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But the cocaine and drunk driving charges were withdrawn before the charges were ever brought to court.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.
