[ Page 3905 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

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

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 3906

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

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 3906

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

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

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

On vote 21: minister's office –– 3907

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Appendix –– 3928

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Mr. Scotty Almond, who hails from the village of Vanderhoof in my constituency of Omineca. Accompanying Mr. Almond is Baroness von Einen, from Dusseldorf, Germany. The baroness is looking to invest and take up residence in the beautiful province of British Columbia. I would ask the House to make these two individuals very welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House Mr. Art Theurer from the village of Oliver. He's in the tourist industry, and he is down here to meet with some representatives of the Ministry of Tourism today. I would like the House to bid him welcome.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, quite surprisingly, there was a call at noon today from Speaker Schroeder, less than 18 hours after a double bypass heart operation. He phoned to say hello to all. His secretary has asked for a card to be circulated. I would ask all members to sign it.

Oral Questions

VOGEL REPORT ON ECKARDT COMMISSION

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney-General on the Vogel report on the Eckardt commission. Were statements taken from Shona Sutherland and Vi Barton, two members of the commission staff, during the course of the investigation of the Attorney-General?

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

MR. LAUK: Can the Attorney-General confirm that Shona Sutherland's statement reveals that the entire interim report was completed and printed on June 16, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I cannot.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Were statements taken from the Queen's Printer's office, and are records available from the Queen's Printer's office that would indicate their work log from June 14 to June 20, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Members of the Queen's Printer's staff were interviewed. It was disclosed in the course of that interview that the Queen's Printer did not keep work logs.

MR. LAUK: From the statements taken from the Queen's Printer's office, did their statements reveal that printing of all or part of the interim report took place on June 16, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: As the report clearly indicates, the officials of the Queen's Printer who were interviewed acknowledged that there was printing done on the Friday, but not the complete report.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Will the Attorney-General confirm that statements taken from Vi Barton, in which she reported that Susan Thompson, now Susan Geisler, stated to her — that is to say, Vi Barton — "Grace McCarthy got to Eckardt," and that this statement was made to Vi Barton either on the day the report was submitted to the House or shortly after? Can the Attorney-General confirm that that statement was in her statement of evidence?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The statement by Ms. Barton was disclosed during the course of the interview. It was checked out with Susan Thompson and other members of the commission staff who were alleged to have been present, and it was not substantiated. The alleged statement was not made on the date which the member suggests, but prior thereto.

MR. LAUK: My information has it that Vi Barton said that on a day after the 15th or 16th — she could not be sure of the exact day — she attended at the commission office where that statement was made by now Susan Geisler. Is that in accord with the Attorney-General's reading of the transcript?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It's not in accord with the information that was provided for us during the course of the interviews, Mr. Speaker. It was not on the days that the member suggests.

MR. LAUK: This statement — the Attorney-General will agree — is somewhat corroborative of the statement of the affidavit of Miss Tamoto, yet those facts are not reflected in the Vogel report. Has the Attorney-General an explanation for that?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the statements of Miss Barton in this respect were checked by the interviewers with other persons who are alleged to have been involved and were not substantiated.

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

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

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, surely to goodness the Attorney-General will agree that the Vogel report should not be based on a finding of credibility of two commission staff as opposed to the credibility of another two commission staff. Surely the Attorney-General agrees with that proposition, does he not?

[ Page 3906 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with that proposition. The report was based upon an examination which was made of all of the persons who were involved and could have contributed to the resolution of the matter, and if statements can't be substantiated and are based upon rumour, then they have to be rejected.

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

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

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what Mrs. Geisler's present occupation is. I'll take it on notice and will provide the member with an answer.

MR. LAUK: The so-called Vogel report says on page 5 that on Saturday, June 18, 1978, Eckardt "made his decisions in respect of the electoral boundaries of the city of Vancouver." Having regard for the Attorney-General's answers of Monday and today, can the Attorney-General advise whether maps or metes and bounds of the electoral boundaries of the city of Vancouver were printed by the Queen's Printer before this decision was made on June 18, 1978?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that June 18 was a Sunday. I'll have to take the other question as notice. I don't have the details with me.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Attorney-General on another subject. In January of this year the Attorney-General communicated to me that he was awaiting further information with respect to the extent of foreign ownership of land in British Columbia. When I checked with the land registry office this morning I was told that no start has yet been made on analyzing the forms which contain the information about the citizenship of those purchasing land. The Institute of Agrologists, Peace River division, has again expressed alarm at the extent of farmland purchases by absentee foreigners in that region. Has the minister now decided to conduct an investigation of the extent of foreign absentee purchases of B.C. land?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the official who had been requested to do that study is no longer with the ministry, and therefore the study has not yet been commenced. With respect to the question of foreign ownership of land in this province or the right of persons who are not resident to acquire land, that's a matter of policy.

POLLUTION OF COASTAL WATERS
OF SOUTHERN VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On July 30 Dr. A.S. Arneil, the regional health officer for the Capital Regional District, submitted a report to the health committee of the CRD asking them to bring marine waters to bathing standards. As the minister responsible for water quality, Dr. Arneil pointed out that a comprehensive survey of all pollution sources in the southern Vancouver Island area was required to identify and tackle the problems. Have you now decided to establish within your ministry a team — a task force or a survey team; I don't mind what you call it — to review all possible pollution sites and sources in the southern Vancouver Island area?

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

MR. HANSON: Dr. Arneil had other recommendations, and I would like the minister to take these as well. Dr. Arneil has indicated that it may very well be the fact that the quality of the water may not be brought up to standard by the outfall extensions as they are presently proposed. Therefore a treatment plant site must be set aside in that eventuality. Is the minister in agreement that full sewage treatment must be in place if the outfall extensions do not bring the water quality to his ministry's standards?

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

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS, WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It's my understanding that the purchase of the Maplewood Poultry processing plant, which has been undertaken with federal assistance by an Alberta firm known as Lilydale in cooperation and conjunction with the B.C. turkey growers, is still not finalized. It's further understood that the finalization depends on this minister's guaranteeing a $1.5 million operating loan.

My question is: has the minister decided to delay this decision until the deal falls through and Maplewood falls into the hands of Cargill?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Unless the question is rephrased, I cannot allow the question in that form. The member is free to rephrase the question.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, the deal is not being delayed by any decision of my office. I had a very constructive meeting with Mr. Berry of Lilydale in my office the day before yesterday. We had a good discussion in regard to what Lilydale's activity is in the acquisition of Maplewood. I can tell the member that I have advised Mr. Berry that through our ARDSA program we would certainly be looking at any assistance that would be available to them in their capital improvements of the Maplewood plant. I also advised Mr. Berry that I was quite prepared to recommend that a loan guarantee be made to the new company or the new cooperative that will be put into place which will have B.C. turkey growers' and Lilydale's equity in it and our assistance, along with the federal government's assistance. I'm looking for-

[ Page 3907 ]

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

EFFECT OF LOGGING ON SALMON STREAMS

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Forests. The ministry has arranged for the five-year management and working plans for tree-farm licences 20 and 21 to be reviewed by federal fisheries officials before approval is given by the ministry. Has the minister decided now to follow this particular procedure for all management plans where salmon-bearing streams are involved?

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

MR. KING: Can the minister tell me if this particular procedure was restricted to the two licences which I referred to — 20 and 21 — and will not be followed in any circumstance in the future?

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

ADMINISTRATION OF
MEDICINE IN SCHOOLS

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Education. On June 5 and June 6, and again on July 24, I asked a question with respect to school medication which the minister took on notice. Since then several further inquiries have been received about ministry policy in the administering of medication in schools.

On July 24 the minister said that a policy was coming in due course. Can the minister report to the House just when members may expect the policy to be announced?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thought that I had given pretty full answers to that question already, Mr. Speaker. I've spoken on it. An express circular to the field hasn't yet been finalized. I have a draft of it that I'm working on, but I made a general and full policy statement to this House, and it's not a case of the House waiting for further information. A policy circular will be going to the field in ample time before the opening of school, as I told the member last time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery this afternoon is the mayor of Campbell River, a long-time member of the House of Commons. I'd like the House to welcome Mr. Tom Barnett.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the reason for the delay is to allow the press time to get out of here. I haven't said too much this session — that is, in terms of quality, but I've never lacked in quantity. In my own humble way I'm going to continue to make that assessment.

I have a few words to say in private, just among us chaps and ladies here in the House, about the Attorney-General, his relationship to the job and what has gone on. I don't want to say anything to embarrass anybody or anything like that, so if those cabinet members who are not Liberals want to leave, they can leave now. We know that this really is a coalition government, and my remarks are directly focused on the Liberal members.

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

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the survivor from Columbia River. He and I, as long-time members of this House, enjoy a very amiable relationship outside of the chamber.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Show us your suspenders!

MR. BARRETT: This is my twentieth year, this month, in this chamber. It took me all these years to learn that when you are dealing with the Socreds you had better have your pants hitched up really well. They'll take anything off you, if they get a chance.

I want to just chat a little bit about the Liberals — the remnants of the Liberal Party that now sit on the government benches representing the name Social Credit. I suppose once you get over the handicap of allowing yourself to be labelled a Social Crediter, anything goes. I remember when the Attorney-General, the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) were Liberal members in this House. I remember the very great speeches they used to make, with impassioned commitment and sincerity, attacking the Social Credit administration of the day, and particularly the former Attorneys-General in the Social Credit administration, Mr. Bonner and Mr. Peterson. I think it's an interesting thing to observe, as I've done today, how the now Attorney-General — all his words are not on record, but some are, in his attacks of the previous Attorneys-General — has switched completely in terms of defence mechanisms and rationalizations now that he's Attorney-General with a Social Credit government — not with a Liberal government, but with a Social Credit government, although I am convinced that the remnants of the Liberals still define themselves as Liberals in the coalition only to stop socialism. That rationa-

[ Page 3908 ]

lization has allowed for anything to go in terms of those who jump to the Social Credit label. Can you envisage, Mr. Member for Vancouver East — also sharing your twentieth anniversary in this chamber this month...?

MR. MACDONALD: Not so loud.

MR. BARRETT: In your case I'll be quiet about it since you are about 40 years older than I am, Mr. Member — 40 years older in wisdom and life experience.

Yes, I have so much to learn. I'm still trying to figure out how Liberals, making the speeches they could make, could swallow all that and allow themselves to be identified as Socreds, and then sit over there and defend exactly the same thing Mr. Bonner and Mr. Peterson did when they were being attacked.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You just be careful down there, Alec. You and I have been here a long time. We're going to be around a long time together, you and 1. When all else are gone you and I will still be here, Alec. Everything rolls right off your back; nothing bothers you. I'm with you, pal. I wish you 120 years of life. I appreciate the interruptions from the member for Cariboo (Hon Mr. Fraser). After all, he succeeded Mr. Bonner in that seat. Do you remember Mr. Bonner?

I want those in the House who have been around for a while to just cast their minds back a few years. Let us just pretend, for a little while, that the present Attorney-General is sitting down there like he did in the old days as a Liberal member, and Mr. Bonner brings in the Attorney-General's report on the investigation of the charges against the Eckardt commission. I ask this House to do a little checklist, a little quiz; and keep the results to yourself. Who would be the first lawyer in the Liberal Party on his feet demanding that the transcripts of interviews under that inquiry be made public? I want to know, in your minds, who would jump up first? Would it be the member for Point Grey, sitting next to the Attorney-General, who used to sit as a Liberal, or the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound who would be the first to protest Bonner's introduction into this House of a report that allows the members only the Attorney-General's word about what the transcripts have to say? Who would be the first up savaging Social Credit? Mr. Member, you have seniority — what's your guess?

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

MR. BARRETT: That's interesting. I think all of those three Liberals would have been up in their sanctimonious pose, in their pious Liberal-establishment best point of view, criticizing Mr. Bonner for covering up and hiding transcripts. That's what they'd say. I cannot believe that member would stand up and say: "Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for bringing in this report. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for keeping the transcripts secret. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for handling it this way. Thank you, Mr. Bonner, for being Attorney-General. We trust you and we'll vote for your salary." There may be some new members in this chamber who believe that member would have stood up and praised Mr. Bonner for keeping the interviews secret, for making the decision in-house, and for having no public inquiry. But I would never accuse that member of defending Mr. Bonner for doing such a thing. How can he do it himself? That's a puzzle to me.

I have always been a student of human behaviour, an observer of how people change politics, attitudes and ideas, but I thought that the role of the Attorney-General was immutable. I thought it was above us ordinary peon members that weren't members of the law profession — those of us without the skills and talents to understand British jurisprudence that goes beyond any party affiliation, beyond any mere political partisanship; that commitment to the law profession that says that the law must be seen to be done as well as be done. I can envision that that member, having crossed the floor and becoming a Socred, would never have abandoned the positions he had as a Liberal attacking Mr. Bonner. He would have been the first up to demand that the Eckardt inquiry transcripts be released here in this House.

I've waited all day. I've waited through the questions by his legal colleague — the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — asking if those interviews would be released. His answer was no. Were those statements taken under oath? "No."

