It's caucus day on Parliament Hill. It will be the first time Prime Minister Stephen Harper has met with his own MPs since firing Helena Guergis last Friday. It also be the first time Guergis will not be allowed in that caucus meeting, as Harper suspended her from caucus as he fired her. Lots of activity on this file from lots of reporters chasing this story:
- The Ottawa Citizen has a roundup of where we start today, incorporating some of the angles other news organizations focused on yesterday.
“OTTAWA — As new information leaked out surrounding the scandal that forced her out of the Conservative caucus, Helena Guergis is rejecting allegations, made by the Liberals in the House of Commons, that her husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer, used her government car and chauffeur and was allowed to use her parliamentary office to conduct his private business… - CTV National News: Private Investigator source of Guergis allegations
The mysterious third party who uncovered serious allegations that led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to toss MP Helena Guergis out of caucus is a private investigator, CTV News has learned. Police sources say the licensed private eye contacted a Conservative Party lawyer in Toronto, and expressed concern about a potential threat of blackmail arising from allegations about the purchase and use of drugs . . . - CBC The National: Cops blew it in Jaffer case
The Crown felt it had no choice but to drop charges of cocaine possession and drunk driving against former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer in favour of a guilty plea on a lesser charge, due to how police handled the case, CBC News has learned. - The Toronto Star: Jaffer sought federal 'green' cash
Ex-MP Rahim Jaffer and his business partner met the Conservative parliamentary secretary in charge of a billion-dollar green infrastructure fund and submitted three projects for federal money without registering as lobbyists. - The Toronto Star: More salacious details about strip clubs and Jaffer's business partner from investigative reporter Kevin Donovan
In your Ottawa Citizen piece you write:
“New details emerge of Guergis, Jaffer affair
… The deal prompted a public outcry that Jaffer had received favourable treatment by the justice system. … “
May I remind you what may have prompted that public outcry?
“Jaffer judge is a Tory
by David Akin on Tue 09 Mar 2010” [blog post]
I wonder if all the professional commentators will apologize for concluding the Conservatives must have pulled some strings to get Jaffer that “sweetheart deal”.
I wonder if Liberal MP Anita Neville will apologize for saying this:
Hansard March 9: “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?”
Or Mark Holland on March 18:
“Strangely in the case of a past Conservative MP, we hear nothing but silence. The government’s “do the crime, do the time” mantra seems to change to “do the crime, pay the fine”, when it comes to one of its own.”
Those people quick in jumping to conclusions should be made to write 100 lines, like we used to do in elementary school:
“I must not shoot off my big mouth until I have all the facts”.
In the Toronto Star story “Rahim Jaffer sought federal ‘green’ cash”:
“… Public office holders such as MPs are prohibited from lobbying for five years after they leave office. …”
However, according to the “Lobbying Act Implementation Notice #2 Designated Public Office Holders Date: February 1, 2009” MPs are NOT listed as “designated public office holder” (DPOH).
If I misread that notice, MPs can apply for an exemption, anyway.
“ … After an individual ceases to be a DPOH, they are subject to a five-year post-employment prohibition on lobbying; however, they may apply to the Commissioner of Lobbying for an exemption from this prohibition. …”
So the TorStar is not quite accurate in saying “MPs are prohibited from lobbying for five years”.
It has yet to be proven that there was any lobbying going on, anyway. It has been insinuated, again by that paragon of circumspection, MP Mark Holland — but not proven.
Agreed, there's nothing here. I think Harper just took the opportunity to toss her, and sent the RCMP after her so that the Libs would spend a couple weeks chasing a straw-man. Of course, I could be wrong. But it seems that Harper is (almost) always a step ahead of the opposition.
At Dust my Broom:
http://dustmybroom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13479:maybe-mickey-i-cant-pronounce-qguergisq&catid=110:laughing-at-you
'Maybe Mickey I. can't pronounce “Guergis”
…One wonders whether the oh-so-progressive and feminist Toronto Star (or any other media outlet) will look askance at the Mickster's referring to a female politician as a “missus”.'
Mark
Ottawa