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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3893 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3893

Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Lauk, Mr. Lea

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980

The House met at 10 a.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'd like all hon. members to pay a very pleasant and cordial welcome to

a good and old friend of mine, a member of that great Thunderbird

basketball team many, many years ago, who, I may say, was always able

to hold the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) in

great check, Mr. Harry Franklin.

MR. BARRETT: It

seems to be the day for the other member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I

want the House to know that it's his mother's ninetieth birthday today.

Ada McGeer was a pioneer in the province of British Columbia. One of

the reasons she intends to live to 120 is that she's still got hope for

her son.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, visiting in the

precincts today are some friends of mine from the great city of

Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba. Although the weather isn't all

that warm today, I would ask the House to give a nice warm reception to

Barbara and Don Chatterley.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery today is a very prominent British Columbia

forestry consultant who has just returned from a trip to China. Would

the House please welcome Tommy Thompson.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, further to reports on Mr. Speaker Schroeder, I am

informed that the Speaker spent an excellent evening. He is in stable

condition. The surgeons are extremely pleased with the progress, and he

is expected to be moved from the recovery room to intensive care very

shortly. I'm sure we all continue to wish him the very, very best.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, before calling the Committee of Supply, I have been

informed that the public accounts committee is desirous of sitting this

morning, and I ask leave to make a motion that it may sit.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I therefore move, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee be

permitted to sit while the House is in session this morning.

Motion approved.

Order of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise you and members

of the committee that on the floor of the House with me this morning are Deputy

Attorney-General Vogel; Assistant Deputy Attorney-General McDiarmid; Assistant

Deputy Attorney-General Sheppard; Mr. Gordon Hogg from the financial services

branch of the ministry; Mr. Bernard Robinson, the commissioner of corrections;

and Mr. Robert Adamson. who is the head of the policy planning division of the

branch. They will be able to assist me in responding to questions, which I am

sure members may wish to pose, with regard to the estimates of this ministry.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to extend greetings to the

people that the Attorney-General has introduced, most of whom are very well

known in name. I'm glad he did go through the names, though, I almost forgot

the name of the deputy, because he hasn't been in the headlines for the

last couple of days.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want to rectify that, do you?

MR. MACDONALD:

No, we take the position, Mr. former Attorney-General, that the person

who's responsible for all of these things is the Attorney-General. He

bears the ministerial responsibility under the British system of

justice. We never look lower down in the ranks, because we know that

the buck stops on the Attorney-General's desk. That's the problem with

this Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman; he has not really been entitled to

his salary, because whenever things get a little too sensitive and the

waves of justice get a little too close to the seats of Social Credit

power, he delegates his authority to some inquiry or some official in

his ministry and ducks. I suppose if it's good news and everything is

going well, he's glad to assume his responsibility as the first law

officer of the Crown.

Some of things that have happened — and the facts in them are pretty well known

by this time — are, I suppose, really very funny, almost hilarious in a way:

the kind of inquiries we've had and what has gone on in terms of the Attorney-General.

I have to admit that the Attorney-General inherited his office at a very difficult

time. He came into the office of Attorney-General in a dirty-tricks government

— I use that term advisedly, and that's just the plain truth of the matter

— and he's had to act sort of as an undertaker to bury those dirty tricks

as best he can; but in doing so, he's let down the office and he's created

as much confusion as he could about these various things that have taken place.

I don't expect we'll ever see a charge laid with respect to any of the

prominent people in the Social Credit Party who've been engaged in wrongdoing

over the past year and a half or two or three years. We know that in spite of

all these inquiries, and that's very sad for justice, because what we're

seeing on the part of the Attorney-General is see-no-evil favouritism so far

as his political cohorts are concerned.

Before going on with questions, I'd like to run down some of the things

that are subjects of legitimate criticism and which bear out what I've said.

Now the Eckardt report, which the Attorney-General agrees is a very serious

matter.... He gave an interview to a columnist for the Victoria Colonist , who

shall be nameless, and when asked about the investigation into the Eckardt report,

he said:

"When such serious allegations have been made, no,

I don't think six or seven months is too long a time."

Well, they were serious, just as serious as anything could be in a constitutional

democracy. That that government should be sitting

[ Page 3894 ]

there

at all is largely the result of the gerrymandering of the Eckardt

report; I mean, the facts speak for themselves on that one. So nothing

could be more serious. You have independent investigations by a supreme

court judge and proper inquiries held on fairly minor matters, but when

a big one comes up affecting the integrity of the government, and

affecting the Attorney-General's colleagues, what do we get? A private

investigation where nobody sees the evidence; it's invisible. It's

filtered through two officials down below, Mr. Prelypchan and then up

to the Deputy Attorney-General, and then we get a little glinting off

it here in the report that the Attorney-General brings into the House

which is full of contradictions. It's bound to be with that kind of

Alice-in-Wonderland investigation — an absurd way to handle a serious

allegation. None of the important witnesses were put under oath. There

was no cross-examination. There was nobody there to stand up for the

public interest as apart from the interests of the government.

MR. LAUK: We haven't seen the interviews.

MR. MACDONALD:

Yes, even the interviews. Mr. Prelypchan goes around and takes

statements from people — some in the Vancouver courthouse, as I recall;

somebody told me one day Norm Prelypchan was there busily doing his

job; no criticism, except that he didn't mandate the way this inquiry

was to be.... The Attorney-General did. It's a disgrace to hold that

kind of.... How can people get the truth? It's like chasing the black

cat in the dark room that isn't there to get the truth out of this

Attorney-General with that kind of investigation.

Is this a

precedent for the way that the public affairs of the province of

British Columbia are going to be investigated, when they are serious

charges? You've got the commissioner out there making silly, partisan,

biased remarks which show up his true nature, as appeared in the paper

yesterday. Here's an abuse of democracy like we have never seen in this

province and probably in Canada. The Attorney-General comes in with a

secret report and gives us a little bit of an inkling of what went on,

and what went on was damning. There was no independent inquiry. What's

the use of having the Inquiry Act when that Attorney-General will not

allow it to be used where his friends are concerned? Wipe it off the

books.

Going on with the quotation from the unnamed

columnist: "The Attorney-General said: 'To make an incomplete report to

the House would be to demean the office, and I have no intention of

doing that.'" Mr. Chairman, the office has been demeaned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read that again. What did he say?

MR. MACDONALD:

He said about bringing in the report on the Eckardt redistribution: "To

make an incomplete report to the House would be to demean the office,

and I have no intention of doing that." But unfortunately a good

department, except where we get into this political area.... That's

exactly what has happened; it's demeaned the whole province of British

Columbia. If you say that there's still a chance to have a proper

investigation as to whether....