Here we have a situation, Mr. Chairman, that will not go reported in detail in all the mass media of this province, will not go reported in intimate detail on hotline shows; it's just too complicated for most voters to understand. What we have is a case of principles dropping on the rug on the way across the floor.

I can remember the speeches by that member when he was a Liberal, and the member sitting next to him, as a Liberal, and the other ex-Liberal, savaging Mr. Bonner for handling the Attorney-General's role that way.

I can remember the snide remarks, the aspersions cast across the floor of the House, and that hand-washing aloofness that those nicey-nicey Liberals used to have when they dealt with the baddie-baddie Social Credit. And who's ended up being exactly the same?

In the novel there was only one Dorian Gray, Mr. Chairman. Here we have a literary phenomenon; in fact, we have three Dorian Grays in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, yes, it's important for a little feigned laughter. Lift the glass and be jolly, my friend. I don't have to live with that kind of floor-crossing and the history of what I was like in fighting Social Credit. You have to live with that, and good luck to you; I know you'll survive and rationalize it on any basis that you think is necessary.

I for one am not satisfied with the answers that those transcripts will not be released and that they weren't taken under oath. We're supposed to believe his private interpretation of those transcripts? What right does any Attorney-General have anywhere in the Commonwealth to keep the information secret and announce what he's decided out of the secret information, and expect us to believe that it's correct? Is there anybody in this province who doesn't wear suspenders and still trusts Social Credit, who believes that they will tell you exactly what you should know out of those transcripts? If you do, folks, let me offer you my suspenders free of charge, because you're going to be skinned, and skinned hard, by anybody who's abandoned what he was as a Liberal only to jump over as a Socred and adopt the very worst features of the previous Social Credit Attorneys-General.

[ Page 3909 ]

Don't kid me with all your nice, dulcet monotones about: "No, the transcripts won't be released; no, we won't be looking at this conflict; no, everything is okay in the garden, just take my word for it. "You're not kidding me, and you're not kidding anybody in this province who understands that the fairness of law, the fairness of the role of the Attorney General, and that the appearance of justice must be served, means that those transcripts should be laid on the table for every citizen of this province to see. You want to keep them secret? Keep them secret. You want to tell us what you think is in them? You tell us that. But if you want us to believe what you're saying without us having reference to those statements, then you're absolutely wrong; and I'm convinced that over 80 percent of the people in this province won't believe it unless they see the evidence themselves.

I have to ask the question: what are you afraid of? If you feel that your interpretation of the evidence that's been laid in front of you is correct, then what are you afraid of by laying that evidence down in front of every hon. member in this House and letting the chips fall where they may?

If any member is irresponsible in misinterpreting those documents, then they have access to the courts. They can risk their political careers by making wild charges. But the last person I need protection from in terms of making up my mind of what went on with the "dirty finger," Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney-General, who is hiding the statements from the people of British Columbia for whatever reason.

The decision to hide those transcripts is worthy of the worst traditions of Social Credit. You know, Mr. Chairman, what they say about human behaviour: when one becomes a convert, one becomes more zealous than those born into that particular philosophy. The converts from Liberalism to Social Credit have become more zealous about defining the coverups that have been the history of Social Credit than even Mr. Bonner or Mr. Peterson were during their time in office.

You remember the famous 707 days and the speeches we used to get from those ex-Liberals about that. Where are those speeches now? Where are those memories of commitment to honest Liberal principles? You see what happens when you walk across the floor and change principles like changing a coat? The coat may be shiny and gather votes, but underneath it is the syndrome of Dorian Gray in spades, Mr. Chairman. There are three Dorian Grays. I don't mind changing political philosophy, jumping on a bandwagon, or anybody seeking a little role in power. After all, politics is politics. It's not the cleanest thing in the world. Nothing is clean or absolute in the world. Somebody has to be in politics. But those of us who are here don't have to be treated to the spectacle that somehow secrets and transcripts and statements must be kept from us. We are told that we must believe what the Attorney-General says simply because he puts A-G behind his name. That myth disappeared with Mr. Bonner.

You go ahead and keep them secret. You go on ahead and hide them. That's you're decision. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman: anywhere I speak in this province to voters, citizens, and taxpayers, I will tell them very clearly that unless I see those transcripts for myself I do not believe a word of the interpretation from this government.

I want to talk about some of the other things that my colleagues have raised — the Moran case and the Rigg case. In a civilized state we can't have policemen at every corner. Thank goodness 99.9 percent of all citizens respect the law. In a civilized society the only thing that preserves us in terms of our freedoms is a community commitment by all of us that the law is there to serve us blindly, equally and fairly and see that there is no interference in the administration of justice, and even if there is no interference, see that there is no appearance of interference.

The most important thing in stabilizing a free society and a democracy under the British parliamentary system is the security every citizen must have that the law has been handled equally on every citizen by every citizen. I don't know if there was favouritism in the Rigg case or the Moran case, but once the questions were raised the people of British Columbia were entitled to a full explanation as to why those charges were not laid, why there was interference, and what went on.

The Lord rest the soul of Mickey Moran. Who made the decision that Mickey Moran should not be forced to have a breathalyser test he refused? Who made the decision that there would be no prosecution because he refused a breathalyser test? Who made that decision? On what criteria was that decision made? I want every other citizen who is drunk and driving a car, or who appears to be drunk and driving a car, to know that if they get out of their car and refuse a breathalyser test, maybe the odds are they won't be charged for refusing a breathalyser test. Is that so?

As an MLA, I have had constituents and other citizens of this province write me when they have been inebriated and driving a car, asking me to help them. My standard answer to anybody who is foolish and irresponsible enough to drink and get behind the wheel of a car is: "No help for you, brother or sister. You've brought this on yourself." No one should drive if they've been drinking and any penalty they get or any consequence of the law is based on the decision they made. Why is it that Mr. Moran was not prosecuted for not blowing into the balloon like every other citizen would be if they had refused to blow into the balloon? Don't think that that kind of question is not being asked in beer parlours, cabarets, church halls and anywhere there is a collection of citizens of this province. Why was the law not applied equally in this case? Why was the Rigg case pulled out separately? How did it happen to fall on the desk?

Those two instances give lie to the belief that politicians are impartial and the Attorney-General's office is above impartiality. Every citizen who's had any difficulty with a 17-year-old son or someone who's been inebriated while driving a car will be allowed the rationalization: "Too bad I didn't know somebody in high places to take care of my situation." That's the impression that is left, and it probably does more damage than the substance of the facts. What does even more damage is when the impression is left and the substance of the facts are suppressed and suspicion is ingrained by the Attorney-General himself in not acting on these cases.

I think that there is enough cynicism in our society without a Social Credit Attorney-General contributing to that cynicism. I think that there is enough distrust of law and authority without the Attorney-General adding to that distrust. Law and order can be maintained in a free society only if law and order are maintained equally by those charged with the responsibility of maintaining law and order. Let it be perfectly clear that none of us will be able to survive in a democratic society unless law and order are maintained with equal hands and blind eyes for all citizens of this province.

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

[ Page 3910 ]

Attorney-General who handled these cases this way. It must be embarrassing for the Attorney-General to have to deal with this. In the case of the dirty tricks affair with the letters, the former Attorney-General had the courage to call in the cops. Yes, when the heat was bad the former Attorney-General, now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), called in the RCMP to check out the forgeries in the letters. Good for you; you did the right thing. It took you a while, but you called in the RCMP.

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

MR. BARRETT: That's exactly right. As soon as he called in the police he was fired from being Attorney-General by the Premier. Somebody cooler had to come in and clean up the mess. How is the mess cleaned up by the former Liberal? The statements come out saying: "Oh, it was naughty-naughty to forge letters. Oh, it was reprehensible to do such a thing. Oh, don't do it again, whoever did it." And it's all forgotten. Who gets fired? Mr. Kelly goes down the road. That young lady goes down the road. Mr. Grieg from the Premier's office disappears off the face of the earth. We don't know if he was interviewed, what he said about those letters, or anything else. When the Premier was asked about Ron Grieg, he first said: "Who?" They said: "Ron Grieg used to work for you." He said: "Oh, yes, that guy — I asked him what went wrong."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, maybe at this point I could remind the committee that we have to be relevant when we are in committee. We are on the votes of the Attorney-General.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and I'm relevant because I'm referring to the Attorney-General's report released after he investigated the forged letters. There was no denial that signatures were forged. How could you deny that signatures were forged when on television we have the spectacle of an upright citizen being interviewed and saying, "I never signed my name to that letter," and then we have a former member of the staff saying, "Oh, she couldn't have signed that, because we picked her name out of the phone book"? When a citizen puts his name in the phone book, according to Social Credit campaign strategies, it is free to be used by anybody. You don't have to write away for hidden lists; just use any name in the phone book. A Social Credit executive member on Vancouver Island admitted doing the same thing.

I want to know why forgery charges weren't laid against some of these people. I want to tell you this: if you went around forging my name to campaign material, you'd probably get me elected, but aside from that.... You sure would have charged an NDPer. That's the way I feel. It may not be fair, but I feel that in that case the law was applied politically.

However, there is a liberal interpretation of their role as Social Crediters. They dumped on the people who did the forgery, and by that they rationalized washing their hands. Remember Macbeth? Mr. Chairman, you know it well. Poor Lady Macbeth: she had urged her husband on to that vile deed and then later on she started feeling guilty about it. She took the liberal position: "Out, damned spot. What, will these hands ne'er be clean?" It was the Liberals who washed their hands of this dripping bad business by saying: "It was naughty; it shouldn't be done; but we're not going to charge anybody with forgery, because we can't find out who did it." Kelly knew who did it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Kempf knew.

MR. BARRETT: Jack Kempf was the chairman of the caucus. He must have known who did it. The Human Resources minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who used to be a vicious opponent of the present Attorney-General....

Can you remember the venom that went across the floor before those strange political bedfellows got together? Oh, they would never be seen publicly with Socreds.

MR. LAUK: Both ways.

MR. BARRETT: Both ways. Now took who is cozying up to each other. And — irony of ironies — look who is covering up for the cozying. Yes, some forgeries took place, but don't worry about it, folks.

It wasn't the first time Social Credit was involved in forgeries; I remember when a certain Mr. Weeks forged a statement on the back of a cheque of one of my colleagues, Mr. Levi. Yes, he was a Social Credit researcher at the time. The pattern of forgeries by Social Credit was established years ago, well known and understood, and now protected by the Attorney-General.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I know this is not headline stuff that I'm saying. I know, Mr. Chairman, that it will all be forgotten in 24 hours. I know, Mr. Chairman, that it's the hated socialists who are saying these things. As the socialists say it, then it's all right to ignore it. Oh, would I dearly love, Mr. Chairman, to have had one lone Liberal elected sitting here today. Oh, would I have loved that! My, oh, my, I would have sat glued in my chair watching that lone Liberal just take it out and rake that Attorney-General and the former Attorney-General and the other Liberal who crossed the floor for ending up being worse Socreds than the baddest Socreds that anyone can imagine. Anything is okay when you're fighting socialists is the rationalization.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, hon. member.

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

I've seen it all, Mr. Chairman. Nothing surprises me any more in human behaviour. But I want to tell you — and I have a lot more to say, but I'll have to forget it — that I want to publicly thank the present Attorney-General, from a political point of view, for ensuring that the New Democratic Party wins the next election, simply because of the behaviour and the conduct of his office. And I want to add a personal note as I sit down: I want to thank the Attorney-General personally for having some standards. At least he has not yet publicly praised the Premier. At least, Mr. Chairman, there are some standards left; there are some lines you don't cross; there are some roles you don't play. I have never yet heard that Attorney-General stand up and say: "We have the wisest, the greatest, the most imaginative leader in all of North America." I have not yet heard him stand up and sing the praises of our Premier. I have not yet seen him sink to the last depths of being a loyal Social Crediter and cross that Rubicon in politics and praise the present Premier. I want to thank him for that. At least he's maintained some dignity. But I want to warn my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that when the day

[ Page 3911 ]

comes that he publicly gets up and praises that Premier as the best, the most imaginative, the most capable and competent administrator, we know that everything is gone, including the memory that he ever was a Liberal.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to respond, and in so responding may I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I haven't been here 20 years. I think I came here in 1967 for my first session — I was elected in 1966 — so that 13 or 14 years is about the extent of my record. And I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I've enjoyed these 14 years and the opportunities that I have had to contribute to debates in this House.

I've enjoyed the opportunity of listening to other great debaters that there have been in this House, and through all those years I have listened to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) make these great speeches in the House — a little short on facts, but great speeches — and I suppose what we have had today is 20-year vintage of that member. I remember when he used to sit in the corner of the chamber and make those great speeches, but of course in those days there were also other great debaters in that party. He gradually moved from there down to there and progressed until he was able to get himself into the position of responsibility which he currently enjoys. The only difficulty is that while the quality of his rhetoric has improved, his reliability and reliance on the facts remain about the same as it was when I first heard him 13 years ago.

With regard to some of the incidents that he raises, may I just correct the record in case anyone is confused.

