CKNW Editorial
for July 28, 2000

Today some rambling thoughts. I see that Canada is about to recognize North Korea the last utterly repressive communist dictatorship in the world. Why would we do this I asked myself. The first thing I did was ignore all the reasons stated by Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy on the safe assumption that a member of the Liberal government would only tell the truth by accident. Then the light went on.Isn't AECL, formerly Atomic Energy Canada, the federal crown corp we've dumped billions into, trying to hustle a nuclear reactor to those lovely North Koreans who have nuclear weapons aimed at Japan? AECL is one of the more sordid bits of Canadian history. We can thank them for the fact that India, Pakistan, and China have nuclear capability ... and if the Iron Curtain hadn't fallen, Ceaucescu's Romania might have also so prospered from our generosity. Of course they all signed bits of paper saying that they would never ever use our technology for naughty things like bombs. AECL has been an enormous money loser and to this day gets a $100 million annual subsidy from taxpayers. It has just lost a potential sale to Turkey and needs to have a sale with North Korea being about the only country in the world a possible client. Of course we'll have to subsidy their construction of the plant ... that's what makes AECL so unique … first they spend millions buttering.up the client then they help him buy the plant. So look for an announcement soon that North Korea, until very recent times a world class pariah, has bought a nuclear plant from Canada.

There is a very troubling policy of a number of RCMP police detachments that the Attorney-General must attend to. It's called zero based tolerance for alcohol and driving. Now let's state flat out that drinking drivers are a terrible scourge. We all know that. But driving with a blood alcohol under .08 is not illegal unless you show signs of impairment ... if you do the police officer may give you a roadside suspension or even charge you with impaired driving if in his opinion you are. Fair enough. But while these roadblocks are being set up thousands of British Columbians are having one, perhaps two drinks of wine with a long dinner thus staying well within the tolerated limits. Now they come to one of these zero tolerance roadblocks. The officer asks the driver if he or she's been drinking and the driver says honestly that he had a glass of wine with dinner. Big mistake … for the officer then demands you get out of your car and take a test. You blow .02, let us say, well within the limit and the officer exercises his discretion and takes your car from you. This is not exercising any discretion at all but is enforcing a policy of the detachment that no one having had a drink will escape a roadside suspension. So what happens? Of course the driver denies having had a drink. Who wouldn't. Now if the policeman suspects the driver is lying he is forced to take a test and, when the lie is exposed, all hell breaks loose and the driver may well be charged with impaired driving, and all the cost that entails, not for a drinking offence but because he didn't tell the officer the truth. This is an incredible abuse of power. And my investigations indicate that this is happening. Now if it is society’s wish that there be zero tolerance they should pass a law saying precisely that. Then there would be no question. But if the police are going to enforce a zero tolerance - which is a clear abuse of the word "discretion" - then they shouldn't set their roadblocks up in neighbourhoods and highways but right outside restaurants and nail people the moment they get into their cars. This is clearly the most efficient way of capturing all those who have been responsible in their alcohol intake and are headed home. The government could go further, of course. They could make it an offence to serve anyone alcohol when they had reasonable and probable cause to believe that person might drive. That would mean a questioning of all those who arrived in their parking lot for dinner before a cocktail is served to ensure that they will not be driving. If there is to be zero tolerance, it must also be for every community in the province not just those selected by the RCMP. Over to you, attorney-general Andrew Petter.

Finally, I see that they original Maple Leaf flag to fly on the parliament buildings may be lost. I, for one, say who cares? While I supported, back in 1965, a new flag, I did not support that flag being the Liberal Party logo. It's red borders, symbolizing our oceans come up one ocean short. And the red maple leaf symbolizes the eastern maple not the one that grows in British Columbia. I have, therefore, had only feelings of mild resentment when I see the flag flown. A good national flag should symbolize the country it represents. Our flag doesn't do that. I suggest that if they ever do find that original flag it be donated to the National Liberal headquarters which it symbolizes and that we go to work designing a flag that has more than Ontario Liberals in mind.