Do you know what the charge was, Mr. Chairman? The charge was political interference

with a so-called independent commission. That's very serious. It's far

more serious than are thousands of cases that are going on in our courts at

the present time throughout British Columbia, where evidence is called by the

Crown and the accused; it's open to the public; there is cross-examination

and sworn testimony, and a careful weighing as to the truth or falsity of the

matter. This is far more serious than any of those cases. Name one that's

going on in the province of British Columbia that is more important to our system

of government. Yet it's a secret, official thing. There will not be an independent

inquiry, because the Premier won't let there be one. The Premier is running

the Attorney-General's office. There's no question about it. Had that

not been the case for the last four or five years, we would not have a dirty-tricks

government confronting us today in the province of British Columbia. That's

what we're faced with. It's kind of sad even at 10 o'clock on a

Wednesday morning to have to say these things, but they're true.

the second inquiry to which I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, there

were allegations — which were pretty well admitted to as to their basic

facts — that in the last election the Social Credit Party did not

report $246,000, I think it was, in campaign expenses, contrary to the

provincial Election Act, which requires parties and candidates to

report. It's not the best act in the world, but it certainly requires

that much. Of that sum, about $60,000 was in the form of cash, and it

was disbursed through Dan Campbell. Again, there were no receipts or

accounting. This was not what you might call inadvertence, that the

people in charge of reporting the true election expenses made a

mistake. It wasn't that kind of situation at all. It was a situation

where the reason why these funds were not reported was because they

were being deliberately hidden in special trust funds and spent out of

the Premier's office, not out of the Social Credit Party. That becomes

a very serious matter. I can imagine anybody making an honest mistake

in a calculation of total election expenses, but that was not the case.

Now after about eight months an investigation has been ordered as to

whether or not charges should be laid. There has been no report from

the Attorney-General.

The facts are not complicated; they

are right down the hall. The Attorney-General's office is up here, and

the Premier's office is down there. There is no difficulty in getting

the facts. So I ask this committee: why take six or eight months to

decide whether or not charges should be laid in the case of a breach of

the Election Act? Had this been an ordinary citizen of the province of

British Columbia, the question of whether to charge or not, to refer it

to an open court or a public inquiry, whatever, would have been decided

by a prosecutor within let's say 48 hours to 72 hours something in that

order.

Here, in the case of the political friends of the

Attorney-General, we have a nice little game being played where it

stretched out these things — just as the Eckardt one was — month after

month after month. Now we're in the month of August and the

Attorney-General is hoping that when he does report on this matter it

will be kind of old news, like Billygate — old news, but more serious

than Billygate; Billygate was a non-affair compared to this. But those

are the political stratagems being employed on the other side of the

House. I think there's a widespread resentment throughout the whole

population of British Columbia at this kind of political justice that's

being administered in the Attorney-General's office.

[ Page

3895 ]

These are simple questions that should be referred to an

independent, taken out of this process where the people suspected are

washed by the Attorney-General's office, or the facts are hidden and no

action is taken for six or eight months on a simple set of facts — no

report back.

I wasn't watching my time, Mr. Chairman. I want

to refer briefly to five propositions. But I'll go on with the other.

We're in committee. We can be informal and ask other questions about

them later.

I was not happy, Mr. Chairman, with the handling

of the case of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). As

one who used to sit in the seat of the Attorney-General, it seemed to

me axiomatic that when something of a sensitive, semi-political nature,

for example, came up, the buck stopped at the Attorney-General's desk.

In this case, the Attorney-General had ordered an RCMP report as to

whether or not there'd been an infraction of the law on the part of

that hon. member. What the Attorney-General did was to brush it off,

brush away his responsibility and allow the system to make the decision

and pretend he knew nothing about it — see no evil, hear no evil. The

Attorney-General's going to get up and say that the system was devised

by the NDP, and he doesn't know what he's talking about, because the

elected Attorney-General, in the last resort with a sensitive matter

involving the public interest, must make the decision himself. He can

have the best advice in the world, but don't try to say the buck stops

on Neil McDiarmid's desk or on the Deputy Attorney-General's desk. In a

case like that it doesn't.

In our democracy the safeguard is

that the Attorney-General is elected and is also a lawyer. He serves

that public interest as a result of being elected by the people to that

post, and he serves the legal principles of that high office. He can't

duck responsibility. He is the Crown and the Crown is indivisible. When

the right case comes along — as it came along in my time.... What was

the name of that one up in Roberts Creek? You have no choice, Mr.

Attorney-General, if you want to earn your salary when that kind of

case comes along, is to sit down, look at it, and make the decision —

not duck and hide. The buck stops with you. The system serves most of

the cases perfectly well, but democracy has a safeguard. That safeguard

should be an Attorney-General who, in the last resort, stands up for

the people and makes the decision, and takes the consequences one way

or the other.

On this case, last December 21, the Attorney-General is reported as saying:

"Based upon the results of the RCMP investigation and the law, I agree

it seems to be the proper decision." The Attorney-General was referring

to the decision of the director of prosecutions in criminal law, now the assistant

deputy minister, who had announced that no charges would be laid. That statement

to the people of the province of British Columbia by the Attorney-General was

very misleading. As it transpired, the Attorney-General, who assured the people

that this seems to be the proper decision, admitted later that he had not read

the RCMP reports, which recommended prosecution, nor had he read the report

of the regional Crown prosecutor, which recommended prosecution. So the Attorney-General

did assure the people that justice was done, but he deliberately blinded his

eyes as far as seeing the facts of the case. That was misleading. That was trying

to pull a little wool, a little pall, and a little confusion over the case,

and say, "It's all right; I have assumed my responsibility; I assure

you, it's all right," even though he rejected the recommendation of

regional Crown and the RCMP report. That was misleading the people of the province

of British Columbia. The admission that he never saw the reports came out in

the Legislature two or three months later.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, at this point I would remind you that Beauchesne does

contain comments about which words are parliamentary and which are not

parliamentary. "Misleading" has been found to be unparliamentary. I

would caution the member against the use of that word.

MR. MACDONALD:

I withdraw that, then, Mr. Chairman. Do we have any words left in

there? We can't have very many. Can I say that he gave the people of

the province a totally false impression?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That, again, would be found by Beauchesne and this parliament to be

unparliamentary. I'm sure the hon. member can criticize the

administrative actions of the minister using parliamentary language.

MR. MACDONALD:

Then I withdraw that. Can I go into the dictionary under the

section

I-J, and say that the impression that the Attorney-General left with

the people of the province was an incorrect one? Is that okay? Try that

one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be critical of the

administrative actions. I'm sure the hon. member knows the rules of

parliamentary and unparliamentary language.