With regard to the forged letter situation, it's true that my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), then Attorney-General, did direct the police investigation into the matter. The police investigation continued under a special unit assigned to that responsibility. Their report was presented through regional Crown counsel, and with the assistance of highly qualified criminal lawyers. The report was examined and it was determined that while there were letters which obviously had been signed by persons other than those whose names were indicated, it had been impossible to determine who the authors of those letters were.

Now it's all very well to say that charges should have been laid, but, Mr. Chairman, if you want to lay charges of fraud or forgery or any crime, you've got to have the person who is alleged to have perpetrated that crime. If the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to suggest that the police officers who were responsible for that investigation — a special unit, as I said, that was established for that purpose — were somehow or other failing to disclose the results of their inquiry, then I would simply ask the Leader of the Opposition to make those facts in his possession known to the Attorney-General and appropriate action will be taken.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The statements he has made, he says, will not be forgotten. I sincerely hope that they aren't forgotten, because he indicated a subject of which I am fully supportive — that there should be even-handed administration of the law, that that's the principle to be followed. It's the principle which I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, I follow.

He said that in the course of raising the case of the 17-year-old boy who was involved in an impaired driving charge he would suggest that there was some special favour extended to that boy. He forgets to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that young man went to court on his charge. Evidence was heard and he was acquitted.

MR. BARRETT: The appeal was dropped.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Proper consideration was given to whether in those circumstances, with a person who has gone through his trial and been acquitted, the evidence existed which would sustain an appeal. It was examined and it was determined that the appeal in the circumstances should not provide.... The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), when he raised this matter this morning, talked about other avenues which were available for dealing with these young people. He talked about diversion, and diversion is one which involves some careful consideration of the accused and the extension of some compassion with regard to criminal cases of this kind. I trust that he's not suggesting that compassion should be shown before a charge is laid, but that somehow or other once there's an acquittal there should be a change in that consideration.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The second member for Vancouver East calls across the floor that I know it should have gone ahead from the Bewley decision. He speaks of His Honour Judge Bewley, who heard the case. Quite frankly, I know no such thing, Mr. Chairman. Consideration of the evidence and consideration of the transcript do not disclose that there was a basis for the Crown to take an appeal; because one of the few things that the Crown does, and does often, is to take appeals on such matters. As a matter of fact, it is the policy in other jurisdictions in the British system that the Crown take appeals from acquittals. It's almost the universal rule in Britain. It's one which we don't follow here, but in other jurisdictions it is certainly the case. Where the citizen has stood his trial and has been acquitted by the court, it is considered inappropriate for the Crown to take that further step by going to appeal, unless there is a clear error in law that needs to be corrected and which may have an effect on the administration of justice.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is somewhat concerned about the continual interference that is coming during the speech of the Attorney-General. I would ask that members respect the rules of this House, and that only one member speak at a time. Other members will have an opportunity to address the House. In the meantime, the member speaking has the floor and shall be afforded that courtesy.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Leader of the Opposition also dealt with a case which has come to be known as the Moran case. In the course of his remarks he asked a question. He said: "Who made the decision not to take the breathalyser test?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Mickey did.

[ Page 3912 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, now he knows the answer, you see. He didn't tell us during his speech that the person who decided not to take the test was Mr. Moran.

MR. BARRETT: Why wasn't he prosecuted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He was charged with the offence. He was also charged with the offence of "impaired." A decision was made by counsel, unconnected with Mr. Moran, unconnected with the office of the Attorney-General, directly under no instructions from anybody in....

MR. BARRETT: How many times does that happen?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: If the Leader of the Opposition would like to consult with some qualified lawyers, he'd understand what the concerns are in proceeding to trial with a charge of "failing to blow" and a charge of "impaired" at the same time. There was a third charge laid by Crown counsel and, again, it was without any interference. It was one of dangerous driving. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the examination was made into the basis for the decisions on the matter, which were made independently by senior Crown counsel. The steps that were taken were based upon the evidence which was available to be called at the trial. A consideration of that evidence led to the decision, which was to proceed only with the dangerous driving charge. Those decisions were made, independent of any interference by the Attorney-General, by a person who is qualified in this field. One must accept his decision. They were difficult decisions to be made.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of course, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would like to supplant his view with respect to every decision which is made by competent professional people in the Attorney-General's ministry. He didn't make that kind of decision when he was the Attorney-General — or maybe he did. Maybe that's why we had so many difficulties during those years that he enforced his decisions in those particular cases.

As I say, we've had vintage remarks from the Leader of the Opposition. Twenty year-old wine is sometimes pretty good; unfortunately, sometimes with age wine loses its value and becomes vinegar.

MR. KING: I've been most interested in the debate, both this morning and this afternoon. Primarily, it's been carried on by people from the legal profession. In terms of responsibility and obligation to ensure that fair laws are not only designed to be but are applied fairly and even-handedly, the responsibility does not rest alone on the Attorney-General or the legal members of this Legislature; it falls to each and every member of the House to be properly concerned. While those of us not trained in the law perhaps have difficulty with some of the finer points and legal nuances involved, I think we do have a fair grasp, in an overall way, of what kind of system of justice we should have, how it should function, and how it should be seen to be fair and equitably applied to each and every citizen of the province of British Columbia.

My great concern, Mr. Chairman, and that of my constituents is that that particular standard has been called into question in the province of British Columbia in the wake of the Attorney-General's handling of at least five cases that have come to light in the province. They're not the ordinary kind of criminal offence, but each one of these particular cases has political significance and political implication to the government, the party which the Attorney-General belongs to. That's why there's a difference between the procedure that needed to be followed in these particular cases as opposed to those normal run-of-the-mill cases where there is no political implication whatsoever, and that the regional Crown prosecutors, the police, the defence counsel and the prosecuting attorneys do their job untainted by any question of special favour.

What is of interest in these cases that have been raised the Rigg case, the Moran case, the Ritchie case, the Eckardt report, and the allegations of impropriety surrounding gerrymandering of the electoral boundaries — is that in each and every one of these cases there was a serious political implication about the existing government. That's what's different.

While I'm not a lawyer, it seems very, very clear to me that the thing which the Attorney-General refuses to acknowledge and seeks to obscure is that very political difference. Hence we have the feeling that through the prosecution of the investigations of these cases, and the handling of them as to whether or not there should be charges laid, there is the taint of a coverup by the government of the day.

The Attorney-General answered my colleagues from Vancouver East by saying he hoped our Attorney-General did not intervene. Our Attorney-General was not bedevilled by constant allegations of wrongdoing by members of his government. He was not constantly bedevilled by allegations of forgery in the fighting of an election campaign. He did not have to explain why a close associate and former candidate for our party had refused to blow in a breathalyser after it being suspected that he was drunk. None of those things happened to our government.

Quite frankly, I honestly and sincerely believe that our Attorney-General would have handled it much, much differently. I honestly believe that. I believe he would have handled it in a way that the current Attorney-General used to advocate when he was a Liberal — that is in a hands-off relationship through some kind of independent inquiry which recognized the political implications and the visions of favouritism which would be conjured up in the public mind unless all of the investigation was made public, unless there was sworn testimony and the evidence received the light of day so that all the citizens of this province could be satisfied that impartiality had been the characteristic of the investigation. That's not the case today.

It's interesting that the Attorney-General seizes on these little points of law, which I don't understand too well. But he said Crown counsel decided not to appeal in the Moran case, and he chastised my colleague by saying: "Are you suggesting that I should have interfered politically with Crown counsel in the Moran case?" Well, perhaps we could accept that, if that were the standard. But if that is his defence, how then does he justify his position when Crown counsel advocated prosecuting the member for Central Fraser Valley — his own colleague — and his office overturned the decision of regional Crown counsel, which was to prosecute the member for Central Fraser Valley? What kind of consistency is that?

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

[ Page 3913 ]

hide behind that kind of thin veil, you should be prepared to subject it to a test of consistency. It seems to be a highly selective policy, as the Attorney-General articulated it.

His other proposition is that there wasn't enough evidence to lay charges. Therefore evidence could not be taken under oath. Again, I'm a lay person, but as I understand it there are two ways that evidence may be taken under oath. One is in a courtroom procedure where charges have been laid. The other is through a judicial inquiry — a royal commission investigation — which is precisely what virtually every editorial in the major daily papers in this province has called for, and it's what the official opposition has consistently called for, so there would not be the taint of political partisanship in the decisions flowing from the Attorney-General's office.

I'm not satisfied that there has been even-handed justice meted out. I think if anyone wants to study the anatomy of the four cases, at least — the Rigg case, the Moran case, the Ritchie case and the Eckardt case.... I would conclude that any fair-minded citizen in the province of British Columbia studying the chronology of events and the handling of those cases, which the Attorney-General presents to this House as being adequate.... I would suggest that 80 percent of the people of British Columbia would say it doesn't smell right, and we do not believe that our sons and daughters would be quite as fortuitous as the people who benefited from the coverup of evidence in these cases — the fact that no public evidence was taken. Certainly no evidence was taken under oath, as far as we know. We don't think that's nearly good enough in light of the very serious circumstances surrounding these cases.

The main issue, in my view, is the conflict that was inherent in these particular cases because of political connections. On the face of it, that may not have been valid; we don't know. But because those political implications were there, the Attorney-General had a clear obligation, in my view, to divest himself of any responsibility for presiding over an internal investigation which would appear to give preference to those people because they had some association with the Social Credit Party. That's the issue he will not recognize; that is the issue he refuses to address himself to.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The principle, it seems to me, is very similar to that of selecting a jury. Our system of justice is based on complete impartiality — the blindness of the law, as my colleague says. Defence attorneys under our system take great pains to ensure that any jury of peers which is to sit and hear the evidence and hand down a decision is free of bias, free of any relationship with the accused, or free of any preconceived notions as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Why is it that such care and time is taken in the selection of a jury? It's to ensure that a fair measure of justice is meted out, which is decided strictly on the basis of the evidence presented. It may not be precisely analogous, but the principle is the same. The principle is the same if there's any conflict of interest whatsoever between the person chosen to sit on a jury and the case. They stand back and find another juror who is independent and completely dissociated from the case.

It seems to me that that simple principle is the one at issue here. The Attorney-General had a vested interest — at least a political one. Indeed, some of his senior staff members, who were basically his employees and loyal to him — without calling into question their integrity in any way.... There was a bit of conflict here — the pull and the tug of allegiance to a minister and a government and their handling of a particular in-house investigation which was commissioned by their minister. There was a bit of conflict there — certainly in the eyes of the public. I accept without reservation that the senior staff and the Attorney-General's people are competent lawyers and honourable people, but that conflict inherently exists. In my view, the Attorney-General had an obligation and responsibility to ensure that he and his office stood back from cases where there was an impact on Social Credit Party fortunes in this province. That's really what's at issue.

He didn't do that, and now he's asking us, on the face of an in-house investigation conducted by his senior officials, whom he commissioned, to come in with a report which fails to reveal any of the evidence, which does indicate that no evidence was taken under oath, and say that this clears the matter up adequately and that justice has indeed been served impartially in the province of British Columbia. It's totally a sham, in my view. It's not going to go away. My colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, talked about the degree of cynicism that exists out in the community with respect to the law, and that's an unfortunate thing to have rampant in the province or the nation. The law is only as good and reliable as the people who are prepared to accept it and operate under it. If it's called into question in any way, particularly in terms of the impartiality of its application, that is a grave and serious disservice to the whole system of justice.

So there should have been an open inquiry. If there was not, in the Attorney-General's opinion, sufficient evidence on which to base charges, at least a judicial inquiry would have provided the opportunity in public for all of the people affected to be called as witnesses and placed under oath, so that they could have given evidence that would have been available to the public and opened the opportunity for cross-examination. What's wrong with that approach? What's wrong with that system, unless indeed one has something to hide?

Mr. Chairman, I find it most difficult to understand how in the case of the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) both the police who were investigating the case and the regional Crown counsel advocating the laying of charges against that member, only to have that order countermanded by the senior staff of the Attorney-General, and at the same time, ask the people of the province of British Columbia to accept that that is even-handed justice, rather than interference with the administration of justice.... I would have thought, under those circumstances, one dedicated to upholding the good name and the principle of law in this province would have said: "Look, even if the evidence is shaky or even if we may not win in a prosecution of this case, for the sake of the appearance of justice, let's have the day in court so the charges can be made, the witnesses called and the evidence weighed." And if that hon. member indeed was innocent, his good name would be cleared by having his day in court, the same as any other citizen of the province of British Columbia would have been subjected to. That he's a direct political colleague of the Attorney-General and that the police who investigated and the regional Crown counsel who advocated proceeding with the charges had that recommendation overridden by the Attorney-General's senior staff is, in my view, inviting interpretations which are most odious about the administration of justice in the province.

[ Page 3914 ]

In the face of all of this type of thing, in the case of the inherent political conflict, there was only one method in which justice could be done and be seen to be done clearly, and that was through open and impartial hearings, through making sure that the public had results of investigations available to them and that the people accused had their day on the witness stand — their day in court — to answer the charges against them to ensure that their day in court was no different than is afforded to any other citizen. When the Attorney-General provides in his defence that it's improper somehow to intrude on a regional Crown counsel's recommendation, accosts my colleague with that response and at one and the same time says that it's completely normal and acceptable for his office — his staff — to overrule regional Crown counsel and the police, when they recommended charging his colleague, the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, I have to say that his perspective is completely gone awry or he fails to appreciate the serious implications of the cases that have come before him.

