Rahim Jaffer was no longer an MP when he was pulled over in September while speeding through the sleep Ontario town of Palgrave. An Ontario Provincial Police officer on traffic patrol pulled him over after clocking his vehicle travelling at over 90 km-h in a 50 km-h zone.
…officers noted “an odour of alcohol on the driver's breath,” OPP spokesman Const. Peter Leon told the media. He was given a breathalyzer test, arrested and then taken to the Caledon OPP station.
There, Mr. Jaffer provided two more breath samples and was detained for four hours.
According to the police, the tests registered more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in Mr. Jaffer's blood. The OPP also allegedly found cocaine during a search of the car.
Jaffer ended up facing a drunk driving charge and a charge of drug possession. Today, he was in court, after his lawyer and the Crown prosecutor reached a plea agreement:
Jaffer plead guilty on Tuesday to one count of careless driving and was fined $500 in an Orangeville, Ont., courtroom. Mr. Jaffer, 37, was initially charged with cocaine possession, impaired driving and speeding stemming from an incident last September in Palgrave, Ont., about 60 kilometres north of Toronto. Those charges were withdrawn Tuesday by the Crown, who said that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.
That news broke before lunch in Ottawa so, as MPs headed into Question Period just before 2 p.m., reporters wanted to know from Conservative MPs if the disposition of the case against their former colleague — he was a popular MP from 1997 to 2008 and was chair of the National Caucus — would affect the views Canadians had of the current government. None could answer that on the way into the House of Commons because, to a person, the two dozen or so stopped had not heard about the case. They'd heard about it by the end of Question Period, when Liberal MP Anita Neville of Winnipeg rose to ask:
Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): 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?
Even before she finished her question, the government benches were howling. I was sitting in the press gallery in the Commons during this question and saw and heard the Conservatives loudly shouting Neville down. Transport Minister John Baird thought the question was sleazy; Immigration Minister Jason Kenney shouted derisively, “classy, Anita!”; and the Minister of State for the Status of Women, Jaffer's spouse Helena Guergis, just started at Neville and shook her head. The Speaker tried to calm everyone down with little effect. Here is the exchange as it was recorded by the clerks in the House. It sounds about right to me against my notes but it was nearly impossible to hear the following exchange because of the yelling from both sides of the House …
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice. Order, please. Order, please.
Hon. Rob Nicholson: 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.
The Speaker: The hon member for Winnipeg South Centre. Order, please.
Hon. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): 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?
Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC): 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.
After Question Period, outside the House of Commons, MPs from all sides had more to say. The Conservatives, by and large, were not pleased and pretty much stuck to the last point that Nicholson had made in the House. Here, for example is Vic Toews, the public safety minister and former justice minister: “This is a provincial prosecution and you should ask the prosecution.” But, upon being pressed for a reaction, Toews adds an important qualifier: “I believe the Liberal – the Liberal government in Ontario would be responsible for that.”
Forget the law on this one. This is definitely about politics. Just to be clear: I'm not suggesting that politics were a factor in the disposition of the case — there's no evidence to suggest that the lawyers or judget were motivated by anything other than the appropriate application of the law — but it seems clear based on the back-and-forth in the House of Commons and in reaction by MPs, that the Jaffer case has given them some fodder with which to play politics.
Even the decisions of the judge in the case came under scrutiny. Joe Comartin, an NDP MP and lawyer, said, “I suppose the one criticism I have of the judge in this case is not insisting on an explanation as to why the more serious charges were not proceeded with. It is rare for a judge to refuse, you know, a plea agreement between defence and prosecutor, but this is one of the cases where I think he should have gone further.”
Comartin had more to say to reporters
“There isn't a Canadian in the country, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Jaffer, who doesn't feel that what happened today appears on the surface to be favorable treatment,” Comartin said outside the House of Commons. “There isn't a Canadian I think who would believe that he or she, faced with the same set of facts that Mr. Jaffer was faced with, would have at the very least had to go through a trial.
“The one-line explanation from the prosecutor that she felt that there wasn't sufficient evidence to get a conviction is simply not sufficient in these circumstances, especially with regards to the fact that it is admitted that [Jaffer] failed the breathalyser.” Comartin said that, unless the prosecution provides that explanation, the only conclusion to make is that the police officers who arrested Jaffer and investigated the matter messed up.”The police are being painted here with doing a sloppy job, that somehow they messed up the cocaine possession. That is the only other thing that you can conclude, that they somehow messed it up. That is not fair to them. If that in fact is the case, then tell us, but if it is not, you should not paint them with that brush.”Comartin said the judge should have insisted on a more complete explanation from the prosecution. “It is rare for a judge to refuse a plea agreement between defence and prosecutor, but this is one of the cases where I think he should have gone further,” Comartin said.
If Toews says its politics, and then says that we should go and ask the Liberal government of Ontario about the decision, does that mean that the Conservatives wanted Jaffer to end up behind bars?
If Joe Comartin is confused about how our justice system works he can ask his former colleagues Lorne Nystrom and Svend Robinson. They have the inside dope.
Wow Dave! Your bias is really starting to show through. Accusing a provincial judge and provincial prosecutor of corruption are some pretty serious charges. Is that what Iggy told you to say? Just asking.
Jeff is sooo obviously a conbot in action. It's so obvious, because he either cannot read, or went straight to comments before attempting to read. Both are defining characteristics of conbots online.
I don't remember all this howling when OPP Chief has his charges dropped with the same line from a prosecutor. This after the Liberal Premier of the Province had expressed his full support for the Chief prior to the trial.