MR. MACDONALD:

I think there were five counts in the indictment, and I'm not

mentioning the question of the investigation in terms of the deputy,

because that's before the courts. When I mention the Rigg and the Moran

cases, as I'm going to do, I'm not talking about interference in the

administration of justice. That's something that is before the courts.

But I am saying about those two cases that the Attorney-General

obviously approbated a situation where something had obviously gone

wrong with the administration of justice.

Clearly, the

Attorney-General should have stepped in and corrected the situation. In

the Rigg case, a young man charged with impaired in Vancouver was able

to receive intercession on his behalf at the Victoria level on two

occasions: firstly to have the charge stayed and, secondly, to have the

appeal dropped a couple of days before it was to be heard.

ask the Attorney-General what the first question that he should have

posed in that case was. How does Rigg happen to get his file looked at

in Victoria when there are thousands of other young people out there

who are up on similar charges and don't get that opportunity? Why

shouldn't he have been treated along with the rest of the people of the

province, young and old, by the system of regional Crown prosecutors

that has been built up?

I have no objection to what you

might say is political interference, because in the last resort

politics or the elected official should determine how these

prosecutions are conducted. But I do say that in a particular case of

Smith v. Jones, or whatever, the first question somebody in the

Attorney-General's office has to ask themselves is: "Before I intervene

in this case should it be on my desk, and am I being fair to the other

cases in which there's no possibility that I can intervene?" So I think

that was a miscarriage.

The fifth count of the indictment against the Attorney-General

[ Page 3896 ]

the case of Mr. Moran, who is now deceased. When I'm referring to his

case I cast no reflections upon him. I do say he was a prominent former

Social Credit candidate in the Kootenay area. I'm not saying that in a

derogatory sense. I am saying that he was apprehended by the RCMP in 4

situation where the evidence of driving while impaired was extremely

strong — the open bottle in the car, his walk, breath, eyes and speech.

There was evidence of two RCMP officers and, I think, two independent

witnesses, and evidence by the strange kind of accident that occurred

when this car slowly backed out into the path of oncoming traffic on

the southern trans-provincial highway. Yet the Crown dropped the charge

against Mr. Moran of refusing to blow the breathalyser. Refusing to

blow needs very little evidence of alcohol suspicion. This is not

proving a person is an impaired driver, but I ask the House how many

other people under those circumstances could get away with refusing to

take the test as to alcoholic content of their breath and blood.

all know that that case was not properly decided, that the dropping of

the charge was a miscarriage of justice, and that that was not equal

enforcement of the laws. Yet this Attorney-General — and I'm not

talking about the part of the interference here — has approbated what

happened on that occasion and has defended it, and that is unequal

justice. That is justice depending upon who you are, not what you did —

a principle that should never be allowed to creep into the justice

system. When the Attorney-General finds one such case anywhere in the

province, he should be the most vigilant person to step in and see that

that is corrected and the people concerned are reprimanded, but he did

not do so. By no stretch of the imagination can anybody argue that that

was a legitimate defence in terms of justifying a refusal to take the

breathalyser. Nobody could.

On all of these things I would

have to say that the department is not, in this aspect of its work,

living up to the principles that it should be upholding.

would close with a question. I ask the Attorney-General if he can

explain why it took six or eight months to investigate this charge

under the Election Act and Dan Campbell and the funds,

whereas if it

was an ordinary citizen the matter would have been brought forward very

speedily — it would have been all over by this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I listened to the remarks of the second member for Vancouver East, a

former Attorney-General in this province, with utter amazement that he

should have such a scant grasp or maybe such a twisted view of what the

responsibilities of the chief law officer of the Crown are in our

system for the administration of criminal justice. I'd like to deal

with each of the incidents to which he has referred. Perhaps in the

process the member may recognize what he either has never known or has

forgotten since he was the Attorney-General and capable of being

advised by the people who advise me.

I won't deal with these

cases in order. I was startled when he was dealing with what he called

"count number 4, the Rigg case." He said he had no objection to

political interference. In the report, in item 1, 2 and 3, he was

suggesting that I was motivated by political interference, but he

points out that he has no objection to that. I find that to be an

absolutely startling statement to be made by a member of this House,

and I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have objection to

political interference with respect to the discharge of my

responsibilities as the Attorney-General. There is no evidence to which

the member can point that in the discharge of my responsibilities I

have been politically interfered with or improperly influenced by

members of the government. That is certainly one of the special

features of the position of the Attorney-General in our system — that

is, that in matters such as this he is obliged to separate himself from

what otherwise might be his political responsibility; and thus it

should ever be.

The Rigg case. It's surprising that the Rigg case should also be raised

by this member in this particular way. He says that the Rigg case should have

been left to regional Crown counsel to decide; that that was the proper disposition

of the Rigg case; that it should have been dealt with by anybody at a higher

level than that of regional Crown counsel. Yet when you compare the other cases

to which he refers, he wants them dealt with by a higher level: "Don't

leave it to regional Crown counsel; don't leave it to the system to determine."

Just

look for the result that you want. Blow whichever way you think is most

appropriate from a political point of view, as the member did on

television this past weekend.

The Moran case. It was

suggested by the hon. member in the course of his remarks that the

outcome of the Moran case was one which I had defended, that there was

no criticism or discipline taken with respect to the way in which that

case was handled — and he's right. It was dealt with by competent

senior Crown counsel, who was specially selected to deal with that

case, by bringing him from an area where it could not be implied that

he was affected because of the position that Mr. Moran is reputed to

have held in his particular community.

When the issue of the

Moran case came to public attention — and the report that I gave to the

House — it did not deal with that particular case or with the way in

which Crown counsel was to deal with it, or with Mr. Moran or any of

those factors. That case came to public attention and was dealt with by

me in the course of my investigation, because there was a charge made

against the Deputy Attorney-General that he had interfered, and it

wasn't true. That's why I had to speak up. It wasn't true. There was no

evidence of it whatsoever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD:

I have refrained from going into that aspect of the alleged

interference because it is before the court, as I understand it. That

being the case, the Attorney-General should not take the role of

counsel for the defence and attempt to influence the court. It is sub

judice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Perhaps I might quote from Beauchesne and the sub judice convention:

"Members

are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the

courts or tribunals which are courts of records. The purpose of the sub

judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or

undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of

a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House

upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for those remarks. Certainly there was no

intention on my part to offend against the rule with regard to

proceedings which are before our courts. But, you see, the hon. second

member for

[ Page 3897 ]

Vancouver

East dealt with the matter in such a way as to suggest that there are

implications in the case which were not there and must be corrected.

This

was a case which was dealt with by senior Crown counsel in consultation

with regional Crown counsel, and there the matter stopped. Again, this

was a case where the hon. member would suggest that it should have been

dealt with at some higher level. You can't have it both ways, Mr.

