Photo Credit: David Akin, Canwest News Service
Now that Helena Guergis has taken shelter in the obscurity of the back row in the House of Commons, a place that many a politician has spent years in hiding, the investigation into her alleged impropriety has hit a brick wall. That’s because despite the gnashing of teeth and wailing coming from the opposition, Ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has turned down Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s request to investigate Ms.Guergis.
Stephen Harper did the right thing by inviting the investigation into what appeared to be a potential violation of parliamentary ethics of the recently deposed Cabinet Minister, since an article that ran in the Toronto Star implicated her husband, Rahim Jaffer, in some unsavoury allegations.
But Mary Dawson, who investigates allegations of conflicts of interest for those who hold public office, said that based on the information she has been given, there is no reason to proceed with an inquiry at this time. This isn’t an outright exoneration of the politician, but it does mean that at this time there are no allegations that hold enough credibility to warrant an investigation into suspicions she may have abused the power of her parliamentary access to further the interests of herself or her husband.
Nor will the commissioner follow up on a partisan request to look into Helena Guergis’s purchase of an $880,000 home she acquired in the capital.
The only new information we have seen since the feeding frenzy all began is the statement by Stephen Harper that he had learned of “third party” information that caused him to change his mind about defending Ms.Guergis. The Conservatives have refused to say what this information is, or who it is from, citing the RCMP investigation.
Meanwhile, a friend of the couple who was with Mr.Jaffer on the night of his arrest, Patrick Glemaud, has come out in opposition to the media attacks on the two.
“This has becoming so crazy, they cannot believe something like that. Rahim did not take a penny of taxpayer dollars, Rahim did not make a penny from any of his past connections from the Conservatives.”
Nazim Gallani, the man accused of being at the strip club with Rahim Jaffer and “three busty hookers” in the Toronto Star article, had his lawyer tell the media that nothing untoward was being discussed about Mr.Jaffer’s relationship with the Conservative Party.
Brian Kilgore, lawyer and spokesman for Mr.Gallani, questioned why the Star article mentioned the presence of “busty hookers” on the evening Mr.Jaffer was arrested.
“We know there were women there, but they were not paid escorts, they were not hookers, they were not women of the evening,” Mr.Kilgore said.
Even if they were prostitutes, the Toronto Star has yet to explain why the oddly dated vernacular was used in conjunction with the description of their physical endowments. Since the term wasn’t put in quotations, we can only assume that the writer, Kevin Donovan, invented the term himself. This is inconsistent with the Star’s more usually politically correct designation for prostitutes as “sex-trade workers”, and although they do use the word “hookers” in some articles, this was the first time physical description was included.
Although criminal allegations of Mr.Jaffer and Ms.Guergis are under investigation by the RCMP, and that remains the important focus of this issue, perhaps the ethics of the “busty hookers” term should be similarly investigated from a journalistic standpoint at some time in the near future.
I’d say somehow PMSH has managed to get Ms. Guergis removed from Cabinet (and Caucus?) without actually having to endure an investigation by the Ethics Commissioner. That’s a neat trick, but I don’t know if it isn’t just a temporary reprieve. While I’d agree that Ms. Guergis’ mortgage details are nobodies business except her and her bank, it really does raise questions about what exactly the Ethics Commissioner is good for, if not for these kind of cases. If the transgressions actually do rise to actual law-breaking, surely that then becomes a matter for police; for these matters that fall short of that, shouldn’t the Ethics Commissioner be able to exercise some sanction?
Perhaps it is simply that the criminal complaint relates to Jaffer, and the ethics complaint, which relates to Guergis, could only be investigated if the criminal complaint were proven.
Or perhaps the criminal complaint relates to the person who has started all these stories about influence peddling, and Guergis is simply taking a time-out here. Even with some of the trivia out there, details are coming out such as the mortgage details, the address, the house tour, the invoices that are part of an as yet unapproved elections expense. Not to mention all the letters which were actually written over a lengthy period, but emerged together a couple of weeks ago. Sure seems like someone is working hard on this.
In any case, I think Jaffer’s partner made a good point today when he complained that his reputation is being destroyed by the Liberals in the House of Commons under the protection of parliamentary privilege. This abuse of privilege keeps happening over and over again, and I think if it were abolished, we might have a less raucous and contentious parliament.
The Ethics Commissioner only said so far:
1) she would not investigate the mortgage, a question referred to her earlier last week (and rightly so, as far as we know, as this seems to be out of her mandate); and
2) if the RCMP was investigating something, she would not do so concurrently.
She DID not say anything at all about what was referred to her on Friday, April 9th, except for 2) above.
Be very careful, as the MSM changed their reporting to deliberately leave out the fact that it was only the mortgage the Commissioner would not investigate. She has said nothing with respect to whatever the PM brought to her attention, except to articulate what the law is. That is, if the RCMP is investigating certain allegations, she will not; if there are other allegations not being investigated by the RCMP, I am sure that she will claim jurisdiction.
All of this is completely appropriate procedure. The press leaves a hint that there is some problem here, but there is none.
Rather sad: Liberals hate attractive conservatives. Fine, we attractive conservative women will ensure that neither the Liebrals not the NDP/BLOB/Greenies get anywhere near the coffers of Canada! Bring on the busty bras!!! We always wore ours when the anciene Librral girls burned theirs and we got our man!
