context and show how it could happen to any one of us.

Here

is a gentleman driving in his car and he is in a gas station — this is

the evidence he was convicted on. This gentleman was driving out of a

gas station in his car, the transcript says: "Mr. Moran's vehicle was

seen to leave the area of the gas pump and approach the highway. It

stopped, I'm advised, with the front of the vehicle approximately five

feet out onto the portion of the west-bound lane." Well, any one of us

could be driving our car out of a parking lot; we drive out and we see

cars approaching and we stop.

"At that point

in time two approaching vehicles were slowing down. However, they were

still proceeding in an east-bound direction. The front vehicle of the

two that were approaching from an east-bound direction began to slow

because it was getting sufficiently close to Mr. Moran's vehicle, and

the driver became concerned as to what was going to happen. Mr. Moran's

vehicle was then seen to proceed slowly onto the highway in the

east-bound lane."

[ Page 3921 ]

Well,

anybody, Mr. Chairman, could be driving his car, he comes out onto the

road, he slows up, the other car slows up, then he pulls out into the

road.

"The first of the east-bound vehicles...the driver of

that vehicle had to apply his brakes heavily. He stopped his vehicle immediately

behind Mr. Moran's vehicle and made a slight contact. There was a slight

bump, minimal damage. The vehicle following, the second vehicle, was unable

to stop in time and hit the rear of the first east-bound vehicle."

Was

there any charge to the second vehicle that he was following too close

or anything of that nature? But this is all the evidence that was given

in court. It is all the evidence that was given to convict a man of

dangerous driving — a criminal case. What is the evidence, Mr.

Chairman? I'm only a layman, like the member for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), but what is the evidence that is needed to convict a person who

is not a Social Credit candidate or an ex-Social Credit candidate? What

is needed to convict a person of dangerous driving? The one thing you

must have is the element of mens rea — a guilty mind — for the new

offence of dangerous driving.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you: you're driving your vehicle out of a gas station.

You drive out onto the road and see two cars approaching. You stop. They slow

up, then you pull ahead. Do you have the guilty mind of intending to commit

a criminal offence? What is some of the other evidence you need to convict a

person of the criminal offence of dangerous driving?

The

proof of inadvertent negligence is not sufficient to support a

conviction of dangerous driving. It is submitted that the decisions, to

date, assign to dangerous driving a degree of negligence higher than

careless driving. Is driving out onto a road and seeing two cars

approaching you, stopping, seeing those two cars slow down, then

pulling out a degree of dangerous driving? Is that a degree of guilty

mind? It's not, Mr. Chairman, and we all know it.

What other

standards must you have for a conviction of dangerous driving? The

standard of advertent negligence was met by the deliberate recklessness

involved in driving for 25 miles on a highway at speeds of 120 miles

per hour. This is the type of evidence needed to convict a person of

dangerous driving. Driving for 25 miles at a speed of 120 miles per

hour was evidence to convict of dangerous driving, But was there any

speeding by a man driving out onto a highway, stopping and watching the

traffic slow down and then pulling out? There was not any evidence.

There was no evidence at all for dangerous driving — driving in a

manner that was dangerous to the public. It was observed by the highest

court in Australia, another member of the British Commonwealth, that

the concept with which the

section deals requires some serious breach

of the proper conduct of a vehicle upon a highway, so serious as to be

in reality and spectacularly dangerous to others.

I ask you,

Mr Chairman, is driving out and stopping on a highway, watching cars

approach, when they slow down and then speed up, dangerous to the

public? When you go into what other evidence is needed, there are many

cases in case law. I can think of one of the interesting ones of

evidence that was needed to support a case of dangerous driving. I'll

read you one.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"In

a prosecution case limited by particulars to the excessive speed with

which the accused was driving a stolen car, it was shown that the car

skidded some 98 feet and for a further skid of 42 feet, apparently

resulting when the car flipped over, striking a wall. By a majority of

two judges to three" — only by a majority of two judges to three — "the

conviction was set aside as unsafe. The case was based on

circumstantial evidence that it could not be said that the

circumstances were inconsistent with other conclusion that the accused

was driving at so excessive a rate of speed as to constitute in itself

the offence of dangerous driving."

Was the late Mr. Moran

driving at that speed? No, he was driving slowly out onto the road, he

stopped for the approaching of other cars, the car slowed down, he

pulled up and he was struck — just bumped. This is the evidence that

the Attorney-General or his ministry allowed a man to be convicted on.

MR. MACDONALD: There was no mens rea.

MR. MITCHELL: No guilty mind, no speed, no dangerous actions — nothing.

What did the judge say? This is a copy of the transcript of the court decision. He said:

"I'm

concerned about the dangerous driving but, as pointed out by Mr.

Enderton, I certainly agree from my experience that this does not fit

the usual fact patterns of a dangerous driving case, it being one

slight driving manoeuvre which perhaps indicated lack of judgment or

lack of caution, but not the persistent type of dangerous driving that

usually characterizes such a charge."