Member. I'll deal more specifically with why you can't have it both

ways and why it is inappropriate in the administration of justice in

our system that you have it both ways, depending upon the personalities

involved. That's the worst kind of justice you can have, because it

casts upon individuals the responsibility to choose, based upon the

personality of the parties involved, what the rules are going to be.

When you get into that situation, Mr. Chairman, you are treading on

very, very dangerous ground.

The member referred to the

situation involving the hon member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie). I think the member said it was a case of a semi-political

nature. It wasn't semi-political at all. It was an allegation of a

breach of the criminal law, and it was dealt with in accordance with

the system by which criminal justice is administered in this country,

not just in British Columbia.

The member says that I'm going

to suggest that it was a system designed by the NDP. It wasn't designed

by the NDP. The system for the administration of criminal justice in

this country and in all British countries was designed by people over

the centuries who had a real understanding of the elements of justice

and what was required to be ensured — that in matters affecting the

liberty of the subject specific rules and standards should be applied.

But it's true that during the time when the second member for Vancouver

East was the Attorney-General some very significant steps were taken in

this province to ensure that the principles for administration of

criminal justice were matched by the system that is existing in this

province today. It didn't exist prior to the time that the member was

the Attorney-General.

I offer you, Mr. Chairman, to recall

that prior to 1973-74, throughout the length and breadth of this

province, the administration of criminal justice at the first, and

often the most important, level was handled by magistrates, few of them

trained in the law. This is not to be critical of the tremendous

contribution they have made and the experience they brought to their

task in those days. In many cases throughout this province, except in

the major centres, the prosecutorial role was undertaken by the police

forces. It was often suggested that by reason of association between

police forces and the local magistrate there was the appearance that

justice was not always being served.

In 1974 a very

significant change took place. The government of the day, and the

member, are to be credited for it. As a result of that change we now

have in this province today a provincial court bench which is composed

of 108 or so qualified lawyers selected for their experience and

training at the bar. We have as prosecutors the system of Crown counsel

divided into regions throughout the province, again highly qualified in

matters associated with criminal law and criminal justice. The number

of regional district and Crown counsel in the province totals about

160. They, together with the police forces in the province, undertake

the very serious responsibility of the administration of criminal

justice. As a consequence the police are left free to do the task which

is theirs to do; namely, upon information being placed before them that

there has been a breach of the criminal law, they conduct thorough and

complete investigations. During those investigations, to the extent

that legal advice may be required, the Crown counsel system is there

for that purpose. But when the investigation is deemed to be complete,

and when the police forces believe that they have exhausted every

avenue open to them to obtain the information upon which criminal

charges might be considered, then the results of their investigation

are taken to the Crown counsel system. It is the Crown counsel who

decides whether or not the results of the investigation have

established the basis upon which a charge should be laid.

This

is not to say that there wouldn't be instances when differences of

opinion can arise. It is true that any investigating police officer

cannot be directed not to swear his oath; nor can he be directed to

swear his oath. In the final analysis that always remains his choice.

But under a system which has credibility and a high degree of

professionalism, the investigating police officers, coordinated with

Crown counsel, result in the decision as to whether or not a charge

should be laid. If in any event there is a difference of opinion, the

system also provides for other means to resolve that difference of

opinion. That's why there are senior officials in the ministry for that

purpose.

This was the case with the member for Central

Fraser Valley. The Assistant Deputy Attorney-General, criminal justice

division, was very early involved in matters associated with that case;

and when, in the final analysis, the decision had to be made as to

whether or not a charge should be laid in this instance, he was

consulted further in the matter. As I have already advised this House

in response to questions posed here, the results of the investigation,

taken into account with the law, did not establish the prima facie case

which is essential to the laying of a charge. And the matter ends there.

Now

the member would suggest that because a member of this House was

involved, some further special attention should be given to the matter.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if it had not been possible

for the decision to be made at the level of the Assistant Deputy

Attorney-General, who for 20 years has been involved in criminal

justice matters in this province, then it would have been made at the

higher level. But it would be improper for the Attorney-General to

interfere at that particular stage, to influence in any one way or the

other the decisions made by professionals about whom no question can be

raised as to whether or not their decision was motivated or influenced

by other considerations.

I now wish to come to what I

consider to be the worst part of the suggestion made by the second

member for Vancouver East, that somehow or other, because you are a

member of this House on the government side, or maybe because you're a

member of the House on the opposition side, or because you're a senior

official of government perhaps, or because you occupy some other status

in the community, you should be treated in a manner different than

somebody else in the community. Is this your idea of British justice,

Mr. Member? Who's going to be called upon to make that decision? Maybe

you would say the Attorney-General should; maybe it's his

responsibility. If I had, the member would have stood in his place and

criticized the Attorney-General for interfering with the system of

British justice.

MR. MACDONALD: You are the first law officer of the Crown.

[ Page 3898 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I am the first law officer.

MR. MACDONALD: Accept your responsibilities then.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Then you understand the responsibility, Mr. Member, through you, Mr.

Chairman. That responsibility is exercised by me if, as and when those

professionally trained persons, who have the responsibility, are unable

under the circumstances to make a decision; then it's appropriate for

the Attorney-General to interfere, and not before then. If such were

the case, then every time the Attorney-General interfered — to lay a

charge or not to lay a charge — then the question would be asked by the

opposition: "Why did you interfere politically?" You see, you can't

have it both ways, Mr. Member. You either accept that the decisions of

the Attorney-General of this province as the chief law officer of the

Crown are made in the full recognition of his responsibilities and the

principles which underlie that role, or you don't. You can't approbate

and reprobate on anything as important as that.

Oh, it's

popular in the daily press, popular for the opposition, to raise all

these matters; but they never explain what the role of the

Attorney-General is. They never take the time to make certain that the

people of this province recognize that it's absolutely essential that

in these matters the Attorney-General not be put in the position of

even suggesting that he has involved himself and overturned the

decisions of competent professionals in the system. It should certainly

never be suggested that the Attorney-General or his officials have made

decisions with regard to the laying of criminal charges based upon the

status in the community or the personality of the person who's under

investigation — nothing could be worse for justice than that. If that

were the case, then you would have justice depending upon political

party, who sits on what side of the House.

MR. MACDONALD: That's what we have.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That's not what you have, Mr. Member. We didn't have it when you were

the Attorney-General, and we don't have it now. I accepted, when you

were the Attorney-General of this province, that you made those

decisions without influence from your political colleagues; and that is

the case in my acceptance of the responsibilities of Attorney-General.

