CKNW Editorial
for December 10, 2001

Every so often I think I should review what this program's policy is so no one can ever be in doubt.

A couple of weeks ago my producers and I were having our regular daily post mortem when one of them said, "this is marvelous. The Victoria cabinet are all so cooperative about coming on the show ... it's so different from that Ottawa bunch." My reply was, "just wait ... it won't be long." And it wasn't. Last week Geoff Plant, the Attorney-General, refused to come on the show even for a short "phoner" on the aboriginal referendum.

People who do my sort of work - raw, down and dirty politics - have different styles. It is not for me to comment upon, much less criticize the styles of others but I can only tell you mine ...which is now etched in 21 years of practice.

I am a cross examiner by instinct and practice. That is not to say I think that politicians are always lying - though they probably are - but that the truth is best reached by vigorously testing all propositions put forward. By definition, it is not always a pleasant style. Many, though by no means all, politicians find it so unpleasant that they avoid it.

One more thing before I get down to business here. Many politicians, including all Federal Liberals, think that by avoiding me they are punishing me ... that my ratings will surely tumble. I can tell you honestly that even if that were true I couldn't change my ways ... I'd just have been put out of business long ago. This is simply not a consideration for us. Indeed, sometimes the federal Liberals ask us to take on one of their good news bears ... you know, the minister whom no one has heard of who is in BC to present a cheque to some or other cause. We have made it clear - it's either everyone, from the Prime Minister down or its no one. While it's not a consideration I must say it doesn't seemed to have adversely affected my ratings.

One minister, David Anderson. has offered to come on the show if I were to apologize for, some years ago, calling Hedy Fry a political whore - which she clearly is. No deal.

John Manley, who made a rare acceptance to come on the show after September 11, demanded that we not open the lines to him. Since it was only a half hour interview I really had no intention of doing so but on my instructions Mr Manley was told "no deal". And I opened the lines. Yes, I would love to have ministers on from time to time but I'm not prepared to compromise principle at all and I'm not prepared to change my style - which I couldn't if I wanted to.

What politicians - and indeed perhaps some broadcasters - don't recognize is that a slow pitch interview of a politician, even the prime minister ...hell, especially the prime minister ... is dull as hell. His flunkies love it of course but no one else does.

Geoff Plant has had trouble with me from the beginning of his political career. I don't know the man though I knew his father and much admired and liked him. I went to school with his aunt and uncle and liked them very much. So, at least on my part, there's nothing personal. Mr Plant brings to politics and his office many skills - unhappily he lacks one vital ingredient for political success - a thick skin. Mr Plant has, I think, the thinnest political skin I can remember. He constantly takes attacks on what he has done as attacks on his integrity. Lawyers are often like that - it's something I had to fight when I was in politics.

Back when Mr Plant was in opposition, he sat on a Legislative Aboriginal Affairs Committee and had appear before him an aboriginal group whom he had previously advised as a lawyer in private practice. They took some umbrage at seeing their own lawyer sitting in judgment of them and said so. So did I. Mr Plant took it very badly.

The Liberals, when in opposition, made a great fuss, rightly, about government interfering with decisions made by the Workers Compensation Board. The Liberals had hardly found their offices after the election when they blatantly interfered with the WCB smoking ban. Mr Plant and I had a strong exchange of vies of the matter which he clearly took personally.

Then there was the Nisga'a Case where Mr Plant, Mr Campbell and Mr DeJong brought a lawsuit. Without any question the public was led to believe that this challenge was part of strict Liberal policy. After the election they quickly backed off in a clearly political move with Mr Plant saying that now they were government, they could not by the terms of the agreement, challenge it. Mr Plant found it offensive that I would point out that under the legislation he didn't have to challenge the treaty, he could simply, and neutrally refer it to the court. Those who heard the Premier on this show tap dancing around this subject will know just how embarrassed the government is and they might well suspect, as I do, that a deal was struck with Ottawa which might well result in the feds lifting their moratorium on off shore oil and gas drilling in exchange for their provincial buddies backing off the Nisga'a case.

When the Premier criticized a judge's decision in a bail hearing, for which he was publicly criticized by his Attorney-General, Mr Plant got right huffy when I supported the Premier.

In all events, now Mr Plant finds it uncomfortable to face you and me on this ridiculous referendum that's going to cost $19 million. He knows what the questions will be ... and he especially knows that just as the Liberals in opposition rightly tied NDP failure in Health Care to the Fast ferries fiasco, I would ask awkward questions about how a government can afford to waste $19 million on this silly referendum exercise yet can't afford $300,000 for a mental health advocate and is cutting back services to children by 40%.

And here we get to the nub of the matter. It is in the nature of attorneys-general to think they can remove themselves from political decisions and pretend that the ones they make are strictly legal only. Yet it's not true, as the WCB, Nisga'a, and referendum issues demonstrate. They may have been couched in terms legalese but they were political as hell. Over the past few years I have seen an attorney-general swear a false affidavit then have himself investigated by a lawyer who earned $150,000 in fees from the Attorney-general's own ministry and I've watched an Attorney-General stonewall for a premier who was under a criminal investigation who should have been advised to resign by that attorney-general.

The trouble for Mr Plant is the same as faces the Bench. The veil has been lifted. The public is no longer prepared to accept as explanations from lawyers and judges, retreats into a dignified huff. Their gowns, lingo and past immunity from criticism no longer count with a public who sees through them.

Do I attack Mr Plant's integrity?

That's for him to determine. What I do is refuse to cut any slack for Attorneys-General ... or judges for that matter ... because they've always been given it. If Mr Plant, for example, wants to assume that because I didn't think he was being entirely honest with my audience over the Nisga'a case that I was attacking his integrity, so be it. From my point of view I was simply cross-examining a politician that I thought, and still think, was fudging the truth.

Our policy will continue - an open door to all politicians but no deals. None.