On the face of it, I believe that the people of British Columbia in no way accept the rationalizations that have been brought forth by the Attorney-General. In my view, the people of the province of British Columbia are entitled to believe that there has been a different standard of treatment for friends of this government. Unfortunately, that is the belief and feeling, and without more weighty evidence than anything the Attorney-General has provided so far, I have to say, somewhat reluctantly, that their conclusion seems to be absolutely justified.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I thank the member for his comments and his views on matters that are of significant importance. I particularly want to make it abundantly clear to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the member that the staff which serves me and the Ministry of the Attorney-General are selected for their competence and they have demonstrated by their performance that there can be no question with respect to their honour or their commitment to the service of the administration of justice. I will not accept from anyone any suggestion, by implication or otherwise, that such officials would act otherwise than in the proper administration of justice, no matter who the Attorney-General might be or whatever political party he might support.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty the member has is the same difficulty that was experienced by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). They can't make up their minds whether the Attorney-General should step in and make a decision or stay out and not make a decision. The member said that the Attorney-General and his office, in circumstances such as these, must stand back from a case; the member for Vancouver East said we should get in and make the decision. The fact of the matter is, they will not comprehend that there is only one standard to be employed in these particular cases, and that's to treat every individual in exactly the same way.

They speak of having your day in court the same as any other citizen. Yes, the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley was entitled to his day in court the same as any other citizen, and that means that before he's put into the position of answering a charge, there must be clear evidence, supported by the law, that there is a prima facie case which he's called upon to answer.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, in opening I would also mention that I was in the House at the time the present Attorney-General was making those speeches from this side of the House. He was sitting in this front desk here and made some very good speeches about the administration of justice, and I am convinced that this member could well be a very able Attorney-General if he would follow his own beliefs — at least the beliefs that he expressed at that time — and carried out the commitment, which I believe that he felt at that time, that justice not only should be done but should seem to be done.

I'm not going into detail regarding the great number of investigations that have taken place. I am going to say, though, that the Ministry of Attorney-General is not the large ministry that we always hear about in this House. A senior portfolio it may well be, but as far as the workload is concerned the Attorney-General's department is probably, one of the lightest. A former Social Credit Attorney-General was also Minister of Labour at the same time. Since that time a number of responsibilities which were formerly assumed by the Attorney-General's ministry have been removed: the registrar of companies is no longer within that portfolio; credit unions, co-ops, liquor, the motor-vehicle branch and others have been removed. The Attorney-General's portfolio is a very light portfolio. About the only thing left is corrections, the police and justice. It should not be too great a chore for any member of cabinet to keep a close tab on what's going on in this particular ministry.

We have an able minister. No one is questioning this minister's ability; he's an able person and could be one of the greatest Attorneys-General this province has ever seen. But in my opinion he has failed miserably in his responsibilities. I suggest that the public respect for the administration of justice today is probably lower than it's been probably in the history of this province. People are laughing now, saying there is no fairness in the court system.

I will agree that the minister has been Attorney-General at a very difficult time in history. He's been bogged down with scandals and problems. He had the problem of the Eckardt commission. He was making a report; he made an internal review of this report instead of a public or royal commission or some other commission outside the Attorney-General's department which, there is no question, should have looked after this problem of the Eckardt report. It should not have been an in-house look, a Through-the-Looking-Glass look at what's going on in his department.

The Vogel case. I'm not going into that, but I just want to point out that that was also a private report, and the person making the report was a junior in the Attorney-General's ministry — at least junior to the person he was investigating or reporting on. Well, I don't say that a civil servant who is carrying out this onerous responsibility will not do it in the best interest of the province. However, it certainly appears — and could well appear to the general public — that this was a whitewash.

The Ritchie case. There, again, was a private look by the Attorney-General's ministry into a provincial issue that was well reported in the press, and was referred to by a number of people in the coffee-houses and so on. Here was a case which was looked at internally. No independent review was made of this particular case. I think it's right to say that the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley did say that if it hadn't

[ Page 3915 ]

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

Then we have Lettergate, and so on, and we've probably had other reviews that I haven't mentioned. But there's no question that the Attorney-General's ministry had a lot of chores to do other than the standard administration of justice. They had a special problem of political justice, political interference, political crimes being committed in the public affairs of the province of British Columbia.

In answer to the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), the Attorney-General expressed his view of his responsibilities. His view is certainly a very narrow view. If I understood him correctly, his position was that he must remain out of the administration of justice, that he should remain aloof from it in order that there could be no statement that there was political interference. In my opinion, that is a very narrow view and a view that won't stand up. If that were to be the case, we might say there's no need for an Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of justice. He's responsible for the activities and the actions of those within his ministry, and for those people over which he has responsibility. He is answerable to them all.

Now in a case which is of great political concern, of provincial concern and that concerns the general public — not a common case of impaired driving or something of that sort, but an issue which involves a political party, involves an election, involves a commission, and so on — the Attorney-General has to make sure not only that justice is done, but that it seems to be done. I suggest that in these respects, internal reviews can well lead to the suspicion by the general public and by the members of this House that the matters covered and the decisions made were not the proper decisions that would be made, nor the decisions that would be made by a private or independent review committee. It's obvious that what has gone on has been a look within bounds to protect the different matters that were under review. If that isn't true, then I suggest that these matters should be put to another review, an independent review, an independent tribunal, to determine the truth or falsity of the reports that have been given with reference to the internal reviews, to determine the validity of those reviews.

I say that the Attorney-General has been a respected member of this House for a great number of years. He has been respected in legal circles in Vancouver. I believe that that is no longer the case. I believe that activities over the past ten months — these internal reviews instead of independent reviews — have not only damaged the province of British Columbia but have been a personal problem and a mistake as far as the Attorney-General's concerned. I'm sorry to see it. I've respected this Attorney-General for a great number of years. It's a sad time for me and I'm sure for many other people in this House that the administration of justice has fallen to a very low ebb.

I would hope that the Attorney-General will take a look at some of his old speeches, take a look at the province as a whole, and come to the decision that it's not too late to have the air cleared and to have these matters disposed of one way or another. They will never be disposed of until there is an independent review board looking into the allegations that have been made.

MR. BARBER: The Social Credit was re-elected on December 11, 1975. Late in the evening a group of young people, understanding the significance, late in the evening went down to the lawn of the Legislature and raised on the great flagpole that stands at the corner of Government and Belleville Streets a special flag to signify the event. It was a Jolly Roger. Little did they know how accurate that would prove.

It must be very difficult to be Attorney-General in a government that has been so plagued with allegations and proofs of scandal, criminal offences, political corruption, false declarations, dirty tricks, Gracie's Finger, staff being fired wholesale, and the clearest evidence that Social Credit was prepared to do and say anything in order to get reelected. The young people who hauled the Jolly Roger to the top of the mast didn't realize just how right they were.

It must be exceptionally difficult to be an Attorney-General on board such a ship as the ship of Social Credit. I concur with my colleague for Burnaby. I think the Attorney-General has damaged his personal and professional reputation by association with this outfit. He's hurt himself among his own peers.

I too have personal respect for the Attorney-General on this basis. I respect intelligence, and the man is clearly intelligent. I respect articulateness, and he is clearly articulate. I respect experience, and his is vastly greater than mine. I respect his learning, and his is also greater than mine, most certainly in law. I respect him for all those things. But I cannot respect him for his lack of judgment. It is because of his lack of judgment that he has lost a major part of the professional and personal respect he earned in his years in this House.

Every member of this House forms a personal opinion of the members opposite. I have no idea what the current Attorney-General's personal opinion is of me. I suspect it's rather low. I doubt very much he feels warmly toward me.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ask me the question.

MR. BARBER: I don't care what the Minister of Lands' personal opinion of me is, but I do have respect, again, for the intelligence, the learning, articulateness, and the experience of the Attorney-General. I respect him as a man for those things. I honour those qualities in people in public life. But it is the clearly poor judgment he has exercised in dealing with a number of the charges and proofs of wrongdoing that is costing him his reputation.

Quite apart from whatever personal relationships, or lack of them, members of this House may enjoy with one another from time to time, the issue I propose to raise is that of the Attorney-General's judgment.

I want to deal specifically with the Eckardt report. I want, again, in a sympathetic way, to point out how difficult it is to be an Attorney-General in a Social Credit government that was so foolish and stupid as to appoint a Social Credit candidate to be a one-man commission looking into electoral boundaries.

You don't have to be a great prophet to realize what trouble you could get into when you appoint one of your own to such a delicate position. You don't necessarily have to be more prescient than a stone to realize that when a Socred government appoints a Socred candidate to head a Socred commission on electoral boundaries, something just might go wrong in the process.

I'm sure that the political experience of the Attorney-General must in cabinet have counselled against such a

[ Page 3916 ]

dangerous course. I am sure that a man of the Attorney-General's learning would have remembered that a higher standard was set by the previous administration.

Let me remind the committee briefly what that standard was. Our administration did not appoint a New Democratic candidate to head a one-person commission looking into electoral reform. That would have been insane. Instead we appointed someone of the calibre of Lawrie Wallace; we appointed someone of the calibre of a professor of geography at the University of British Columbia, Fred Bowers; and we appointed as its chairman a judge of the supreme court, Thomas Norris. This was the precedent that the Attorney-General of British Columbia knew about and no doubt advised his colleagues in cabinet about. Apparently he must have lost the fight, because surely he put up a fight against the spectacle of a Socred government appointing a Socred candidate to head a one-man commission. He presumably lost the fight to the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who, after all, was bound and determined to appoint her admitted close personal friend, Lawrence Eckardt, the Socred candidate, to this most sensitive public position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, once again I must remind the committee that we are recanvassing the votes and estimates of the Provincial Secretary. If we could stick to the administrative actions of the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General's department, that would be appreciated by the committee. The hon. member continues.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman. In one of his administrative actions the Attorney-General was mistaken in judgment, and that was to believe that the people and this House would be satisfied with a private, behind-closed doors inquiry into the Eckardt report. The Attorney-General was badly advised; the Attorney-General acted on the basis of the poorest rather than the best judgment. Let me illustrate further, if I may.

We know full well that when a Socred government appoints a Socred candidate to head such a delicate matter, they are bound to get into trouble. Now if we dumb bunnies in the official opposition could figure that one out, no doubt the Attorney-General figured it out long before. If the dumbbell members of the fifth estate could figure that one out, judging by the opinion the Deputy Premier holds of them, then surely the Attorney-General would have figured it out that a Socred government appointing a Socred candidate to head a royal commission on electoral reform was making a ridiculously stupid mistake. The Attorney-General's current problems derive from that original error.

MR. KEMPF: You wanted a socialist.

MR. BARBER: No, we wanted impartial people; that's why we appointed Wallace, Bowers and Norris. What did you do? You appointed a Socred hack, dummies!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will call all hon. members to order, and I think at this time the committee deserves a brief citation from Beauchesne's fifth edition, where it says: "When a judge has been employed as a royal commissioner...."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's not a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "...it is proper in the House to criticize his report but not the author."

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Eckardt has evidently returned, at least partly, to private practice and is no longer a judge. What is your point of order? Why did you read that? He was not acting as a judge when chairing that commission; he is not currently a judge.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then that point is well taken, hon. member. I was just citing what Beauchesne says.

MR. BARBER: But what you cited was totally irrelevant — with all respect, Mr. Chairman.

The original error of Social Credit was to appoint a Socred to such a position. Now it is the duty of the Attorney-General currently to account to the people of this province for what went wrong, following that original mistake. What went wrong is a matter of public record and need not be repeated here — everyone knows about Gracie's finger — but what should be put right is the duty of the Attorney-General to correct these errors openly, publicly, without favour, and with nothing to hide. What went wrong with the private inquiry was a set of five basic factors.

The first thing that went wrong was the Attorney-General's decision to hold his inquiry in private where the right of the public to know and be informed would be ignored. That's the first thing that went wrong. Secondly, it would appear that many, if not all, of the interviews conducted in this private inquiry were conducted without the benefit of oath or sworn testimony. Now I stand to be corrected on that, because the Attorney-General took some of these questions along these lines as notice during question period. But it's our reading of the report that that is the case, and until we are contradicted by sworn evidence to the contrary we can only believe that the second major error among the five made by the Attorney-General was the failure to obtain, in a sworn and substantiated way, the testimony of witnesses key to the events.

The third thing that has gone wrong with this private inquiry is that it is clearly possessed of internal contradictions. There are discrepancies in the report, and on virtually every occasion when these discrepancies are observed by members of this House the Attorney-General is required to take on notice yet another one and attempt, at yet a later date, to account for it. That's a hard thing to do, but would never have had to be done had the inquiry been public in the first place. And that's the third problem: internal discrepancies which may or may not result from persons telling only part of the truth about their involvement in the whole mess.