I just ask you not to demean the office by leaving the suggestion that

otherwise is the case, because when you demean the office you destroy

an element of the system which is its very foundation.

dealing with the Ritchie case, the member said: "Deal with the matter

when the right case comes along." Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure you

that that's the way the system works. When the right case comes along,

when the facts, taken into account with the law, establish the

existence of a prima facie case, charges will be laid in this province,

and are laid every day on that basis and none other. That's the right

system; that's the right case. Under my administration as

Attorney-General it will ever be thus.

The hon. member dealt

with the question of election expenses. I wish to advise you, Mr.

Chairman, and the House that yesterday I received through my ministry

from the chief electoral officer what I consider to be the last item

necessary to deal with this matter. Yes, it's been a long time. Yes,

it's important. It involves the law and the member himself indicated in

his remarks that perhaps the law as it was was somewhat lacking. That's

been the issue in this whole matter, Mr. Chairman. The Attorney-General

and his officials, the people who are responsible for the

administration of the Election Act of this province, the chief

electoral officer and his staff, are bound by that statute and the

provisions in it.

Following the disclosure that incomplete

filings apparently had been made by the Social Credit Party of British

Columbia and their officials at the time of the last general election,

questions were raised as to whether a charge would be laid, quite

properly. That's a decision to be made by the chief electoral officer,

the person who is responsible for the administration of that statute.

That's his responsibility.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it's yours.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The member shakes his head. The member obviously has never considered

what the responsibility of the chief electoral officer is and to whom

he reports in this matter.

MR. MACDONALD: You're the chief law officer of the Crown.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes, and it's my responsibility to ensure that chief electoral officers

and other senior officials do discharge their responsibilities. As a

consequence of my interest in this matter, legal advice was obtained

for the chief electoral officer — or the acting chief electoral

officer, as he was at that time. We didn't use people from within the

ministry. We went outside, to the private bar, and obtained the

services of two qualified lawyers who were selected by the Ministry of

the Provincial Secretary, not by the Attorney-General. We paid for the

expenses, as is usual; we provide these services to ministries of

government. The opinions were given. The circumstances did not

establish the basis for the laying of a charge in this particular case.

I'll be making a full report to the Provincial Secretary — because he's

the minister who has budgetary responsibility for the chief electoral

officer — on this entire subject when I have a moment to put it in

writing. But that was the decision. The decision was based upon the

inadequacy of the statute. The statute wouldn't support the laying of a

charge.

Yes, there was an amended return filed. There's

nothing in the statute to preclude an amended report being filed. As a

matter of fact, the time limits within which such returns must be

presented to the chief electoral officer — 60 days following the

election — indicate quite clearly that if any party is to discharge its

responsibility under the statute and the very limited regulations that

there are in the statute, more than 60 days is required. Therefore one

should expect that there would be returns filed within the 60 days and,

subsequently, amended returns, because if the members would take the

opportunity of looking very carefully at the return which is to be

filed, all that is called for is the filing of a return, a statement of

expenditures to the extent that they were aware. It's an awareness

test. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it was an appropriate

test. But that's what the statute says. That's what the law is and we

don't go outside the law. We can't, when considering whether charges

are to be laid.

The

section also speaks about the filing of certain information by the central committee of a political party.

[ Page 3899 ]

That's

not defined in the statute or the regulations. What is a central

committee? It talks about the persons who may be responsible for the

filing of such statements. There's no definition as to who they are, no

indication, no requirement that they register themselves in any

particular way. It speaks of filing a detailed statement. There's no

definition as to what must be contained in a detailed statement, and

when one looks at the practice — as was done in this particular case,

going back over some ten elections in this province — it's found that

there has been complete inconsistency on the part of all the political

parties who have offered candidates in these elections: the Social

Credit Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party, the

Conservative Party. As a matter of fact, the only party that has been

consistent throughout all this period of time is the Communist Party of

Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have a central committee.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's your answer, Mr. Member. You've answered the question yourself.

some cases parties have filed some information. In other cases they

have simply filed gross dollar amounts. It has apparently been the

practice of the chief electoral officer to accept gross dollar figures

without any particular details. This is, I think, an inadequacy in the

statute — no question about it. It is obviously a

section of the act

which comes from an era when I suppose the parties themselves didn't

have as much of a role to play in election expenditures and campaigns

as is now popularly the case.

The sections of the act which

deal with what a member must do are much more specific. A candidate who

stands for election in a particular constituency must make filings. He

must appoint his official agent. There are declarations accepting that

responsibility. It is quite clear what the obligations are of the

candidate and the officials who must support him. With regard to the

activities of political parties, the same specificity is not to be

found.

Yesterday, as I say, I received a memorandum from the

chief electoral officer, Mr. Goldberg, who has recently assumed that

office in this province. From the province of Alberta, he comes from

another jurisdiction with other experiences and with the new

legislation. He has examined the matter and it is his view that the

returns that were filed in this particular instance were the returns

called for under the statute, such as it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

You have three minutes, hon. member. I might remind the committee, as

well, that we are verging on discussion of another minister's estimates.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I have to deal with the report that I gave to this House with regard to

the commission undertaken by Judge Eckardt. Because it will take a

little longer, I may have to deal with it after I hear some remarks

from other members.

It is quite clear that the hon. second

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has not taken the time to

consider and understand the position of a person who is a royal

commissioner, and the impropriety of any interference by the

Attorney-General or anybody else in government with the conduct of that

commissioner's responsibility. To suggest that we can somehow or other

call him to the bar of this House — this commission has ended — or that we

could have directed him in any way during the course of his

commission.... He's right. It would be interference, I suspect,

with a judicial officer. That's a criminal offence. It was for that

reason that I became involved in the matter when a declaration was

delivered to me. If established, it might have resulted in criminal

charges being taken. It's a very serious allegation, but nobody went to

the police with it. The purpose of the investigations carried on by

officials of the Attorney-General's ministry was to determine whether

or not there was any basis upon which an investigation could be founded.

MR. MACDONALD: Why didn't you have a public inquiry with a supreme court judge'?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

You don't have a public inquiry in order to determine these matters. Do

you have a public inquiry every time there is a suggestion that there

has been a breach of the criminal law? That might come later, Mr.

Member. It might have come later, if there had been any substance

whatsoever to the suggestions that there was political or improper

interference with respect to the work of the royal commission — but

there was none.

You say the investigation was so long. Yes,

it was long. There were a lot of people to interview. There were people

who were absent from this province. One person was absent for three

months during the course of this investigation. We couldn't complete

the investigation without finding out what was going on. We wanted to

have a complete and thorough investigation. There was one. It did not

establish the basis upon which anyone could suggest to the police

authorities of this province that there was a breach of the criminal

law that they should then investigate. No charges have been laid.

