CKNW Editorial
for July 26, 1999

As the time approaches that the disclosure of the evidence in support of the search warrant used at Premier Clark’s home comes closer, it’s time to make sure we can all walk and chew gum at the same time.

To start with, I haven’t the faintest idea what the documents behind these warrants say. If I were to guess, it would have something to do with whether or not Premier Glen Clark paid Dimitrios Pilarinos full measure for work done on his house. But that’s just a guess. It could be anything and it could be something completely innocent as far as the premier is concerned. We’ll all just have to wait and see.

But where it all gets tricky may apply to these writs or not but where it certainly will apply is when Conflicts of Interest Commissioner H.A.D. Oliver makes his report.

The trouble is there are at least three standards by which conflicts of interest are judged.

First, there is the ethical standard, the one I prefer. It says that my law firm, acting for one party, cannot do any work, even through another partner, for someone adverse in interest. That is the standard by which most lawyers when I practiced governed themselves but now big firms of lawyers, accountants, engineers and the like build what they call “Chinese Walls” between their partners and pretend that it’s quite OK for Blatz and Company to act for, say, B.C. Hydro and the Provincial government when their interests may be in conflict, as for example in fights over power rates, or Kemano II and things like that. I understand how complicated the world is these days but to me this is plainly wrong, though the Law Society which can always put on its blinkers when it deems it more comfortable to do so, turns a blind eye to these things, especially when if Blatz and company is a big firm full of QCs and senior lawyers.

Before there was a code, for which Mike Harcourt is to be heartily commended, then Commissioner Ted Hughes found then Premier Bill Vander Zalm guilty of a conflict of interest in his dealings with an offshore billionaire and the president of Petrocan for his own personal affairs.

Then there is the standard set by the legislature in its Conflicts of Interest rules. These are, for want of a better expression, of a more serious nature than those that are merely unethical. They are unethical too, but the test may be a bit higher and it is codified. For all that, the mere appearance of a conflict is sufficient. Premier Mike Harcourt is to be commended for that and it was he who applied that test to Dan Miller who as Forests Minister had some residual right to return to work at a mill for which he had given, along with others, a benefit.

Finally there is the Criminal Code of Canada which sets out conflicts of interest which go beyond the merely ethical or legislative standards into the realm of criminality. The sections involved are complicated and contain many escape hatches. As a broad statement, they talk about conferring a benefit, which leads to the granting of a privilege to the grantor of that privilege.

Here’s where the walking and chewing gum at the same time comes in.

Bill Vander Zalm was found guilty of a conflict by Commissioner Hughes, was charged with a crime and later acquitted. Even though he crowed that his acquittal in court exonerated him he was no less guilty of a conflict because the standards are very different. Under the criminal code not only must there be the conflict, there must be a reward for the person who granted the benefit and it must be shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the reward led to the prize.

The facts in the Clark case are not yet known. Judging by the questions put, and the strange weasel worded answers given by Mt Clark and his high priced at public expense lawyer, I think we can say that Dimitrios Pilarinos, an applicant for a gaming license did work on the Premier’s home and did not charge him the labour and did similar work without charge on the Premier’s summer cottage. It also seems evident on the timeline that Mr Pilarinos work was done at a time he had a gaming licence application before cabinet.

That certainly breaches the ethical line I spoke of first. I find it most difficult to imagine how it does not violate the legislature’s conflict rules especially if the standard is that there must not even be the appearance of a conflict.

Whether the Premier’s conduct, if proved to be as I suspect it to be, violates the Criminal Code of Canada I can offer no opinion on save to say this – and this is the crux of it – a breach of conflict of interest ethics and written rules can be blatant and sufficiently serious to require a resignation without it being contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. That is the Vander Zalm case and it may well prove to be the Glen Clark case as well.

In short Glen Clark, in order to be guilty of a conflict of interest, need not be found guilty under the Criminal Code and indeed could even be acquitted, but must be in breach of the guidelines set down by the legislature, a determination that will be made by Mr Oliver.