In any case, I think Jaffer’s partner made a good point today when he complained that his reputation is being destroyed by the Liberals in the House of Commons under the protection of parliamentary privilege. This abuse of privilege keeps happening over and over again, and I think if it were abolished, we might have a less raucous and contentious parliament.
This is a good point. I’m assuming the initial reasoning for parliamentary privilege was to stop the majority from ‘criminalizing’ minority opposition by the use of its legislative powers. But the abuse of Parliamentary privilege outside of the House, I think, is a legitimate concern for the Ethics Commissioner to examine, but as we’ve seen its probably useless to expect any actual action. Maybe just the threat of action would be enough to ‘chill’ Parliamentarians from accusing Citizens of law-breaking without the usual slander/libel laws applying.
The press is running on rumours and innuendo, and the facts are just a casualty of the reportage. When there are no facts, or no one is talking, just use “unnamed sources” and “insiders say”… they could just be making up crap, no way to know.
Just like the article in the Sun pointing out that Guergis spend around $250,000 on travel over the years 2006 – 2010, what they leave out is more important, that the Ministers for the Status of Women from 2004 – 2007 spend $230,000 on travel. So the article puts Guergis in a poor light and is just plain dishonest and mean spirited. All most media consumers will see is the “quarter of a million dollars” and not wonder if this is normal… because the reporter does not want it to sound normal, she wants it to sound exorbitant.
Helena’s removal from caucus might be a ploy to finally expose the Liberals and the media.
Helena’s independent seating now allows her to lawyer up and bring suit against those that have brought false claims against her and Rahim.
Folks things are going to get quite interesting withe the RCMP investigation, the usual suspects better have the facts to back their claims.
The main point here is that this story is about to turn and if the outcome is that its proven that there was a conspiracy to slander a government minister, Harper can bring down the hammer just as hard on the miscreant as he did on Guergis.
The silveback in the corner however is the name and political affliation of who the conspirators would then be.
Regardless, somebody would end up having their political arse kicked.
The disappearing article where Liberals tried to prove Cons did a no no, but came up red faced….poof, it’s gone, except on my screen!
and has mysteriously morphed into link below. But this is what it used to look like:
Liberals link Jaffer to federal contracts
Company connected to former MP’s business partner won $2.7 million in government projects, Opposition says
By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau | UPDATED 5:55 p.m.
Tue. Apr 13 – 4:46 PM
OTTAWA — A company linked to Rahim Jaffer’s business partner has won $2.7 million in contracts with the federal government since the Conservatives took power, a link the Liberals used Tuesday to suggest people connected with the former MP may have improperly benefited from a relationship with the government.
(OOPS):
But the same firm has worked for previous Liberal governments, and Jaffer’s partner only started working for the company in 2009, after it won many of the contracts, blunting the Liberal attack in the House.
The Liberals produced paperwork showing that BMCI Consulting Inc. has won more than 50 contracts with the Conservative government, and did two sensitive security investigations for the government — one on the Maxime Bernier affair, the other on a leak of information from the Canadian consulate in Chicago that damaged the Democratic leadership campaign of Barrack Obama.
Ottawa lawyer, businessman and former Conservative candidate Patrick Glemaud, who works for BMCI, is Jaffer’s business partner in Green Power Generation Corporation.
“How many firms are there in Canada with less than 10 professionals that have received more than $3 million of federal government contracts since the government came into power?” said Liberal MP Mark Holland in question period. “Can the minister name a single one, other than Rahim Jaffer’s business partner and Conservative Party candidate’s BMCI?”
But Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said later that the Liberals are playing politics, smearing the name of a company that their governments also hired.
“The firm does this kind of work,” he said. “It has done this kind of work for years under previous governments. Whether it’s Health Canada, the auditor general, the RCMP. The list goes on. They’re playing politics. That’s what opposition parties do. But to try to imply some sort of guilt for a well-known Ottawa firm, which I don’t think the firm will take kindly to. There’s nothing improper here at all.”
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9016043.html
Marlene Jennings is vulnerable on another front – they do have a lot of nerve to be critical but MSM covers for them rather than exposing them as the frauds they are.
Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine) – Jennings’ own husband, Luciano Del Negro, was appointed by the Liberals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada Gazette, Vol. 139, No. 22 — May 28, 2005)
Stephen Maher is another “reporter” who seems to have a hatchet to grind with the current government. I don’t know why these so called “reporters” can’t do a little leg work before they publish. Perhaps it is because the pap they are fed by the opposition actually reinforces their own perception of the Conservatives. Therefore they don’t think they have to dig further to find the truth, they just accept the information as gospel and move on to the next smear.
The ‘mainstream’ media in Ottawa is really just an extension of the Liberal Party.
They are the main player in the Scandal-of-the-day strategy adopted by the Libs ever since they lost power.
How many of these has there been now without any real legs?
I live and vote in the riding once held by Jaffer (Edmonton Strathcona). I am an independent voter; meaning I vote for the best possible candidate and not a party, and also meaning I am not into the stupid petty politics that most of you are into on this site, like a bunch of schoolchildren, both Conservatives and Liberals. I own a small business and I don’t apply for a penny of government funding at any level. A good businessperson doesn’t need any help. Period. End of discussion. Most of you are into the gravy train. As far as the media, is there any newspaper in Canada that is not biased one way or the other? Any radio station? Any television or cable company? Sadly Canada has turned into a lose-lose country with the politics and polarization of the media, right and left. There is no ‘reasonable’ center movement left in this country.