There

was certainly no basis to suggest that there was any interference with

the royal commissioner, which would have resulted in a royal commission

on a royal commission. Careful investigation was made. again, not by

the Attorney-General — so you could suggest that there was political

involvement in the matter — but by competent, responsible, professional

officials of the ministry, who would certainly not be influenced.

Intimidated or directed by base political motives from anybody.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have more things to say about some of the activities surrounding this report. I will do so later.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have the Attorney-General go on with his

remarks, so I will be brief in my interjection at this point. We are

having a little semantic question about political interference. In the

Rigg case it's perfectly proper that the elected Attorney-General, who

is in charge of the administration of justice, should interfere in the

process — not on behalf of Rigg, not in terms of persons, but in terms

of what is taking place out there, and whether justice is being done.

When, should young people up on an impaired charge be granted a stay,

or possibly a diversion? That's a very important thing, and the

Attorney-General should interfere — but not in respect to individual

persons in the system.

[ Page 3900 ]

When

should the Attorney-General interfere when he sees a case like that of

Moran, where — I repeat — justice was obviously not done? There was

nothing you could do about Moran. The Crown had dropped the charge of

him refusing to blow into the breathalyser before it came to your

attention. But when it did come to your attention, it seems to me that

the Attorney-General should have said: "Something in that system was

not working in the interests of justice." Therefore you had to

interfere and correct the system, and perhaps correct officials

involved in it — not interference in terms of persons, but certainly

interference in terms of the administration of justice when you see

something wrong.

In the Ritchie case, it's astonishing that

the Attorney-General, as all the province knew, had ordered an RCMP

report into the allegations, but had not seen the report before a

decision was made by his department. The Vancouver Sun , in an

editorial, puts it this way: "It is very strange that Mr. Vogel would

not have referred such a delicate matter with political overtones to

Mr. Williams, or indeed that Mr. Williams would not have demanded that

it be referred to him. Who is running the department?"

Where

there is public interest and public attention on a particular case that

the Attorney-General is dealing with, he should deal with it. This is

particularly so in that case where, on the basis of the

recommendations, the RCMP recommended prosecution, the regional Crown

counsel recommended prosecution, and then one official in the

Attorney-General's office — admittedly at a higher rank — says no. Do

you mean to say that isn't the kind of thing that should be referred to

higher authority, right up to the Attorney-General? Of course it should

be. Otherwise I don't think the Attorney-General is earning his salary.

When it is a case involving a colleague, the suggestion is inevitably

in people's minds of deliberately sluffing the case off because of

knowing the person concerned. His being a political colleague isn't

good enough.

I was pleased that the Attorney-General

recognizes some of the importance attending the issues behind the

Eckardt question. In the light of that, I again repeat to the

Attorney-General that invisible, unsworn evidence on a matter of this

importance is simply not acceptable. For a moment he was suggesting

that perhaps a public inquiry should come. Perhaps I'm overstating that

when I say he said it should come, but he said that that possibility

should not be ruled out. On behalf of the official opposition, we are

standing up here and saying that this matter is of such importance, and

there are such obvious contradictions that have sprung up in terms of

the report that has been released and the little bit we've been able to

glean of the evidence, that the public interest demands a public

inquiry. I ask the Attorney-General if he will give consideration to

this request of the official opposition that a public inquiry be held

into the question of what happened in terms of the Eckardt commission

and interference.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Eckardt

commission report, the interim report with regard to electoral boundary

redistribution. Yes, the member does overstate my position that there

should be a royal commission, and I want to make it perfectly clear

that there was some misunderstanding. If, as a result of the extensive

inquiry undertaken by officials of the Attorney-General's ministry,

there had been evidence that the criminal law had been offended, then

it would have been my responsibility and I would have quickly moved to

place the matter into the hands of the police authorities for full

investigation by them and consideration of the laying of charges.

as a result of what was unearthed in the course of the inquiry it was

established that there had been improprieties in the conduct of the

commission itself — altogether aside from what the impact would have

been upon criminal offences — then it would have been my responsibility

to recommend to the government that a public inquiry be undertaken. I

can only state again that as a result of the extensive inquiry,

circumstances which would indicate that either of those two actions

should be taken have not been disclosed. In this ministry and this

system we can't act upon what people suspect, on rumour, or on

coffee-shop gossip. I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, through you to

the member, that the greatest care was taken to attempt to trace down

every possible lead which would indicate that there was impropriety in

any of these matters.

The commissioner's report was the

commissioner's until the very moment when he placed it in the hands of

the Provincial Secretary in the discharge of his responsibility.

MR. MACDONALD: How do we know that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You know when it was. There's no question as to which day it was.

MR. LEA: Was it the 17th?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, it wasn't the 17th. He delivered his document on June 19.

was the commissioner's report until the very moment when he discharged

his obligation and placed it in the hands of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. MACDONALD: How do we know that'?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Because that's what the royal commissioner's obligation is. The

investigation was undertaken and I have provided to this House

precisely what happened in those last four or five days. That's the end

of the matter, as far as I'm concerned. You can raise questions and

speculate, but unless and until additional information is placed in my

hands indicating either the ingredients necessary for criminal charges

or the recommendation of a public inquiry, no further action can be

taken.

The member referred again to the Rigg case and what

should have been done. He says that it was a matter of selection of

personalities in this particular case — that somehow or other this one

young boy got his case looked at, and it wasn't proper. He mentioned

that maybe it was a case for a diversion....

MR. MACDONALD: No, that's a consideration, in all of the cases.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It was a consideration in this case, and that's why it came forward, Mr. Member.

Counsel

for the Rigg boy and regional Crown counsel had a discussion about

diversion. It was refused by Crown counsel. Counsel for the accused

felt that it was improper that it be dealt with on that basis, and

therefore he raised the matter with the deputy attorney-general.

There was no diversion.

[ Page 3901 ]

The rules with regard to diversion don't apply in impaired cases, because of the numbers of those cases which are involved.

Again,

in the case of the member for Central Fraser Valley, the hon. member

speaks about who recommended what. ''The police recommended the laying

of charges...." I wish it to be abundantly clear: it's not their

role to recommend the laying of charges. They investigate and they

produce the results of their investigation, and it is Crown counsel who

deals with the matter.

MR. LAUK: It's their practice to do so.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It may be their practice, but, Mr. Member, I wish to make it abundantly

clear, as I have to the senior officials of the police forces of this

province, that in the laying of charges, the decisions are made by

Crown counsel — the decisions as to whether a charge goes forward, laid

by Crown counsel, are based upon the evidence and the law.

