Photo: Globe and Mail

People across Canada were understandably angry yesterday when former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, caught speeding in Ontario last fall while under the influence and in possession of cocaine, was handed down a relatively lenient sentence of $500 by Judge Doug Maund. Immediate reaction ranged from disbelief, to accusations of Conservative influence peddling. Many actually attested to their belief that there are some rules for regular citizens, and then others for members of the Conservative Party.

The truth couldn’t farther from this fiction. The fact is that most Conservatives have been shrinking away from this unpleasantness, and disassociating themselves from Mr.Jaffer as much as they possibly can. If anything, many Conservatives have, if not publicly, then in private, expressed concerns of a political backlash over seeing Rahim Jaffer get away with what amounts to a rather serious charge.

The Conservatives were particularly irked yesterday, when in the House of Commons, Liberal MP Anita Neville stood and demanded to know what the party thought about the light sentence. Rather than respond to the question, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson demanded an apology, twice, before the floor moved on to other matters.

The controversy was compounded yesterday by a blog entry by journalist David Akin, who in responding to federal Conservative MP Vic Toews’ observation that it was a Liberal administration in Ontario responsible for the case, pointed out that the judge presiding over the case has Conservative roots. Mr.Akin later said that he hadn’t intended to cast aspersions on the judge; only that he was responding to Mr.Toews’ observation with one of his own.

Well, that may be so, but the fact of the matter is that Vic Toews wasn’t accusing the Liberals of having influence over the case. He was making a comment about the fact that the Conservatives not only do not have any influence on the case, but that the jurisdiction is a province governed by a Liberal party.

Would it have been best if he hadn’t said anything at all? Well, yes, it probably would. But that would hardly have stopped the accusations of Conservative influence over the decision, which have precipitated as a result of the “observation” of the judge’s conservative background anyway. In layman’s terms, we call these kinds of things “smears”. When you make an observation that is largely irrelevant to a proceeding, and then follow it up with a disclaimer ["I'm not suggesting that politics were a factor in the disposition of the case"], you can’t expect people not to infer the meaning anyway.

Vic Toews took exception to David Akin’s observation, reposted by Mr.Akin himself on the National Post today. Kady O’Malley calls his response an over-reaction [without a hint of self-irony]. She’s right in a way. It might have been better advised to simply let this matter die. But it would appear that, if anything, the story is gathering traction.

The fact is that a lot of conservatives are upset with the verdict. Tim powers writes in the the Globe today that an explanation is owed in order to pacify “perplexed and infuriated” observers. NDP MP for Windsor–Tecumseh, Joe Comartin, also demanded answers, but was quite clear that he wasn’t making this a partisan issue:

“I’m inclined to think that there is no reason to be suspicious that there was political interference or anything of that sort but I think it behooves the prosecutor … or Ontario’s Attorney-General to tell the Canadian people why this happened.”

Adam Rawanski may finally be the sole voice of reason. Saying he can’t quite believe he is defending a Conservative, from all people, Tim Powers, he suggests “it might be a good time for the rest of us – including former political opponents scoring cheap points – to move on. “

As everyone knows by now, former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer pleaded guilty to careless driving this morning and was given a rather tiny fine of $500. The former Edmonton MP was charged in September with possession of cocaine and driving under the influence after being stopped for driving 93 km/h in a 50 zone.

But the cocaine and drunk driving charges were withdrawn before the charges were ever brought to court. According to the prosecution, there was no reasonable possibility of conviction on the serious charges, citing “significant legal issues” impeding the case.

Whatever that means. I mean, if you can’t nail a guy caught red-handed with coke while driving drunk and speeding, then there’s not much point to the legal system, is there?

But as for blaming the judge, or accusing him of being a Tory, which is exactly what journalist David Akin does, it seems a little misguided. Since the coke and drunk driving charges were tossed out, the charge was reduced to “careless driving”. Not exactly your crime of the century here.

When put in context of driving drunk with cocaine in the car and speeding, it sounds bad. But Judge Doug Maund was forced to look at the facts before him, not the cocaine or the alcohol, and certainly not Helena Guergis’s airport meltdown in Prince Edward Island, which I’m sure is contributing to some of the public backlash in the ruling. And the facts were that this was a first-time offender with a record of public service and no criminal background.

As for Rahim Jaffer, he only addressed the careless driving conviction outside of the court.

“I should have been more careful. I’m sorry. I know this is a serious matter,” he said. “Once again I apologize for that and I take full responsibility for my careless driving.”

It would have been better if he hadn’t spoken at all. Nobody really cares that he was caught speeding. We’ve all been there. No, the press was there to get an apology for taking cocaine and driving drunk. But since he got those charges tossed, the best thing to say would have been “no comment”. Saying “I should have been more careful” almost implies he should have taken the back roads during his drunk coked up joy ride.