This

is what I say,

Mr. Chairman: the courts of British Columbia, with the full knowledge

of the Attorney-General and his ministry, have allowed a person to be

convicted on this amount of evidence. There were a defence lawyer, a

Crown prosecutor and a judge in that court. Besides, the accused had a

legal degree. I am saying that we on this side of the House feel that

there was no evidence that that man should have been convicted, unless

there was a political payoff down the line. Somewhere down the line a

deal was made; somewhere down the line something was hushed up. It has

never been appealed by the Crown. The Attorney-General has never stated

that it was wrong — the case that was laid before a court in British

Columbia. A precedent has been set that a person can drive out, stop,

pull ahead when the other traffic slows down and get bumped — and be

charged with dangerous driving.

You have a case that

involves many who have one thing in common. They were either ex-Social

Credit candidates, Social Credit candidates, Social Credit members or

Social Credit cabinet ministers. All that doubt is there. There is the

consistency of one case after another. We get one set of transcripts,

when we know that the Attorney-General is sitting on many statements

and reports from other departments. We ask that some type of

legislative inquiry be set up. We have members of the opposition who

have sat in exactly the same position as the Attorney-General, who have

sat in the cabinet, who have the experience and the ability to analyze

the cases, and who have the responsibility of giving good, fair

government. I feel that among the 57 members of

[ Page 3922 ]

this House there must be members from all sides who can sit down and study the facts.

There

is one thing that I think we have all been taught: not only must law

appear to be right; it also must be right. If a committee is set up, if

all the studies are made, if the comparisons I have pointed out today —

only one part of a large jigsaw puzzle — are considered, I know that

the public will feel far more assured that justice in British Columbia

will get back on track and continue to be evenly shared, and that

anyone going before the courts of British Columbia will know they are

protected not only by their defence lawyers but also by Crown counsel

and judges, that if there is insufficient evidence to convict, you

shouldn't have been convicted; and if there is any doubt or if

something smells like a rotten apple, then the courts and the

Attorney-General should have appealed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Just very briefly — I certainly do express my appreciation to the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for making it clear to everybody just

how he fulfils his view that when things are right they must appear

right and they also must be right. He's not a lawyer — that's quite

true — but he is a career policeman, and therefore he has knowledge of

these matters, which should have resulted in more careful consideration

of the remarks he made just a few moments ago. He says he's reading

from a transcript. He's reading from a press report of a publication of

a transcript. As a police officer, he knows perfectly well that what he

was reading was not evidence but statements by counsel. He also knows,

as a former policeman, that there was no conviction of Mr. Moran on

dangerous driving; Mr. Moran pleaded guilty. There was no conviction at

all, Mr. Member. So if you want things to appear to be right and to be

right, then I suggest you call upon the experience which you have as a

career police officer in this province, and make sure that your remarks

to this House are in keeping with your experience.

I agreed

with the member when he said — and I've written it down quite clearly —

that if there's not sufficient evidence no charge should be laid.

That's exactly what has happened in a number of these cases. As a

career police officer, he knows perfectly well that that's the standard

which should be applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: I would still like to carry on. The Attorney-General has answered something, and I would like to correct the statement he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair has recognized the member for North Peace River (Mr.

Brummet). There is ample opportunity in committee for other members to

speak.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I have a right to correct a statement that was made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be ample opportunity in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about rule 42?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Rule 42, hon. members, generally applies to second reading, where a

member may only speak once to a question. The Chair has recognized the

hon. member for North Peace River.

MR. MITCHELL: Point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL:

There is a tradition of the House that while you're in cross-debate

you're allowed to continue. When we get onto another subject, I would

like to continue on other subjects, but while I'm on this particular

item I wish to stand and continue the tradition established in this

House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, what is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the hon. member for North Peace River.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, the member has asked that standing order 42 be invoked in

this manner. You've defined 42 as being confined to second reading. Is

that a ruling? It doesn't say so in the rules; nowhere in the rules

does it say 42 is confined to the second reading of a bill.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Just asking.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Don't interrupt; it's out of order. I'm taking your name down and I'll report you to the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take a seat.

The

Chair implied that standing order 42 is used, when in fact.... I'll

quote it to you: "No member may speak twice to a question except in

explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new

matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take his seat just for a moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: It's 42 you just read....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've just read 42. Further, I will read standing order 61, found on page 23: "The standing orders of

[ Page 3923 ]

the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking."

So standing order 42 in Committee of the Whole House is not a point

of order. I recognize the member for North Peace River.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you have just quoted standing order

61 to confirm that 42 is in order in the committee. I would suggest you

refer to the Clerk again. I can't believe the hon. member is

ill-advised. It must have been an error in pointing out 61 to the

Chair. Standing order 61 confirms that 42 stands in committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Yes. Standing order 61 says: "except...the number of times of

speaking." Standing order 42 clearly refers to the number of times a

member may

speak. In Committee of Supply, all our standing orders indicate that a

member may speak as many times as he wishes in committee. That

opportunity will be allowed all members of the committee, as the

committee is well aware.

Under standing order 37, when two

or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the first member

who rose first in his place. There are further procedures that the

House can take, if they wish to take those.

MR. BARRETT:

On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has asked

under standing order 42, which by your reading of standing order 61 is

applicable in this case, to correct a misunderstanding. That should be

done immediately to keep the continuity of debate in committee.

Standing