[ 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.

In 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.

I 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 ]

is 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.

We 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.

I 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.

In 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.

In 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.

If 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.

It 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.

He 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.

I 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.

I 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.

I 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.