Recommendations

are not their role. They find the evidence, and if the evidence is

insufficient, they may be sent back to find more. If it's impossible to

find more, then the decision has to be made upon the facts that they

have been able to uncover at that level.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure others want to participate, but I just want to

say another word or two about the state in which we find ourselves in

the Eckardt business.

The Attorney-General is putting it on

as narrow a base as possible as to whether or not criminal charges

should be laid. His duty is broader than that. His duty is to see that

democratic institutions are safeguarded, that there is due process,

that there has been a fair consideration of factors, that there has

been no undue interference.

In asking for an inquiry, we're

pointing out that even with what the Attorney-General now knows, this

finger was obviously added at the last minute, with no word of

explanation. It was obviously of benefit to the government in power.

There has been no questioning worth the name of the commissioner as to

that, or of the Provincial Secretary, or of Mr. Patterson — I think be

was then acting chief electoral officer of the province — who gave

contrary evidence. If there was ever a case crying out for a public

inquiry — not necessarily to see whether there are criminal charges to

be laid, but to see whether the administration of democracy is

proceeding in a proper manner in this province — that case has been

made. Yet as we talk to the Attorney-General, as sure as we're sitting

here this morning, we know that there will be no public inquiry into

some of these murky corners of the Social Credit coalition. That's the

sadness of it. The debate goes on. We know we're not going to get a

public inquiry, but we know we should have one.

In terms of

the police recommending, somebody mentioned the old Sommers case. I

remember that when I became A-G, just as a matter of interest I looked

it up. What was it — the Butler report? Have you not got the Butler

report there?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's in the lower drawer on the left-hand side. [Laughter.] Have you not got the key?

MR. KING: Give him the key, Bill.

MR. MACDONALD:

It was a long time ago. As I recall, two years before charges were

laid, Inspector Butler of the RCMP recommended that charges should be

laid in that particular case. The Liberal Party said in the

Legislature: "Let us see the Butler report." The member for Point Grey

remembers that perfectly well. Usually police reports should not be

produced — not in every case — but in an exceptional public case they

should be. In my opinion, the RCMP were correct in making that

recommendation. Stir up the bureaucracy up above and say: "We

recommend...." In that case, stir up a political minister who was

defending the Minister of Forests.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

That's right. I think that it's a serious question, and I think the

member for Revelstoke.... Well, you wiped his riding out and I

can't remember the name.

MR. KING: Gerrymandered.

MR. MACDONALD: Gerrymandered him too.

points out that, yes, if there is a suggestion of high political office

and that politics is supervening in the justice system, that's the kind

of case that receives special consideration and puts the

Attorney-General of the day to an acid test — a very difficult test — but

one he has to accept. That's why the Attorney-General of those previous

days, who was Robert Bonner, had to take very seriously that

recommendation of the Butler report. I don't agree with the

Attorney-General that the police should not make these recommendations.

I know they don't make the decision, but of course they should make

recommendations.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly

on that last aspect, Mr. Chairman, I would recall to the member that

when I spoke earlier I indicated that under the law a police officer

cannot be directed to swear his oath nor can he be directed not to

swear his oath. If in the final analysis that investigating officer

disagrees with decisions which are made by Crown counsel in such

matters, then he's free to discharge his obligation of conscience. That

is the case in this province and throughout Canada. No person can be

directed to swear or not to swear an oath in the laying of an

information. This is the release. If there is a need for one, from the

system. As the member points out, there have been cases where the

police have recommended charges, and if that is their view and they

hold that view, then they have their opportunity.

MR. LAUK:

I just want to make a general comment about the institution of

parliament and the role of the Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman. The

institution of parliament — the British parliamentary system — although

it has lasted for some several hundred years, is still a very frail

one. Probably one of the most responsible cabinet officers involved in

the protection of that frail institution, which deserves all of our

best efforts in its protection, has to be the Attorney-General

himself. He has a dual role as a politician and Crown minister and also

as the chief officer of the cabinet in charge of the administration of

justice.

[ Page 3902 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, chief officer of the Crown, not of the cabinet.

MR. LAUK:

Yes, thank you. It seems to me that that dual role is a problematic one

for any individual person occupying that chair. He has a responsibility

to the electoral process, our conventions, our constitution and our

traditions. He also has a responsibility to his colleagues in cabinet,

to his political party, and to the political point of view that he

wishes to see not only survive but prevail in the jurisdiction in which

he operates on a political basis. The Attorney-General in this case —

as has been eloquently pointed out by the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) — appears to have opted more for the protection of

his political point of view and the survival of his political party —

and indeed for seeing that it should prevail in this province — than he

has for the protection of the very parliamentary structure and the

administration of justice. He has considered those as low priorities

compared to his priority of politics.

The evidence is clear

that this Attorney-General has disappointed us all, really, in placing

the priorities of the protection of the parliament, its structures, and

the administration of justice below those of his partisan

responsibilities in cabinet. It's much easier for other cabinet

ministers to take a partisan approach in cabinet than it is for the

Attorney-General; that's part of our political process, after all. We

expect more from that office than from other cabinet positions. We

expect from all parties that the appointment to that office is

considerate of the frailties of the parliamentary process. Clearly,

this Attorney-General has been a great disappointment to us in that

regard.

Personally, I can say that I would have expected

that a person — an individual such as the Attorney-General that

presently holds that office — has had a reputation and an apparent

regard for the administration of justice that has preceded his

appointment to that office. It's not a secret that it was a subject of

wide speculation within his own profession that he would some day take

his place as a judge in a superior court, and would provide a tradition

of impartiality and skill and fairness to that position.

notice that the Attorney-General is amused by that, but I know that

apart from his apparent amusement he regards a superior court judgeship

with some degree of prestige and honour, as we all do. On the whole, I

would say all the judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia are

impartial, skilled judges of whom we can all be proud — protecting

the administration of justice in this province.

It was clear

to us that such a man as the present Attorney-General would be a

worthwhile addition to that bench. How can we think so now? How can we

say so now? Can we on some day in the future argue for such an

appointment, or would it be offensive to us? I would say, because of

the Attorney-General's position, his approach, that he had best go into

private life, as Robert Bonner did, out of deference to the honour of

the supreme court bench.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with

the Eckardt commission report. There is a question here, Mr. Chairman,

about the Attorney-General's reply to the speech of the second member

for Vancouver East. There was no factual evidence upon which he can

base even improprieties. Mr. Chairman, factual evidence comes in two

forms. It comes in the form of direct evidence, as the Attorney-General

knows, and in circumstantial evidence. The circumstances surrounding

that change in Vancouver–Little Mountain are so compel ling as to give

rise to the conclusion of political interference and political

partisanship on the part of the commissioner that the Attorney-General

really must be very facetious when he makes that statement. He said

there was no factual evidence. There is the fact that the report was

printed in its entirety on June 16, 1978. You know it's true and

everybody in this province knows it's true. I say that a public inquiry

would prove it beyond any doubt.

