CKNW Editorial
for February 7, 2001

I’m going to speak in a moment in somewhat philosophical terms about this show and my role. But first a word about the Carrier decision. I urge everyone to read that decision which is on the Internet.

This decision tells of the conduct of all four NDP premiers and at least one cabinet minister. Their conduct was so mendacious, so egregiously evil, that even if the rest of the actions of this ten year old government were all good and the province was well off – and God knows that’s scarcely the case - it should be sent packing for this case alone. The government and its ministers lied, cheated and withheld information from both the plaintiff and ultimately from the court itself. Even when it was caught out, dead to rights, the NDP government refused to own up and pay damages but stonewalled and did everything it could do to thwart the course of justice. It would be hard to find, even with the most careful scrutiny of the history of politics in this country, anything quite as evil as the NDP's handling of this matter. And, of course, there is no penalty. The four premiers and at least one cabinet ministers involved in this government swindle – for swindle it was – all go scot free. Harcourt, Clark, Miller, Dosanjh, and Zirnhelt who all, either as premier of the province or line minister, participated in this breathtaking breach of trust and subversive behaviour ought all to hang their heads in shame.

I think it may be time to review what I do for a living and my role in the community. I say this for a couple of reasons.

Last week, on a number of occasions, I stated that it would be a bad thing if there were no opposition after the next election. This upset a number of listeners who think that is tantamount to working for the NDP. The fact is that not only have I never voted NDP in my life, but I went into public life to get rid of the Dave Barrett government. What is, I think, nchallengeable in any serious way, is that our system, appallingly bad at the best of times, requires a strong opposition if it is to work at all. All public policy must be challenged and while the media does a lot of holding government feet to the fire, quite often they don't have a proper grasp of the issues until they have been aired in Question Period or in debates.

I have come under criticism for taking the Canadian Alliance to task. I have made the point that Stockwell Day has been weakened by his lousy showing in Ontario. Given that he beat out Preston Manning because Mr Manning couldn't win in Ontario surely it's a fair observation that Mr Day did not do very well.

Mr Day libeled a lawyer in Alberta over a matter that had absolutely nothing to do with his job as Provincial Treasurer and the Alberta government picked up the nearly one million dollar tab for him. Given Mr Day's constant carping about fiscal responsibility and his strong criticism of Liberal government waste surely he leaves himself vulnerable to some pretty heavy criticism when he accepts a tax paid fortune to defend him from ill-chosen words expressed outside his ministerial duties.

And what about Deborah Grey who built a terrific reputation as a critic by standing four square against the gold plated pension plan, then joined it? She had an option - she could have said

no. But, after accusing the Liberals of having their snouts in the feeder, and hurling oink! oink! across the floor at the government benches at every opportunity, Ms Grey abandoned her principled stand and jumped into the trough with the rest of them. Is it expected that because my criticism is awkward for the Alliance that I ought not to utter it?

The trouble I'm in with some listeners is that positions I have taken are, in a backhanded way to be sure, lending support to the NDP on the one hand and the Liberals on the other. This is to say that I have a responsibility to be partisan ... that I mustn't do anything that might encourage the forces of evil ... the forces of evil being the BC NDP and the federal Liberals. (I might add that I haven't voted Liberal since 1965.)

My job, as I have always seen it, is to be, in addition to a presenter of entertainment, a commentator on public affairs. In being that, I have never pretended to be anything that I am not. I'm not a political neutral and I would not be true to myself, nor would I have any credibility if I pretended to be.

Let me give three examples from my career in broadcasting to demonstrate what I mean.

In the Meech Lake/Charlottetown Accord business I took the "no" side as emphatically as I could. I pretended no even-handedness because I am not, and have never pretended to be, a journalist ... at least not in the accepted definition of that word.

With the Kemano Completion Project I took a very active and public stance against the right of a company to seriously impair if not destroy a salmon run and helped stop a billion dollar project. While I always held the door open for Alcan representatives to come on the show and make their case, I was far from neutral.

Then there was the Upper Pitt River gravel mine issue where, rather late in the day, I joined with the opponents of this operation with all the energy I could muster.

In doing these things I was simply doing my job ... calling into question those in authority and calling issues as I saw them. If I was wrong there was no shortage of people to say so.

When I was much younger and seeking a Socred nomination in Kamloops I used to love reading the late Marjorie Nichols as, every night in the Vancouver Sun, she bashed then Premier Dave Barrett around. It was great fun. Then I lucked out and went into the government and couldn't believe it when Marjorie started calling into question decisions we were making!

What was wrong with Marjorie, I asked myself. Does she want Dave Barrett and the NDP back?

Then the light dawned - it was the business of the public to vote
governments in and out. It was Marjorie's job to look at the issues with a jaundiced eye and put the government to its proof, no matter who that government was.

Those who criticize my remarks about the Canadian Alliance and the provincial Liberals perhaps don't think about it but they display a lot of arrogance ... for they're saying "look here, I understand that Rafe is not plumping for the NDP or the federal Liberals but the rest of the people who vote are too stupid to understand".

The fact is that we live in a society that prides itself on the free
exchange of ideas. If one is going to play a role in that process he or she must have credibility. Having credibility is not being right all the time or even most of the time ... or even ever. Credibility comes from speaking your mind ... calling 'em as you see 'em. The moment I were to tailor my comments to suit some particular agenda I would lose all right to have an audience.

I think most listeners understand that.