CKNW Editorial
for February 23, 2001

Three items this morning in the "O what a tangled web we weave" department.

Earlier in the week I told you about the server in a Horseshoe Bay restaurant who was dressed down by a policeman after she had served a beer to another man who had not eaten any food. I’m now told that this is no longer against the law. But I have no doubt that the incident happened. Could it be that the police (not, apparently, the West Van police) just goofed and didn’t know the law had changed? Was all this at the instigation of a nearby rival restaurant? We’ll continue to press for answers.

In response to my pointing out that the West Vancouver police are having a field day ticketing motorists for going over 40 clicks on the Lions Gate Bridge even though there hadn’t been a worker near the place for a month, I’m advised that the speed limit is being enforced because there are bumps on the bridge and it is narrower in places. There are a couple of bumps, I grant you, but pretty minor stuff and for a few feet the bridge is narrower by a couple of inches. But this raises some interesting questions. Can you maintain a "construction" zone when there is no construction going on? Remember, if you offend in a construction zone the fine is doubled. This is to protect the workers. But there are no workers to protect. Surely this must mean that the double pay rule is relaxed. But can the police do this on their own authority?

Oh, and incidentally, on the electric signs as you enter the bridge it is announced that there are workers on the bridge which just isn’t so. If you ask me, this is just a bunch of cheap, revenue producing pinches and police big daddy authoritarianism.

On the larger front, let us suppose that Prime Minster Chretien had libeled a lawyer by associating him with the crimes of a client he represented. And supposing the government had paid his legal fees of $300,000. And suppose the law firm who defended him gave $70,000 to the Prime Minister’s party as a campaign contribution. What would Stockwell Day and the Alliance front bench be hollering at Mr Chretien at every opportunity?

They would, of course, call upon him to resign – and that would be fair. So why is it any different for Mr Day?

This issue will dog Stockwell Day as well it should. And there are several issues here. There is the one I just mentioned. But there is also the issue of why the Alberta taxpayer should foot the bill for a libel suit which in no way was connected to Mr Day’s duties as Provincial Treasurer?

The theory behind paying for legal defences is that the matter being defended against arose out of ministerial duties. Here this was plain and simple and very private stupidity.

And that raises the fundamental question. The lawyer who sued Mr Day was defending a morals case. Doesn’t Stockwell Day understand what a lawyer does? Doesn’t he know that no matter what the charge, a person is entitled to a defence? And that it would be a denial of everything we stand for if a lawyer couldn’t provide defences for unpopular people and causes without getting personally tainted by the person or the cause? Is this how dumb the man who wishes to be prime minister is?

I believe that the Alliance and its supporters have been hoodwinked by this man’s good looks and charm. Behind that glossy exterior, I’m becoming persuaded there is very little substance.

In fairness, Mr Day was caught by a sudden election and he had neither the time nor the wit to get his balance … though, in fairness to the Liberals, Mr Day begged them to go to the polls. I think they would have gone anyway but the point is that Mr Day sought just what he got, a sound thrashing.

The Alliance ran a dumb campaign. Since the time of Lester Pearson, all but one of our prime ministers have been Roman Catholics and the exception, Kim Campbell, was only there for a split second but never has religion nor the incandescent abortion question ever been an issue. Yet within 24 hours of the last election, Stockwell Day was not only stuck with the abortion issue but he was accused of standing for a referendum on the issue. His political naivete took the breath away. The result of course was a near shut-out in Ontario and Day was chosen leader because Preston Manning couldn’t do anything in Ontario.

Quite frankly, I don’t think the Alliance can recapture their initiative with Mr Day at the helm. They have already lost the effectiveness in question period of Deborah Grey after her pension flip flop and here we have Stockwell Day having to leave the questioning of Chretien’s moral failings to Joe Clark.

As the man said – here we have a man of promise reduced to a man of promises. If the Alliance has any brains – and that question is still open to debate – they will give Stockwell Day the bronze handshake (the one given to Jim Hart who stood aside of Day’s by-election will do), tell Preston Manning that it was all a horrible mistake, and beg him to come back.