The fourth problem for the Attorney-General facing these three problems is that he refuses to allow us to call Mr. Eckardt before the bar of the House in order to be questioned publicly. He refuses to allow this Legislature to have at the bar of the House one of the few people who could, if he were honest — and we trust he would be honest — answer all of the questions directly and clearly for the public record about what consultations he did have when coming up with his report. This is the fourth mistake of the Attorney-General. If there were nothing wrong with the whole report procedure as followed by Mr. Eckardt, surely there can be no objection to calling him before the bar of the House. After all, Mr. Eckardt also has a reputation to maintain, and surely he would welcome the opportunity to appear here in the Legisla-

[ Page 3917 ]

ture, on the floor, giving sworn evidence as to what in fact happened in this one-man commission of inquiry. Surely Mr. Eckardt himself would welcome the opportunity to appear at the bar of the House. What can Mr. Eckardt gain from a private interview apparently not taken on oath, the text of which the Attorney-General will not release?

That brings me to the fifth and final error we believe has been made by the Attorney-General. For whatever reasons, he actually refuses to release the transcripts. What justification is there for that? Are there matters of so intimately personal conduct and behaviour that persons would be improperly embarrassed by this? We doubt it. We're not asking about anyone's personal behaviour; we're asking about their execution of their public responsibilities. It would appear that no case can be made that someone's family life or personal relationships would improperly be exposed by the release of these transcripts. No one has even hinted at that case, and we doubt there is such a case to be made. But we know this case can be made, Mr. Chairman. As long as the Attorney-General refuses to release these transcripts, inquiring and intelligent people will wonder what the government has to hide. It's as simple as that, really.

If the transcripts substantiate the conclusions, why not make them public? If the transcripts add weight to the Attorney-General's case, why not make the transcripts public? If the transcripts back up the government's position that there was no political interference, why not make the transcripts public? If the transcripts do all of the things that they are alleged to do to verify and give credence to the government's position, why not release the transcripts? The Attorney-General has yet to give a candid reply to those questions. Until he does the people of British Columbia will continue to ask their own basic simple question: what does the government have to hide?

The Attorney-General is an experienced politician. He surely recognizes the troubles governments cause for themselves when they try to do in secret what they should ruddy well be doing in public. He knows that; he knows the history of Social Credit in this province fantastically better than I or any of the other members of this House who haven't had his years of service do. In a way it's a bit of a joke that anyone who has been here only two terms should be telling this guy what the public response would be; he knows it better than we do. If the government tries to do it in private, they will surely be criticized by the public. And if the government, having done it in private, then refuses to table in public the actual evidence they obtained, surely he knows better than anyone else in this House that the government will only fall farther into public disrepute.

Now because he knows those things better than we do, we can only conclude logically that there must be some other, more compelling reason to risk that trouble, those dangers and that problem. There must be another, more compelling argument to overcome the one I have just presented. Because after all, the one I and my colleagues have just presented is hardly original. It is, in fact, not original at all. It is traditional and self-evident. If you've got nothing to hide, why not disclose it? If you do have something to hide, we can understand why you refuse. It is a simple, straightforward conclusion that people draw.

We ask again, in perfect sincerity, that the Attorney-General table the transcripts. We ask again that he be prepared to call Mr. Eckardt before the bar of the House. We ask again that the Attorney-General call a public commission of inquiry into the whole affair in order that the apparent discrepancies in the report, so far published, may be resolved in an arena where the public has confidence that the right questions have been asked and honest answers given.

Currently the public has no right to have such confidence in this government. They don't know what questions were asked — or not asked. They don't know what answers were given. They don't know what oaths were sworn. All they know is that they are expected to take the word of an Attorney-General that the right thing was done.

We know — and the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated it extremely ably earlier this afternoon — that the now Attorney-General, when a Liberal, would never have taken the word of a Socred Attorney-General for these things. And rightly so. We also know that when a Liberal he would never have taken the word of a New Democratic Attorney-General for these things. And rightly so. The only word that should be taken is the word of evidence under oath given in public by the parties directly concerned. That's the word worth listening to. That's the word the public wants to hear.

The Attorney-General has made five significant errors in his handling of the latest mess to plague his government. I would point out that the original error was not his. I presume he argued against a Socred government appointing a Socred candidate to head such a commission. However, not wanting to blame him for that one directly — the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs, McCarthy) won that fight — we can ask him to ask himself if the judgment he has exercised subsequently has been adequate. And we ask him to remind himself of what he would have thought, when he was a Liberal, had a Socred A-G done these things that we've seen in the last few months and in the last couple of years. It's a fair test to apply. It's a fair question to ask: what he would have done in our position, today, confronted by a government which holds inquiries in secret, apparently does not obtain sworn oaths, will not publish the transcripts and the evidence, and refuses to call the principal party before the bar of the House? We ask him to put himself in our position, and what he would have done under those circumstances. I suspect he would do what we are doing today. He would ask the same questions in the same way, and for the same reasons of public interest.

The Attorney-General may have been advised that at Public Accounts this morning we were able to get Mr. Eckardt's name on a list of some six or seven others, and we're going to try to call Mr. Eckardt before the public accounts committee.

The Attorney-General should also know that when we did this, we were denied, by the Socred majority, our interest and our desire to call Mr. Eckardt first, and to call him next Wednesday, before this Legislature closes.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: It's a political, public and personal interest. It's all three.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: For the benefit of Hansard, the member for North Peace River (MR. Brummet) just said: "Yeah, I've got political interests, but not that blatant."

Interjections.

[ Page 3918 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all hon. members please come to order.

MR. BARBER: The Attorney-General would be well advised to release the transcripts. He would have been well advised to call a public commission of inquiry. He would still be well advised to do the same today. He would be well advised to allow Mr. Eckardt to be called before the bar of this House for clear, open and public examination and cross-examination as to exactly what happened when his one-man report was put together — when Gracie's Finger and other aberrations occurred. He would be further well advised, I think, with all respect, to consider the possibility that his decision to deny the public access to this information is going to hurt his personal and professional reputation for years to come. If for no other sake, the sake of that would surely prompt the Attorney-General to reconsider and to hold out the possibility that he might have made a wrong decision when he decided to try to handle all of this matter behind closed doors instead of doing it the proper way, where the public could be satisfied that the public's interest had been served.

I ask the minister again, for the final time, to reconsider and release the transcripts and all of the other evidence which was apparently obtained by the internal inquiry which he ordered. Until he does that, neither the public nor the opposition will ever be satisfied that the correct, fair and proper thing was done in looking into the Eckardt report. I ask the Attorney-General to reconsider and release all that information now.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think that the remarks made by the first member for Victoria would bear some weight if, however, he would take some time to reflect upon what the inquiry was that was undertaken by the Deputy Attorney-General at my request. The inquiry was not into the royal commission, Mr. Member, and the report makes it abundantly clear that that was not the case. It is not within my responsibility to make such an inquiry and there was no basis upon which I would have sought authority in other ways. Let me say again — and I will keep saying for as long as the opposition continues to obfuscate and confuse — that the report which was delivered to me and which was tabled in this House was a report into allegations of wrongdoing — perhaps crime — on the part of a cabinet minister.

MR. LEA: What crime?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would have thought that the member who was present in the House this morning, when I dealt with this matter at considerable length, would have recollected even until 4 o'clock this afternoon what the situation was.

That's what the report dealt with and that was what the inquiry was about. It was not an inquiry into the royal commission, over which I have no jurisdiction. As I indicated in January of this year, the request was to determine what action, if any, I was obliged to take as the Attorney-General as a result of certain allegations made in a statutory declaration. It is true that the inquiry, by reason of evidence which came to the attention of the officials who made the inquiry, resulted in our examination of members of the commission and the staff to determine what was done during particular days which were of significance to the allegations, but to suggest that it was an inquiry into a royal commission, and therefore was something which should have been done in public, entirely misses the point. I trust that the member will recognize that.

As I said this morning — and I repeat again and I will continue to repeat — if as a result of the inquiry which was undertaken by my officials — and you have to start somewhere — there was evidence of criminal acts or improper conduct, then it would have been my responsibility as Attorney-General to take very specific action. That was not disclosed, and we can't have our society function where the elements for the administration of the law are suddenly thrust fully into motion merely because someone makes an allegation. Life would be intolerable if that were the situation. No, allegations are made and inquiries are undertaken and, if the allegation is supported, then specific action takes place. That would have been the case here.

The member speaks of the releasing of transcripts. I'm sorry if he has misunderstood. There are no transcripts. Transcripts, as I understand it, are those typewritten statements which come from recorded conversations. In fact, the minutes of evidence that were taken by the interviewer were produced in the form of statements, which were submitted to the people interviewed for purposes of checking accuracy and having it confirmed. As I said before, the inquiry was conducted for the purpose of determining what action, if any, should be taken by the Attorney-General either in the criminal or other fields. It is not my proposal to release that information, because in many respects those statements, those minutes of evidence, were given by public servants who conduct their responsibilities under oath of confidentiality. All of the commission employees were, of course, sworn to an oath of confidentiality. These persons who were involved respect that oath.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to address you, and through you, the Attorney-General, on certain things. But I cannot let this moment pass without saying that, to my knowledge, this is the first time in this Legislature that I have heard the name of an honourable judge sullied within these walls.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not a judge.

MR. MUSSALLEM: A judge? Yes, Judge Eckardt was referred to as a political hack. Forever and a day society will always complain about appointments being made by one person or another. It has always been so and it will always be so. I will not tell the hon. member about an NDP candidate who, since the election, has been appointed to a most honourable position on the parole board of British Columbia. I should not mention him, of course. Why would I mention that? I will not mention the name.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Go ahead!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Would I mention the name of a high appointment they made to the Hydro commission? Would I mention his name? He went for three years on his appointment and did not at any time sit within those walls. He travelled the world and wrote books and walked off with a pension of $10,000 a year. Will I mention that? No, I will not mention that — not by name.

These remarks and these statements, Mr. Chairman, are

[ Page 3919 ]

pointless; they serve no purpose. One is reminded of the words of Shakespeare. May I say them to you? "He who filches my purse takes trash; but he who robs me of my good name makes me poor indeed, but himself none the richer." Perhaps the hon. member could take that to his heart and wonder why they delve into these low tactics and have this negative attitude. It's shocking to this House and shocking to the sensibilities of hon. members. It need not be done. It is not required. It does not serve the debate. It is deteriorating and destroying. We've sung the song.... The statements that are made are within the judgment of the public. Why play them over again like a symphony, chord after chord, any other way, a hundred times, a new symphony. We've heard it all day. We've heard it enough. The people will make the final judgment, not this side. I fear for them that the judgment will be in reverse.

Mr. Chairman, I come to address you on another subject. These are off-the-cuff remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could consider vote 21.

MR. MUSSALLEM: My remarks are far more serious and very important. I must follow this entirely.

I want to address the Attorney-General on the question of helmets for motorcyclists, of which there are about 40,000 in this province. I observe that a similar thing to what happened in British Columbia has happened in Alberta. An Alberta judge overturned the helmet law, and these words were said: "In an interview after the ruling Tuesday, provincial court judge Ray Thomas said: 'The province's law is legislating me against myself. How far can they go in protecting persons from themselves?'" This helmet law has been found defective. I urge the Attorney-General to leave it where it lies; leave it defective. The financial factors will govern the law of helmets. The judgment of the people will govern the law. The seatbelt legislation is much the same thing. We have legislated that everybody must wear a seatbelt, and we hope everyone does for their safety. But I'm going to tell you that less than half of the people are doing so. There are laws and there are penalties. It's better to wear seatbelts. I implore people to wear seatbelts and to wear helmets. But we cannot legislate people against themselves.

We have that law, and you find in the courts today, Mr. Chairman, that when an accident happens and someone is hurt, they lose considerable sums of money due to the fact that they were not wearing seatbelts. The same thing will apply on the helmet law. I appeal to the Attorney-General to drop this matter and let it go. Do we legislate against smoking? It's far more disastrous. Do we legislate against the greatest disaster in our society, drinking? No, we sell it in our stores. There are arguments in all directions, but I appeal to the Attorney-General: drop this matter. Let them go with or without helmets. I think we've had enough of it. I recommend that it not be appealed.

MRS. DAILLY: I'll try to make this clear to the last speaker, although his estimates are not up. The issue that we're confronting here with the Attorney-General and his estimates is an issue of moral integrity in government. That member who has just left doesn't even seem to understand that that's what the issue is on the floor today. You know, the very fact that the Social Credit members don't understand what we're discussing is why I most despair.

Mr. Chairman, I know that the Attorney-General, who has always been an honourable man and an honourable member of this House, does know what we're discussing. This is what I find very, very disappointing, because I too was elected to the Legislature in 1966 and sat for the first time in 1967 with that hon. member. I think I can say that the two of us have been good friends throughout those years.