The Attorney-General has

stated that I am misstating the evidence and can't prove the

allegation. I'll say this to the Attorney-General: time has a way of

revealing the truth. Time passes, and as it passes there are people in

this province who do not forget hidden facts and evidence. They wait

for it and they wait very patiently, because justice has a permanence

in that sense. It carries through the way time carries through.

say to the committee that the report was printed in its entirety on

June 16, 1978, and copies were taken by commission staff from the

Queen's Printer. Subsequent to that, the very change to the boundaries

of Vancouver–Little Mountain, impugned publicly, was made by the

commissioner. No satisfactory explanation for that change has been

given to this committee or the public. Fact two: the transmittal letter

on the report that was submitted to this Legislature on June 20, 1978,

was dated June 17. When I asked the Attorney-General for an explanation

or if his investigation revealed why that occurred, he said: "Ask the

commissioner." In the other breath he denies us the opportunity to ask

the commissioner before the bar of the Legislature. Is that an honest,

forthright approach by the Attorney-General? Is that fulfilling his

responsibilities to the administration of justice and for the

protection of these frail parliamentary institutions that we all must

in concert protect on a non-partisan basis? I say no. And every

right-thinking person in this province, Mr. Chairman, says no.

There

is the evidence from the acting chief electoral officer, who was with

the commission, who stated the only change that he saw in the final

report from the time of his deliberations with the commission was the

change to the electoral boundaries of Vancouver–Little Mountain. The

Attorney-General denies that. It's a statement of fact by Mr. Patterson.

The

circumstances involving this apparently innocent rendezvous between the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the

commissioner.... The circumstances all involved facts that the

commission staff had heard. They heard Grace McCarthy had interfered

with the commission's deliberations. It was a rumour, but taken

together with the widespread discussion of commission staff — this

isn't a rumour in a beer parlour; this was widely discussed among the

commission staff — and taken together with the circumstantial evidence,

it is compelling. A court of law, Mr. Chairman, could quite easily find

that interference had taken place, but the Attorney-General chooses to

say that there is no factual evidence. What does he mean — a videotape

of the actual interference?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

Any action in court today can reveal that kind of evidence. That's near

to impossible. Every day courts act almost exclusively on

circumstantial evidence. There's very little direct evidence. It has

been shown in courts of law and in inquiries that circumstantial

evidence is sometimes

[ Page

3903 ]

much more powerful and not contaminated by recollection and other

frailties of human memory. Circumstantial evidence is sometimes more

powerful than direct evidence.

The Attorney-General has

steadfastly refused even to provide us with the transcripts of the

interviews so that we'll know that what was reported in the Vogel

report is consistent with those statements. All of those factors are

there. The Attorney-General has chosen, in measuring the value of

protecting the democratic process in this province as opposed to the

value of protecting a colleague in cabinet, the priority of protecting

a colleague in cabinet. That charge is there at large with the public,

and the Attorney-General has not acquitted himself; instead he has

submerged it in this tissue of legal language that does more to hide

the truth than it does to show or reveal it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. LEA:

Well, Mr. Chairman, up until now we've had lawyers talking about the

so-called Eckardt commission case. Lawyers, you know, use words that

confuse us lay people. They say "prima facie case." "There is no

evidence; there is no prima facie case here." What does that mean? The

lay person listens to that and he says: "Oh, that must be some legal

description to mean that there is no reason that any charges should be

laid or any royal commission should be called for." But doesn't it

mean, simply, "on the face of it,'' "on the appearance,"

"circumstantial evidence"? We see Mr. Speaker dealing with it every

day. What the Attorney-General is saying is that, "on the face of it,"

there doesn't appear to be any evidence. Well, "on the face of it,"

what does appear?

We know for instance that the only change

to the Eckardt commission report helped a Social Credit cabinet

minister — in fact, two. The only change from the 17th to the 20th was

something that was completely out of concert with the rest of the

report. Now "on the face of it," Mr. Chairman, doesn't that appear to

be a bit suspicious? — that the only change to the Eckardt commission

report just happened to slice a little finger up into an adjoining

riding, and that slice included a vote that came through — as it had in

the past — over 70 percent for the Social Credit. On the face of it, to

me as a lay person, that seems darned suspicious. We find that the

report was brought into the House on the 20th. The Provincial Secretary

of the day said, "I only received it an hour before," and on the face

of the report it says the 17th. It appears mighty suspicious.

AN HON. MEMBER: But you're not a lawyer.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand it. On

the face of it, it appears darned suspicious to me. We have conflicting evidence.

We have an official of the electoral commission, Mr. Patterson, giving evidence

that the report came in in its entirety on the 16th. We have other evidence

in front of us that would suggest that the report was printed in its entirety

on the 16th. On the face of it, it appears to me that there's room for suspicion.

We have an Attorney-General who won't give the supporting evidence along

with the Vogel report. He will not provide the transcript of the interviews

with the people who were interviewed. On the face of it, it appears suspicious.

don't know how many people have taken the time to follow the Sommers

case, which happened in this province years ago, that that once proud

Liberal Party fought for. The Attorney-General of the day, Mr. Bonner,

came into this House and said there was no recommendation by the RCMP

to lay charges. We now know he said: "On the face of it, there doesn't

appear to be any reason." We found that it goes further than that in

the Sommers case. The Butler report had specific recommendations to lay

charges against Robert Sommers, who was a Crown minister in another

Social Credit cabinet in another day.

If you take all of the

evidence we have in front of us, on the face of it the Attorney-General

seems to be protecting his political colleagues in the face of

injustice in this province on the face of it. Isn't it important, Mr.

Chairman, that the people of this province know for sure, not just on

the face of it, that there has been no hanky-panky with the Eckardt

commission report, and that the Social Credit Party, the Social Credit

government and the Social Credit Attorney-General aren't pulling the

wool over the eyes of the people of British Columbia? It's important

that we know for sure, not just on the face of it.

It's

incredible to me to have watched the Attorney-General on that side of

the House for three years, after he sat over here as a Liberal. It's

incredible to have listened to the words of that member when he was on

this side of the House, and believed that he meant those words, only to

see him go on that side of the House and take a different position —

and not just on the face of it, but in fact. It has to be pointed out

that the Attorney-General has changed his point of view as he changed

his party. Now he doesn't care that justice appear to be done, only

whether he has factual evidence. We're not dealing here with a common

criminal; we're dealing with the administration of justice and

democracy in this province. This Attorney-General, once a proud

Liberal, on the face of it, has sold out to political expediency.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1980,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada