CKNW Editorial
for June 26, 2000

This business of the public paying for Glen Clark’s libel suit is an utter, inexcusable disgrace.

Let’s go back to the beginning. There has always been immunity granted senior bureaucrats and cabinet ministers for actions that they’ve taken in accordance with the discharge of their duties. If this protection was not there, there would be no senior bureaucrats or cabinet ministers willing to exercise any controversial act of government business.

Let’s look to Mr Clark himself for a good example of where this immunity has worked in favour of a senior administrator. Glen Clark is solely responsible for the mess with the Pacificats. This utterly discredited exercise costing taxpayers half a billion, goive or take a few buck was his and his alone. Were it not for immunity it might well be open to a member of the public, perhaps through a class action, to sue Mr Clark for damages for negligence. Unpopular and ill considered though Mr Clark’s actions were, it would put politicians and public servants at a point where they simply could not function were there not protections in place. Mistakes happen … errors of judgment take place … grossly negligent errors of judgment happen. But there is protection and perhaps it for the same reason that people in government don’t get bonuses when they do things particularly well they get protection when they screw up. And let’s remember, in fairness, that for most of us the biggest penalty for a screw-up is being fired. But the immunity is for those things a public servant does in the normal discharge of his duties.

Let’s look to the man considered by most to be BC’s greatest premier for an example of where there is no immunity. Back in the late sixties a public servant was accused of distorting some figures in the government purchasing department. His name was Jones. At the time there was a popular song called "The Jones Boy" and W.A.C. Bennett, at a public meeting, referred to this matter and said, paraphrasing the song, "I’m not going to tell you about the Jones boy". Mr Jones took this to be a reference to him and a clear implication that Mr Bennett thought he’d done something wrong. He sued and won a judgment for $10,000, a large sum in those days and the matter was appealed, unsuccessfully, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr Bennett lost the case … all the costs and the judgment were paid by Mr Bennett personally. Not a nickel’s worth of immunity.

Now let’s look at Bob Ward v Glen Clark. Mr Clark libeled Mr Ward and did so with the clear objective of discrediting him. He did it because Mr Ward was telling anyone who would listen that the Pacificats were the wrong vessels and gave us chapter and verse. He was proved to be absolutely right but Mr Clark, who knows no more about the subject than I do, told the world that Mr Ward was a bad man who was badmouthing his favourite ferries for malicious reasons.The Ferry Corporation did the same … they repeated the same libel of Mr Ward widely including to me … in fact, like a damned fool I accepted the libel and stopped using Mr Ward as a resource.

Not only did Clark libel Mr Ward, he fought the case tooth and nail and repeated and expanded upon the libels at trial.

Let me pause there. Had Mr Clark made a full and public apology at the outset … or even as late as the beginning of the trial … the damages would have been dramatically reduced. In fact if he had apologized in timely fashion I have no doubt that a small sum, probably paid to a charity, would have settled the case. Mr Ward sought vindication of his character and reputation, not money. (Although, of course, money is always a nice thing to have.)

The libel here was a gross one, was leveled at Mr Ward from all possible angles by the Ferry Corporation and was repeated and enhanced by the principal libeler, Glen Clark.

Let me ask this question – what possible justification is there for Glen Clark having his damages and all legal costs paid for by the taxpayer?

Yes, by stretching the immunity policy of this government it’s possible I suppose, by use of the broadest possible interpretation, to cover libel suits against a member of government. But decent people like W.A.C. Bennett and his son Bill who was sued by a member of the Opposition and footed all his bills, know where the line is drawn between public duty and private responsibility. And these are the rules the government made up to protect themselves ... These are self-serving rules. But the main point is that Mr Clark’s actions went miles beyond what this protection is supposed to cover. This wasn’t a case of a mistaken allegation … an untimely remark, perhaps in anger or the heat of the moment. This was a deliberate attempt by the premier of the province to destroy a professional man’s integrity and reputation. This case is so gross that there is no justification whatever for him getting the protection of your purse and mine.

The present Premier of the Province apologized for the fast ferry mess. Yet the author of that mess, Glen Clark would not apologize to the man whose accurate statements of the matter forced Mr Dosanjh to make his apology to the people.

These damages and the costs, if they are not to be paid by Glen Clark, must be paid by the New Democratic Party. If Mr Dosanjh and his party will not accept responsibility for the gross libels of their then leader they are saying that the people of British Columbia must, on technicalities of the politicians own making, bear the responsibility for these independent acts of outrage.

That cannot be. The NDP must pay. And if they won’t pay with cash, they must pay with every seat they hold in the legislature