Vancouver Province
for October 27, 2000

One has to feel sorry for Glen Clark and his family at least to this extent – the investigation took an unconscionable time. The police raided the Clark home on March 2, 1999. Six weeks later my interview of Mr Clark demonstrated conclusively that he hadn’t paid the labour on thew work done on his property by his neighbour and gaming licence applicant, Dimitrios Pilarinos. Question after question zeroed in on this point, for which answer only "yes" or "no" was possible – each answer equivocated.

19 months later the charges have been laid. And what is their substance? That Mr Clark didn’t pay Mr Pilarinos for the labour. It took the Crown 19 months to charge Mr Clark with two counts based upon this important, but uncomplicated fact.

Even assuming that other more complex matters were examined and understanding that police forces, especially in white collar cases, are under-funded, for the Crown to take that long to determine what a talk show host (in the face of threatened lawsuits from Clark’s lawyer, the eminent and expensive David Gibbons, QC it might be noted) found out in 15 minutes of questioning is a bit much!

There’s a side issue of considerable importance here. One of the common tools of the criminal justice system is the "deal", or "copping a plea". This isn’t always the bad thing it’s painted to be. Trials are long, uncertain and very expensive. Even if he wanted to, there’s no incentive for Mr Clark to plead guilty in exchange for a more modest sentence that could save everyone a lot of money, and still accomplish the end of punishing a crime. Why not? Because he would then be responsible for Mr Gibbons immense legal bill back to the beginning and that would bankrupt him. He might just as well take his chances at trial and hope he gets acquitted so that all his bills are paid by the taxpayer.

But there’s an even more serious side to all this. This matter now rebounds into Ujjal Dosanjh’s office. Why? Because the day after Mr Clark’s house was raided, then Attorney-general Ujjal Dosanjh knew that Mr Clark was under a criminal investigation. He might not have known the precise nature of this investigation but he knew it was about breaking the criminal law. Within a few days – certainly no later than my interview with Clark the following month – Mr Dosanjh knew that the investigation concerned Mr Clark receiving a substantial benefit from a man who was seeking his help to obtain a gambling licence. It was not until late August of 1999 that Mr Dosanjh, knowing that the facts he knew all along were to be made public, insisted that the premier resign.

Parliamentary tradition is clear. When a minister is under a cloud of suspicion for wrongdoing he must resign. This has nothing whatever to do with the presumption of innocence and everything to do with the rule that Her Majesty’s ministers must be above suspicion. The attorney-general’s role is to advise the government on matters legal. It was, therefore, Mr Dosanjh’s duty to demand the premier’s resignation the moment he knew of the investigation. He didn’t do so until six months later.

Mr Dosanjh based his inaction on the Crown Counsel Act which takes criminal investigations of a sensitive nature away from the Attorney-general himself. This is a red herring. No one suggests that Mr Dosanjh needed to communicate to Mr Clark the nature of the investigation, interfere in any way with it, or indeed even know the full facts. All Mr Dosanjh needed to know to do his duty was that a minister, in this case the premier, was under an investigation for the commission of a crime.

Nearly 19 months later the ex premier is charged for a crime, the basic elements of which were known to Mr Dosanjh, as attorney-general, a few days after the police raid on Mr Clark’s house.

Much as one might like and respect Ujjal Dosanjh, one must ask whether the reason was for his delay in demanding Clark’s resignation was political. It’s difficult unto impossible to conclude it wasn’t. If it was, it backfired, for as the election date looms closer, with the NDP’s best case being their leader’s moral rectitude, the Glen Clark case and his handling of it has landed right back in Premier Dosanjh’s lap.