But, of course, we're here in the political sphere. We're not talking about personal friendships or acquaintances. We are here to discuss the moral integrity of the Social Credit government. Mr. Chairman, that hon. minister, as has been pointed out by other speakers, has always been a champion for decency and for ethics in the political arena. That is why I, as a member who has worked with him in this Legislature for 14 years, am so disappointed. Because as other speakers on the opposition side have said, the very points that we're bringing up, and that we are condemning the Attorney-General for — for his complete intention, apparently, to ignore these valid points — are the very points that he himself would have been sounding off over on this side of the House when he sat in opposition as a Liberal member.

I know there's a saying that power corrupts, and I would not want to use that with reference to any hon. member in this House. But there are all kinds of corruption, as we know, and there is a moral corruption that can take place within governments. Until the Attorney-General is willing to have open inquiries, not in-house inquiries, on these vital matters, the whole question of the morality of the Social Credit government is at stake.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I listen very carefully to the words of the Attorney-General as he replies to the questions that are being posed by the opposition. Because in the past I have had a great respect for that member, I've tried very hard to reason in my own mind: why is he refusing to have open inquiries on these matters? When he last spoke in the House a few moments ago, he made an interesting point. When we asked for a royal commission instead of an interministerial inquiry, he said: "Well, that doesn't come under my jurisdiction. That comes under the Provincial Secretary." When the Attorney-General has to stretch his arguments in debate to that kind of statement, it's obvious that he is struggling very hard to rationalize with this House and the people of British Columbia why he will not go for open inquiries.

A few moments ago the Attorney-General also referred to the matter of crime and criminal charges. At no time has the official opposition suggested that criminal charges immediately be laid on any of the people in government who at this moment are suspect of being involved in something that we consider is a shame to the integrity of government in this province. At no time have we asked for that. Mr. Chairman, when the Attorney-General suggests that, I consider that his arguments have really a basis of great weakness.

All the official opposition has asked for are open inquiries. There is no way, Mr. Chairman, that that Attorney-General can stand there when he's speaking and try to convince the opposition and the people of British Columbia that we should be satisfied with the results of his in-house investigations. No way! Let's face it, he has been investigating one of his own colleagues.

When he talks about justice being done and asks why we want to impose unequal justice in this investigation, the fact is that he is the Attorney-General of this province who has

[ Page 3920 ]

stated many times that he believes he must keep his role as Attorney-General separate from his role as a member of the cabinet. We applaud that. But if he wishes to keep that role separate, if he wishes to truly show that he's going to separate the two, there is no way he can continue to avoid the request for an open public inquiry into this whole matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat that he is investigating one of his own colleagues. The public may be getting somewhat tired at times of reading the discussion on these matters but there's one thing that comes through loud and clear, as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said earlier this morning. We're just lay people, we're not lawyers, and a lot of the language that has been used here may be beyond the scope of many of us. But there's one thing everyone understands: if you're up under investigation, you don't get one of your own friends and colleagues to investigate you; it must be done on an independent basis. It must be done on a basis that's open to the public, on a basis where the reports and the testimonies are made public.

These allegations that have been made by people who worked on the commission are exceptionally serious. They bring before the public of B.C. the spectre of a government that will do anything to maintain itself in power. That Attorney-General, through his years in this House, would, I'm sure, have been the first one to demand that this kind of thing be erased from the public's mind. As long as he remains Attorney-General and continues to sit there and refuses to have a public inquiry, refuses to release the testimony that has been presented to him, the government that he represents, the government that he chose to cross the floor and join, will remain under suspicion.

Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that all this should fall on the head of the Attorney-General. It makes us wonder what has happened. Why would a man of his background be willing to let himself into this position? As someone said earlier, is it the Premier who's telling him what to do or is it the Deputy Premier? Whatever, it does not appear to me to be a path that could be followed by this hon. member who has served in this House for 14 years, and I'm wondering what has happened to him. Until that Attorney-General is willing to take these investigations on a public route, may I say that suspicion will remain on him and on his government.

When these estimates are over, if the Attorney-General still refuses to go public with this in a proper way, may I say, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion he has nothing left to do but resign as Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I just correct what is apparently a mistaken impression that the member for Burnaby North has with respect to earlier remarks made by me. At no time did I say that the responsibility for public inquiries came under the Provincial Secretary. The legislation makes it quite clear that the decision to proceed with a public inquiry is made by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I also never suggested that the opposition had asked for the laying of criminal charges. I wished only to make it clear that following the inquiry which was undertaken at my instigation in January, that was one of the two possible results that could have arisen — provided that the allegations which were made had been substantiated.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to join with my colleagues on this side to ask for either a public inquiry or a legislative committee to study all the reports that the government and the Attorney-General have in the way of dirty tricks, the forging of letters and the inquiry dealing with the Eckardt report. I make this request following some of the statements that the Attorney-General made earlier on in debate. This is the reason that evidence is gathered by members of the police force or by members of his department, that this evidence is to be prepared and to be studied by Crown counsel or by legal authorities in his own ministry, that it is to be studied and to be brought out in a proper charge or a proper report to give direction to the courts or the government on what action they will take. One of the members requested that we have certain transcripts released, and I noticed that the Attorney-General was very quick to say that he had very few transcripts — the Attorney-General, who represents the government, who represents justice, who represents the actions of all courts in the province of British Columbia. But we do have one transcript that has been released, and it is a copy of a transcript of the Michael Moran case where he originally was charged with impaired driving or failing to blow. The interesting part, when you study that transcript, is the evidence that the late Mr. Moran was convicted on. I feel it is important, Mr. Chairman, as a resident and as a citizen of British Columbia, that the evidence that any person is convicted on in any court.... Any precedent set is a danger to each and every one of us, and if a person is convicted of an offence in a court where there is not sufficient evidence to convict him on that case, then that case should never have appeared or should never have been recommended by any Crown counsel, who is in turn represented by the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Guilty until proven innocent.

MR. MITCHELL: No, you are innocent until proven guilty. And this is the important part — that every person who appears in court should be convicted on evidence. Some of our members have said that there are certain laws for certain people, and it seems that if you are a Social Credit candidate or an ex-Social Credit candidate or a Social Credit member or a Social Credit cabinet minister, there are different laws that affect people in different ways. When you go through that barrel it takes one rotten apple to ruin the whole barrel, and this is why I feel, Mr. Chairman — through you to the Attorney-General — we should review the transcript of this particular case. While we go through the case, I would like to take it out of context and show how it could happen to any one of us.

Here is a gentleman driving in his car and he is in a gas station — this is the evidence he was convicted on. This gentleman was driving out of a gas station in his car, the transcript says: "Mr. Moran's vehicle was seen to leave the area of the gas pump and approach the highway. It stopped, I'm advised, with the front of the vehicle approximately five feet out onto the portion of the west-bound lane." Well, any one of us could be driving our car out of a parking lot; we drive out and we see cars approaching and we stop.

"At that point in time two approaching vehicles were slowing down. However, they were still proceeding in an east-bound direction. The front vehicle of the two that were approaching from an east-bound direction began to slow because it was getting sufficiently close to Mr. Moran's vehicle, and the driver became concerned as to what was going to happen. Mr. Moran's vehicle was then seen to proceed slowly onto the highway in the east-bound lane."

[ Page 3921 ]

Well, anybody, Mr. Chairman, could be driving his car, he comes out onto the road, he slows up, the other car slows up, then he pulls out into the road.

"The first of the east-bound vehicles...the driver of that vehicle had to apply his brakes heavily. He stopped his vehicle immediately behind Mr. Moran's vehicle and made a slight contact. There was a slight bump, minimal damage. The vehicle following, the second vehicle, was unable to stop in time and hit the rear of the first east-bound vehicle."

Was there any charge to the second vehicle that he was following too close or anything of that nature? But this is all the evidence that was given in court. It is all the evidence that was given to convict a man of dangerous driving — a criminal case. What is the evidence, Mr. Chairman? I'm only a layman, like the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), but what is the evidence that is needed to convict a person who is not a Social Credit candidate or an ex-Social Credit candidate? What is needed to convict a person of dangerous driving? The one thing you must have is the element of mens rea — a guilty mind — for the new offence of dangerous driving.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you: you're driving your vehicle out of a gas station. You drive out onto the road and see two cars approaching. You stop. They slow up, then you pull ahead. Do you have the guilty mind of intending to commit a criminal offence? What is some of the other evidence you need to convict a person of the criminal offence of dangerous driving?

The proof of inadvertent negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction of dangerous driving. It is submitted that the decisions, to date, assign to dangerous driving a degree of negligence higher than careless driving. Is driving out onto a road and seeing two cars approaching you, stopping, seeing those two cars slow down, then pulling out a degree of dangerous driving? Is that a degree of guilty mind? It's not, Mr. Chairman, and we all know it.

What other standards must you have for a conviction of dangerous driving? The standard of advertent negligence was met by the deliberate recklessness involved in driving for 25 miles on a highway at speeds of 120 miles per hour. This is the type of evidence needed to convict a person of dangerous driving. Driving for 25 miles at a speed of 120 miles per hour was evidence to convict of dangerous driving, But was there any speeding by a man driving out onto a highway, stopping and watching the traffic slow down and then pulling out? There was not any evidence. There was no evidence at all for dangerous driving — driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public. It was observed by the highest court in Australia, another member of the British Commonwealth, that the concept with which the section deals requires some serious breach of the proper conduct of a vehicle upon a highway, so serious as to be in reality and spectacularly dangerous to others.

I ask you, Mr Chairman, is driving out and stopping on a highway, watching cars approach, when they slow down and then speed up, dangerous to the public? When you go into what other evidence is needed, there are many cases in case law. I can think of one of the interesting ones of evidence that was needed to support a case of dangerous driving. I'll read you one.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

"In a prosecution case limited by particulars to the excessive speed with which the accused was driving a stolen car, it was shown that the car skidded some 98 feet and for a further skid of 42 feet, apparently resulting when the car flipped over, striking a wall. By a majority of two judges to three" — only by a majority of two judges to three — "the conviction was set aside as unsafe. The case was based on circumstantial evidence that it could not be said that the circumstances were inconsistent with other conclusion that the accused was driving at so excessive a rate of speed as to constitute in itself the offence of dangerous driving."

Was the late Mr. Moran driving at that speed? No, he was driving slowly out onto the road, he stopped for the approaching of other cars, the car slowed down, he pulled up and he was struck — just bumped. This is the evidence that the Attorney-General or his ministry allowed a man to be convicted on.

MR. MACDONALD: There was no mens rea.

MR. MITCHELL: No guilty mind, no speed, no dangerous actions — nothing.

What did the judge say? This is a copy of the transcript of the court decision. He said:

"I'm concerned about the dangerous driving but, as pointed out by Mr. Enderton, I certainly agree from my experience that this does not fit the usual fact patterns of a dangerous driving case, it being one slight driving manoeuvre which perhaps indicated lack of judgment or lack of caution, but not the persistent type of dangerous driving that usually characterizes such a charge."

This is what I say, Mr. Chairman: the courts of British Columbia, with the full knowledge of the Attorney-General and his ministry, have allowed a person to be convicted on this amount of evidence. There were a defence lawyer, a Crown prosecutor and a judge in that court. Besides, the accused had a legal degree. I am saying that we on this side of the House feel that there was no evidence that that man should have been convicted, unless there was a political payoff down the line. Somewhere down the line a deal was made; somewhere down the line something was hushed up. It has never been appealed by the Crown. The Attorney-General has never stated that it was wrong — the case that was laid before a court in British Columbia. A precedent has been set that a person can drive out, stop, pull ahead when the other traffic slows down and get bumped — and be charged with dangerous driving.

You have a case that involves many who have one thing in common. They were either ex-Social Credit candidates, Social Credit candidates, Social Credit members or Social Credit cabinet ministers. All that doubt is there. There is the consistency of one case after another. We get one set of transcripts, when we know that the Attorney-General is sitting on many statements and reports from other departments. We ask that some type of legislative inquiry be set up. We have members of the opposition who have sat in exactly the same position as the Attorney-General, who have sat in the cabinet, who have the experience and the ability to analyze the cases, and who have the responsibility of giving good, fair government. I feel that among the 57 members of

[ Page 3922 ]

this House there must be members from all sides who can sit down and study the facts.

There is one thing that I think we have all been taught: not only must law appear to be right; it also must be right. If a committee is set up, if all the studies are made, if the comparisons I have pointed out today — only one part of a large jigsaw puzzle — are considered, I know that the public will feel far more assured that justice in British Columbia will get back on track and continue to be evenly shared, and that anyone going before the courts of British Columbia will know they are protected not only by their defence lawyers but also by Crown counsel and judges, that if there is insufficient evidence to convict, you shouldn't have been convicted; and if there is any doubt or if something smells like a rotten apple, then the courts and the Attorney-General should have appealed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly — I certainly do express my appreciation to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew for making it clear to everybody just how he fulfils his view that when things are right they must appear right and they also must be right. He's not a lawyer — that's quite true — but he is a career policeman, and therefore he has knowledge of these matters, which should have resulted in more careful consideration of the remarks he made just a few moments ago. He says he's reading from a transcript. He's reading from a press report of a publication of a transcript. As a police officer, he knows perfectly well that what he was reading was not evidence but statements by counsel. He also knows, as a former policeman, that there was no conviction of Mr. Moran on dangerous driving; Mr. Moran pleaded guilty. There was no conviction at all, Mr. Member. So if you want things to appear to be right and to be right, then I suggest you call upon the experience which you have as a career police officer in this province, and make sure that your remarks to this House are in keeping with your experience.