The Liberal Party, fully trying to make the poor choices of Mr.Jaffer’s private life a public embarrassment to the Conservative Party, saw fit that Winnipeg MP Anita Neville, rather inappropriately, got up in the House of Commons today and said the following:

“Mr. Speaker, members of the government are always quick to comment on any court judgment that does not align with their ‘get tough on crime’ rhetoric. They always say, ‘You do the crime, you do the time’. What then is the government’s comment on a dangerous driver, in possession of illicit drugs who gets off with no record and a $500 slap on the wrist?”

Naturally, the floor went into an uproar as the Conservatives called shame on the Liberal Member. After quite some time, the Speaker, Peter Milliken, restored order. Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson, responding to the charge, seemed genuinely surprised by the smear. He began to answer, but the murmurs continued to drown him out.

“I almost do not know where to begin to comment on such an irresponsible question, Mr. Speaker. The government initiated the Director of Public Prosecutions for the very reason to make sure there would never be any political interference of any prosecution in this country. That should have the support of the hon. member, and she should get up, withdraw and apologize for that comment.”

Anita Neville was given a choice to apologize, though I don’t think anyone expected she would, as the House of Commons continued to rumble with the sounds of backbenchers yelling at one another from across the great hall.

“Mr. Speaker, what a hypocritical answer this minister gives. The government tries to pass the buck and the Conservatives are conspicuously silent, only when the law is being flouted by one of their own. Even the judge thought this was a ‘break’. Why the double standard? Nothing stopped them from commenting before. Does the government really believe that the punishment fits the crime?”

The return jab, being more predictable this time, elicited a lesser response of outrage. With the Minister of Justice being more composed, he returned the volley and repeated his demand for an apology from the Winnipeg Member for Parliament.

“Mr. Speaker, that is about as low as one can go, in my opinion. This hon. member is talking about a provincial prosecution in front of a provincial judge within the appeal period, and she is asking us to comment. That is completely irresponsible and she should apologize to this House.”

In the hours succeeding this answer, some people have inferred that Mr.Nicholson was taking a shot at the Liberal McGuinty government by pointing out, quite correctly, that the Jaffer case was a provincial matter before the Ontario courts.

Whatever the case, it is amazing how much animus has been drawn from all sides over the actions of a private individual no longer working with the federal Conservative government. And while we may all find his lenient sentencing distasteful, it is even more unbecoming that the Liberal Party tried to use this issue to smear the Conservative government in Question Period today.

Photo: MP Helena Guergis is questioned by reporters, September 17, 2009. Pawel Dwulit / The Canadian Press.

This is too much, even for unabashed partisan Liberals, to handle. Are we now expected to go on a 24-hour Helena Guergis rage watch, just over one incident? It has been 11 days since the Minister for the Status of Women flew into a rage at Prince Edward Island airport. Stay tuned for breaking news and mounting casualties.

I mean, really, what could be more pointless? It has now been 14 years since former Prime Minister Jean Chretien put his mittens around a protesters neck and began choking the life out of him. You don’t see the news reporting stories like this:

“Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien was at a Liberal fundraiser today to give a speech meant to rally the party around Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Mr.Chretien managed to get through the entire speech without once choking anyone from the audience.”

But if the Ottawa Citizen is guilty of flogging a dead horse, the Liberals are just as ready with the whip. In the CBC today, the Liberal party has announced its intention to call for a “formal investigation” into the temper tantrum thrown by Ms.Guergis on February 19. Sadly, I’m not making this up.

The Liberals are so interested to get to the bottom of the airport rage incident, they have filed an Access to Information request to acquire copies of the security video. For what purpose, or how it pertains to the job of holding the Conservative government to account on its record, is a complete mystery.

The Liberal critic for the Status of Women, Anita Neville, said Ms.Guergis could have violated Canadian aviation regulations with her argumentative and belligerent behaviour that could have put passenger safety at risk.

Boy, if that isn’t stretching the fabric of truth to the physical limitations of science, I don’t know what is.

There’s no question that the minister acted inappropriately, and that she caused embarrassment to herself and to her party. But to say that she violated “aviation regulations” and put passengers at risk is more than just a little over the top. It’s like asking someone to step down from their job because they got angry and argued with a policeman for issuing them a speeding ticket.

You would think with the current Liberal agenda of changing the rules of prorogation and getting the detainee committee back together, that a personal outburst in an airport would rank fairly low on the priority list. But as this party has demonstrated with “Wafergate”, the aboriginal body bag incident, and of course bathroom breaks during G8 photo-ops, there’s nothing too insignificant for the Liberal Party to demand an investigation for.

Now, if Stephen Harper really believes that the incident has damaged the reputation of the office for the Status of Women to the extent that Helena Guergis needs to be removed, I’m sure that will take place in the next cabinet rotation. Or better yet, they could save $25 million and axe the whole ministry in the name of balancing the books. But all a formal investigation is likely to prove is that Helena Guergis is a human being, and like all human beings, not immune to making mistakes.