I agreed with the member when he said — and I've written it down quite clearly — that if there's not sufficient evidence no charge should be laid. That's exactly what has happened in a number of these cases. As a career police officer, he knows perfectly well that that's the standard which should be applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew rises on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: I would still like to carry on. The Attorney-General has answered something, and I would like to correct the statement he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has recognized the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). There is ample opportunity in committee for other members to speak.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, I have a right to correct a statement that was made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There will be ample opportunity in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about rule 42?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Rule 42, hon. members, generally applies to second reading, where a member may only speak once to a question. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for North Peace River.

MR. MITCHELL: Point of order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: There is a tradition of the House that while you're in cross-debate you're allowed to continue. When we get onto another subject, I would like to continue on other subjects, but while I'm on this particular item I wish to stand and continue the tradition established in this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, what is your ruling, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have recognized the hon. member for North Peace River.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the member has asked that standing order 42 be invoked in this manner. You've defined 42 as being confined to second reading. Is that a ruling? It doesn't say so in the rules; nowhere in the rules does it say 42 is confined to the second reading of a bill.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Just asking.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Don't interrupt; it's out of order. I'm taking your name down and I'll report you to the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take a seat.

The Chair implied that standing order 42 is used, when in fact.... I'll quote it to you: "No member may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation."

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition please take his seat just for a moment, please.

MR. BARRETT: It's 42 you just read....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've just read 42. Further, I will read standing order 61, found on page 23: "The standing orders of

[ Page 3923 ]

to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking." So standing order 42 in Committee of the Whole House is not a point of order. I recognize the member for North Peace River.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, you have just quoted standing order 61 to confirm that 42 is in order in the committee. I would suggest you refer to the Clerk again. I can't believe the hon. member is ill-advised. It must have been an error in pointing out 61 to the Chair. Standing order 61 confirms that 42 stands in committees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Standing order 61 says: "except...the number of times of speaking." Standing order 42 clearly refers to the number of times a member may speak. In Committee of Supply, all our standing orders indicate that a member may speak as many times as he wishes in committee. That opportunity will be allowed all members of the committee, as the committee is well aware.

Under standing order 37, when two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the first member who rose first in his place. There are further procedures that the House can take, if they wish to take those.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has asked under standing order 42, which by your reading of standing order 61 is applicable in this case, to correct a misunderstanding. That should be done immediately to keep the continuity of debate in committee. Standing order 42 is applicable in committee related to a misunderstanding, and my colleague has pointed that out and is asking the protection of standing order 42. Any other interpretation, Mr. Chairman, may lead someone to suspect that the Chair is protecting the minister from the harsh questioning of the member and looking to someone to act as a buffer.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I said buffer. Don't call him a buffoon. Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please take their seats. The Chair will have to react quite strongly that in fact a member would be referred to as a buffer. Our Committee of Supply does not allow that to happen, as all members are aware. Committee of Supply allows every opportunity for every member to speak as many times as he wishes. The only limitation in Committee of Supply with respect to speaking is a time limit, which we're all aware of.

Two members rose; the Chair recognized the hon. member for North Peace River.

MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I rise under standing order 37, and I move that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew now be heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is quite in order.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, a few minutes ago there was a ruling that standing order 42 of our House rules could not be used when the House is in Committee of the Whole House. I'd like to have you take that under advisement and come back with an explanation or a ruling.

MR. NICOLSON: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, maybe I hope you don't come back with a ruling. I hope we don't change the practice of the House, which has been to observe this both in and out of committee. In standing order 42 it says that no member shall speak twice except in explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood. In other words the intent of that is to clear up, at the earliest possible time, any misunderstanding or misquote of a material part of a speech. If members are to have to wait their turn, even in committee, where they do have another opportunity, it could be days before they would again be recognized in order to do this. I think it's very important that in order to keep good order in the House members be allowed to clear up misunderstandings.

Going back to standing order 61, which is that standing orders apply in committee as they do in the House, except for the limiting of the number of times of speaking, obviously that is simply to allow a member to speak more than once, and I don't think it was ever intended to be prohibitive of standing order 42.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nelson-Creston makes an excellent point, which certainly will get the consideration from the Chair.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: No, not on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I didn't say point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, when the motion that one member be now heard is defeated, the other member automatically will be heard.

[ Page 3924 ]

MR. BARRETT: Who was the other member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other member was the member for Prince George...South Peace River...North Peace River (Mr. Brummet).

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted that you finally found your way as far as the North Peace!

I did want to enter this debate, and I didn't realize that....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, I was wondering whether or not the Chairman would point out to us the standing order that indicates who would be the next heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a tradition, hon. member, that has been long observed in this House.

MR. COCKE: Is that right? It's only been in very recent weeks that any of this type of material has happened in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It has automatically followed in each case, hon. member, that that would be the case. The point is well made by the member.

MR. BRUMMET: Let me first thank the opposition for this high compliment. I did not realize that the threat of me speaking would cast such fear and trepidation into their hearts that they would go to these lengths to keep me from getting up.

I'd like to just comment first of all that I certainly have not been speaking very often, but I have been very observant and learning how the tactics work. We've had here in the last while — this summer and, I guess, last summer — many examples of how one can make insinuations, implications and allegations. They're hard to defend. When you try to enforce a defence against any such charge, they point to the fact that you are making a defence as evidence of possible guilt. Then, of course, the next step is to demand a full public inquiry. If that is denied it suggests that there must be something wrong.

There have been a number of allegations made this afternoon, among other times. The standards of conduct of the Attorney-General's department have been called into question with respect to investigations of several cases with political implications. I think it's only fair that we recognize who has made these accusations. The accusations have been made by the opposition members — the NDP — who have persistently tried to build a case of political wrong-doing regardless of the lack of any real evidence. There is better than a 50 percent chance that anyone in this province who is not guilty of a charge will be a Socred. So you've got all kinds of ammunition if that's the type of tactic that you prefer to use.

One of the accusations is that never have so many demands for inquiries been made. Again, I would like to ask who has been making all of these demands and then saying that there are so many demands being made? I think it works on the basic principle that if you throw enough mud there's a hope that some of it will stick. Certainly, I think the people in this province are not that ignorant that they don't recognize who is throwing the mud.

The NDP is apparently willing to delay and do anything to gain power. For two months last year and several months this year we've heard the same repetitive accusations. I suppose the hope is that if they're said often enough, sooner or later somebody will believe them. They've often enough used the phrase: "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done." I would suggest that there is also a justice in making unfounded accusations and in labelling people, trying to besmirch their reputations in the protection of the House, and then saying the only way that that person can possibly be cleared is by a full public inquiry or taking up a full court case. If we were to have full court cases and full public inquiries for anybody to clear themselves every time someone is accused of something, whether or not there's any substance to it, then we would have the courts tied up forever.

Reference was made as soon as I was going to speak about the Sierra-Yoyo road. I'd just like to reply to that very briefly. While the Sierra-Yoyo road was a serious project, getting it built was made a joke of by members of the opposition. They joked about pronouncing it and so on. Now that some conflict has risen about it — it is so typical — the NDP comes into its own; they're right into the thick of it.

However, I'd like to express a couple of concerns to the Attorney-General which I've been thinking about for some time. Although I may not be that articulate or eloquent I'd certainly like to at least share these concerns and offer them for the Attorney-General's consideration. I am very concerned about a growing trend to accept violence — verbal and physical abuse — of those in authority as a form of public protest. Without going into great details, we can refer to a couple of the groups who store up rocks and bottles to attack the police after they have virtually, by their actions, invited police to come and enforce the laws. I think that is a dangerous practice, and I think there is a tolerance in our society that that is a legal, legitimate form of protest. I think there is a real danger in that. If it is supported through tolerance, through the courts and any other enforcing agencies, then, as far as I'm concerned, it is supportive of disrespect for authority and law enforcement and is a very dangerous practice. I think that attacks on police should be treated as very serious offences. Whether or not the rock hits, I think any attack of that sort should be treated very seriously. Concurrently, I also believe that any abuse of power by the police should be treated very seriously. But I think we do have to restore some respect for the people in authority, and it's by our actions as a society that we do that.

A second concern that I have is the great reliance in the courts on the technicalities of the law, sometimes — I hesitate to say it — almost to the detriment of real justice. There seems to be a greater emphasis on many occasions on the spelling of a word or misplaced punctuation than there is on the concern for what is obviously intended. These are the technicalities that the more expert lawyers seek out to win a case or to have it dismissed. I think it's a concern and I know it's a concern that has been expressed to me by many members of the public — that if you can get off on a technicality, that's as good as being innocent.

I feel that part of this is because in many cases the judges are appointed from the ranks of successful lawyers, and successful lawyers have, of course, successfully used the tactics and the technicalities which have earned them a high regard and probably earned them their appointment.

I found it astonishing — and here I must say that it was a report in the paper, and I do question them sometimes — that

[ Page 3925 ]

a judge in this province told some prisoners on one occasion that they would have fared better had they had more expert lawyers. I think, in view of what I have said, that it was a terrible admission for that judge to make. I would think that justice would have been served by the experienced judge rather than the technicalities.

Another concern I have is the number of policemen who are quitting the forces. Perhaps I'm advantaged in that in a smaller community you do get to know some of these people personally, people who come in with high ideals and try to do a job. They have a social conscience; they do want to see justice served. After a while, some of them are resigning. In checking with them, some of them said: "Well, I can make more money at some other occupation." The only thing is, in checking further with them, in asking whether they really went into police work for the money in the first place, the answer is invariably no. I think what has happened is that they've become disillusioned. On many occasions they have done a great deal of work to solve a case, to gather the evidence, only to have all their efforts come to naught because of a technicality. I think that happens too often,

The other real concern is that it seems to be fashionable in these days to attack policemen and anyone in authority. We see a great deal of it here. We're casting aspersions on anyone in a responsible position. I would say this afternoon that every member of the Attorney-General's staff has been maligned, if not deliberately, certainly by implication and by allegation. I would think that these people do act responsibly. But what is happening is that it's fashionable and it's a favourite sport nowadays to attack policemen.

I'm sure that most of you must have been in a bar or a beer parlour at some time when a policemen has come in to arrest someone, to take someone out for creating a disturbance. That person, because of the influence of liquor, seems to feel that he has the right to curse, abuse, kick, do anything to prevent that policeman from enforcing the law. But let that policeman lay a rough hand on him, or shove that person, and all of a sudden he is in trouble with society. I know that there is always the danger of people with power, people in authority, abusing it. But I think what has happened is that our society has made it fashionable to abuse the enforcers, rather than consider that they too are human and have feelings. How much abuse must they take — verbal, visual and/or physical? Who said that they must play by the Marquis of Queensberry rules when they are protecting their lives?

Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that I think we must support our laws, or change them democratically, not by protest or violence. I think we have to support our enforcers. If we accord our law enforcers and people in authority that kind of respect, then and only then can we demand high standards. I think it's time we looked in that direction.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a little more to the statement that was made by the Attorney-General. I too, like the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), held the Attorney-General in high regard. But his answers to me were not those of the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia; they were those of a politician of a debunked Social Credit Party. And I ask why, Mr. Chairman.

When the Attorney-General states that what I read was not a transcript of the case, I say this is quite true. What I read was an article published on page 5 of the Vancouver Sun on Tuesday, March 11, 1980. This was a paper that was published throughout British Columbia, and this paper stated: "This is the transcript of the Moran hearing." If the Attorney-General has access to the true transcript and if this document that was published throughout British Columbia for all the public to read was not a true copy of the Moran hearing, he had an obligation, a duty, a responsibility to the courts and the justice system of this province to produce the true copy and deny the statements that were published purporting to be the evidence that convicted a person in the British Columbia courts.

His answer could have been that he would check it out. But to say that the evidence that I gave was not from the transcript is taking a political out; that's not the responsibility given to the Attorney-General's office. Again I say, if this is the offhand manner that he is going to use before this House, how can we expect honest, decent justice? To say what I read out was not evidence.... The Attorney-General knows better than anyone in this House what evidence in a court is. Anything is evidence. It might not be evidence that will convict somebody, but a statement given in a court is evidence; a document presented in court is evidence; anything presented in court can be evidence. It doesn't say that it's going to convict a person, but it's submitted as evidence. The Attorney-General knows that. Again, he tries a political out, saying that I'm trying to twist things. I'm not twisting anything, Mr. Chairman; I'm just stating what purported to be a transcript. If it is not a transcript, the responsibility lies on the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia to produce a copy for everyone to study. To deny the facts that have been sent out to the people, which he is inferring may not be true.... The evidence was presented in the paper.

All I am saying is that if it is not sufficient evidence.... Maybe it is strange that I should rise to protect the good name of an ex-Social Credit candidate, but anybody who appears in court should know that the evidence given against him is sufficient to support the charge that is made against him. That is the duty of the judge and the Crown counsel, and it must be supported 100 percent by the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) misunderstood what I said to him. I will very carefully state it again. I am not denying that what the member read was a press report quoting the transcript of proceedings which took place in court. However, what I said to the member — and I will say it very carefully again — was that that transcript was not a transcript of evidence taken at a trial. It indeed was a transcript of statements made by counsel in the trial as part of argument. As a career police officer, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will, I am sure, recognize the distinction. Therefore it is improper for him to rely upon what counsel may have said in the trial in order to make his case as to whether or not there was sufficient evidence for the laying of a charge.

MR. MACDONALD: It's your own Crown counsel.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I also must repeat that there was no conviction in that case. What were reported in the transcript were proceedings in the court, following a plea of guilty.

[ Page 3926 ]

There is one thing I must say, however, before I sit down. It is in response to the remarks of the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). I too share his concern about the growing trend of violent reaction, both physical and verbal, to persons in authority who are exercising their responsibilities. I am sure that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew joins with the member for North Peace River and with me in expressing this serious regret. We have in this province, as of January 1, 5,869 police officers. As the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew himself has said in this House, those police officers undertake responsibilities, often at considerable physical risk to themselves and, unfortunately, on a few occasions even at the cost of their lives, to protect citizens in this province against those in our society who are not prepared to conduct themselves in accordance with standards of law which society has deemed appropriate. I think these 5,869 police officers, all of whom are highly trained and skilled in their responsibilities, who undertake their duties on behalf of society and at something less than adequate reward, compared to other persons in occupations, are entitled to the support of our citizens for the work that they do. It is my experience that the people in this province do support their police officers. As Attorney-General it is my responsibility to ensure that those attitudes are continued. This is not to say, however, that in the exercise of authority persons who are charged with the administration of the law are entitled to exceed the limits which the law provides to them. It is in this respect, I think, that the member for North Peace River may raise this question of technicalities in the law. Police officers and others who are involved in the administration of justice must do their job within the limits of the law. To that extent, if they should do otherwise, then when the liberty of a subject is in jeopardy I think that person is entitled to rely upon what are often termed as technicalities.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have just one word of rebuttal for the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). The member for Dewdney got up in the House and asked the Attorney-General to stay away from that whole question of motorcycle helmets. I'd like the member for Dewdney to go to the office of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) sometime and ask him for a few statistics with respect to what happens to people in that area. I'll suggest that to the member for Dewdney, even though he has a very difficult time changing his mind — but he might under those circumstances. I just feel that he was quite wrong in suggesting to the Attorney-General that we should let people go ahead and break their crowns. That's all very well and good, except the rest of us have to pay for it. And so do the people who break their crowns.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have brought to the attention of the House from time to time an appropriate bumper strip that I would like to give as a gift to the Attorney-General. It says: "Inquiries are B.C.'s Number One Industry." It started in 1976-77.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is it coincidence that they're NDP colours?

MR. COCKE: It's just a coincidence. You'll notice that they're beautifully done, nicely designed, well thought out.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Anyway, aside from all that, one of the reasons that that was done was because of the long list of inquiries. Here's some 12, and then we've got an update of 8 more. A number of these inquiries have been in-house inquiries. Not all of them, of course, have been in-house inquiries, but the ones around the question that we've been discussing this afternoon, and for part of this morning, are inquiries that arose out of undesirable conduct on behalf of some of the Social Credit caucus employees, undesirable conduct on the part of some of the letter writers within that party, undesirable conduct on the part of Dan Campbell and his crew in terms of their reporting or failure to report election expenses and handing out thousand-dollar bills and so on. At this juncture, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the inquiries and the Attorney-General were used in this respect: possibly.... And I have listened carefully to the Attorney-General. He said, "You know, there were no laws broken, or if there were laws broken, you couldn't find the culprit," and all of those things. But to bury those kinds of situations in these inquiries begs this question. In many of the instances that I cite, the party should have smartened up immediately and answered the questions that the public were asking rather than referring it to the Attorney-General to put it into an in-house inquiry. That's one way. Other areas, such as the Eckardt question, should have been put before a public inquiry in this province, because that one requires the use of a tool that is often used by government to really get down and elicit the facts in a way that can only be done by a proper public inquiry where people can come and give testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I don't expect that member to be mannerly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I completely agree, hon. member. I wonder if all hon. members might come to order. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor and it is against our standing orders for any members to interrupt a member who has the floor. The hon. member for New Westminster continues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm really saying in effect, in one instance, inquiries have been used to take the heat off so that no decision has to be made by the government or by the party about their conduct. That inquiry, particularly if it's an in-house inquiry, can take forever and a day, and we noticed that one inquiry went on for many months. In other inquiries, to my knowledge, the decision at the end of the road hasn't been made public. I just suggest that a better way of handling things could have been utilized.

I recognize that the Attorney-General doesn't call a public inquiry. This is done by the cabinet, by the Lieutenant Governor-in; Council. But I believe even at this late date the government could clean up its act a great deal by seeing to it that the report of the Eckardt commission and all of the work of the Eckardt commission is put before a public inquiry. One reason I say that is as follows. We have been told by the Attorney-General that some of the copies of the evidence that was taken are not going to be made public. This is a very important situation in this province. We saw boundaries that made absolutely no sense. We saw the boundary of Vancouver–Little Mountain — no sense whatsoever. The protrusion called Gracie's Finger — even that particular area has never been explained. And, Mr. Chairman, there have been enough affidavits floating around to demand that a public inquiry be made on that particular issue.

[ Page 3927 ]

I have heard us accused by the government this afternoon of being political. I would like to bring to your attention that when the Thatcher government in Saskatchewan gerrymandered the ridings there, there was a hue and cry like you wouldn't believe. As a matter of fact, I am totally convinced that the Thatcher government was defeated on that gerrymandering. In British Columbia, I am convinced, the Social Credit government was nearly defeated, and that issue was part of the reason. I think it is an important issue, and I believe that that public inquiry should take place even at this late date. People are still living who remember walking in and out of hotel rooms, running in and out of restaurants in this province, in this city, and within a few blocks of this building, in the late days of putting together the report.

We have so many conflicting bits of evidence. The public in B.C. deserve to hear exactly what happened; I think the public in B.C. deserve something even more and that is a fair distribution. I just can't believe some of the ridings that came out of that distribution. I think that probably only a handful of the ridings came up with, say, the population level that they should have, or with the geographical boundaries that they should have. During that redistribution there were some blatant efforts to see to it that the NDP suffered, and suffer we did. Three NDP ridings and three NDP MLAs were eliminated by the new boundary — no Socreds. So that, I think, Mr. Chairman, is what should be done there.

HON. MR. MAIR: Bawtree lost his riding.

MR. COCKE: Bawtree lost his riding because Bill King was such a super-strong candidate — nothing more, nothing less.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order. I will once again remind the committee that we are verging on discussion of legislation that has been passed.

MR. COCKE: Just at this moment I'd like to clear this particular issue. We have a rule in the Legislature in British Columbia that one must not reflect upon a vote taken in that session of the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, providing it has something to do with the minister whose estimates are up, I can reflect on any of his legislation. Otherwise we would be totally without any opportunity to speak in the Legislature. Can we speak on the Fire Marshal Act? Can we speak on the Coroners Act, etc.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No, I think that the Chairman probably thought I was dealing with something in this year's session. I'm certainly not.

To go on, the two areas.... I would like to stress this, because I really think that there is the other area where the party was involved. The party did not show a good sense of morality or ethics, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of being law abiding. But if the Attorney-General says he can't find out who the culprits were....

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to emphasize "as far as I'm concerned."

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right; I'm speaking for myself. Now when you're ready to speak for yourself, stand up. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) can stand up and acknowledge whether he's proud or ashamed to be a party to some of the things that have occurred in this province in the last year and a half or so.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't point at me.

MS. BROWN: I'll point at you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members please come to order? The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Normally, Mr. Chairman, he wants me to get my hands out of my pockets. I take my hands out of my pockets and then he doesn't want me to point at him.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that in those instances, and around this whole chronology of the Lettergate affair, we should have not the Attorney-General but the party and the leader of that party stand up and do something in terms of answering the questions that were asked. They're the only people that can. The Attorney-General says they can't find the culprits. Fair enough. Maybe they've looked hard. But surely somebody is responsible for some of the actions that have been taken. Mr. Chairman, what we do need is a full public inquiry with respect to the Eckardt report. Nothing less will ever satisfy thoughtful people in this province.

MRS. WALLACE: The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) quoted the very old adage about justice not only being done, but appearing to be done. That's very true. I'm not a lawyer, nor am I connected with the police force. But I'm a citizen of this province and I believe that it is important that every citizen is equal in the eyes of the law. That is something that is not happening under the auspices of this Attorney-General. If it is happening, it does not appear to be happening.

There have to be open public hearings. To investigate yourself is no investigation at all, and that is what we have had in case after case and point after point. As my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pointed out, it got to the point where some of the people in our party issued a bumper sticker because there were so many inquiries going on in this province about items that had been raised publicly. In order to take off the heat, to take away the pressure, and to get out of the limelight, an internal investigation was established by the Attorney-General. Mr. Chairman, that is not, or certainly does not appear to be, equality in the eyes of the law, or proper administration of the justice system. Those are the concerns that I have about this minister's handling of the Attorney-General's ministry.

My colleague from Victoria paid some very glowing compliments to that Attorney-General as to his ability and intelligence, He indicated that he was very articulate. In my opinion none of those things are important if one does not have integrity. I suggest that that Attorney-General's integrity became overshadowed by his ambition to retain office and hold a cabinet post.

You know, Mr. Chairman, over the years there have been some very wide-ranging philosophies represented on the floor of this Legislature. We on the left, if you will — in the CCF, the forerunner of the New Democratic Party, and today in the New Democratic Party — have advocated a philosophy

[ Page 3928 ]

in which we believe, a philosophy that is people-oriented, a philosophy of all those things that would be of benefit to the greatest number of people. We have indicated that there were certain ways of providing those services. On the extreme right we have had Conservatives and Social Credit who have taken a different stand. They have indicated that they felt that by providing funds for large corporations, somehow this was going to benefit the people in this province. In between we had a philosophy espoused by the Liberals in this Legislature, which was somewhere in between those two. It was a philosophy that agreed with the ideas of doing things for people but was not prepared to go quite the route that we were prepared to go to fund those.

I believe that when the Attorney-General crossed the floor it was at that point that his philosophy became overshadowed by his desire to retain power and to hold a cabinet post. It is rather a strange situation that we find ourselves in today when we have this Attorney-General, who is a liberally-minded man, in a position of defending and protecting cabinet colleagues whom he is now forced to work with and to provide this kind of protection for those cabinet colleagues, when previously he was completely opposed to the kind of things that they represent.

What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it is a very sad day in this Legislature when we have an Attorney-General who is prepared to ignore his philosophy, to disregard his integrity, and to move in a direction as dictated by his cabinet cohorts, a direction, I am sure, which is contrary to his own inclinations. I cannot believe that that Attorney-General can stand up there and really mean what he says about some of the questions that have been raised regarding the various inquiries which have been going on in his ministry.

When he can tell this Legislature that two affidavits, which were sworn affidavits by employees of the Eckardt commission, were overridden because the person whom they were accusing as having said certain thing denied them — that's really what he's saying — and when it is presented on the floor of this House and the minister has taken it under advisement — but I'm sure he's aware of the answers — that the very person who was purported to have made the statements regarding the change of boundaries in Vancouver Little Mountain, was, prior to the commission, and is now, an employee, a member, of the firm of Larry Eckardt, it simply compounds the total picture of confusion and distrust, and is a complete miscarriage of the whole intent of what that Attorney-General should be doing, a complete reversal of the whole process of law, a complete abrogation of the concept that justice must not only be done, but must appear to be done.

Mr. Chairman, you know I could even manage to dredge up a bit of sympathy for that minister who finds himself in this position. He must regret the day when ambition took precedence over his philosophy and his ideals. He must rue that day, as he now finds himself being forced into the position of having to protect his colleagues and to stand in this House and face the kind of very valid questions and criticisms that are placed by the opposition. I regret that he has seen fit to take this stand. I had hoped that that minister would be somehow able to recognize that he must reverse that position — that he must put ambition out the door and must return to his true beliefs, to his philosophy, to the kind of concepts that he personified when he sat as a member of the Liberal opposition.

I believe that he could still do that — I believe that he could; I think that that would be his natural trend — and instead he is standing in this House protecting those people who really must cause him a great deal of aversion. He must be really concerned at being in this position, because I do not believe that that is that minister's natural trend. Mr. Chairman, I regret it. I hope that by tomorrow he will be prepared to stand in this House and say: "Yes, I've changed my mind." I hope he will have reached that point by tomorrow morning.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Curtis filed an answer to a question standing in his name on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

APPENDIX

6 Mr. Stupich asked the Hon. the Minister of Finance the following question:

What is the total amount transferred to general revenue from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation between April 1, 1979, and February 29, 1980?

The Hon. H. A. Curtis replied as follows:

"$301,025,000 (this is for an 11-month period)."