You have only to attend the House of Commons on Wednesday afternoons to wonder why it bothers to sit at all. Every party caucus meets Wednesday mornings and by the time the House resumes after lunch, MPs generally behave like unruly kids in a schoolyard. Correction – schoolyards have adult supervision, the House has only the speaker, Peter Milliken, who has often noted but been unable to curb the bad behaviour of his parliamentary children.
It isn’t that the House lacks rules steeped in Westminster tradition, but especially on Wednesdays they are noted more in the breach than the observance. Last Wednesday’s parliamentary performance was among the most revolting in recent times.
Question period is always preceded by 15 minutes of statements by members (known as SO21s) under Standing Order 21, which allows them to say whatever they want for 60 seconds. MPs usually pay tribute to a Pee-Wee hockey team or some prominent person, recently deceased, in their riding. But all parties are equally guilty of unleashing attack dogs who taunt their opponents with childish, churlish tantrums.
One of the most vicious ankle-biters in the House is Montreal Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, who decided last Wednesday to point out the dichotomy between the Conservative crackdown crime agenda and the light $500 fine handed out to former Tory member Rahim Jaffer for speeding, while DUI and drug possession charges were dropped.
[More]
Jennings is the reason i quit watching question period . Guergis did it once. Jennings does it every day live on cpac at approximately 1:10 mountain time .
One need look further than the disgusting spectical all last week in the HOC over the Jaffer issue. What should be the primary purpose of running this country shoved aside by all the oppositon parties ragging day in and day about Jaffer’s plea bargain. Similar plea bargaining goes on in every courtroom on every day of every week year round in Canada. The HOC is chalk full of lawyers who know and have known for their entire careers how our screwed up judicial system works so spare us the theoretics, the Oscars are over. Canadian voters need to do some mass firing next election, few need or deserved to be spared. And this is just one example of what a disfunctional bunch of nitwits we have running this country. As the Queen of Hearts said “off with their heads”!
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/columnists/tom_brodbeck/2010/03/13/13221121.html
Not sure why a devil’s advocate should be required to ask the obvious – would you all be doing acrobatics to avoid passing moral judgement on Jaffer if he followed the little red book?
The bottom line is that most people seem to think that Jaffer got a free ride because of his status and connections. Wouldn’t have mattered what party he was in but it happened to be yours. If he were a Liberal it would be you howling how corrupt the “Liberanos” are. Try and say otherwise.
It’s a tempest in a teapot, Cynapse. Our politicians are so bored with their jobs they will jump on any pretext to stir up a little excitement. I’m with Cantuc. I refuse to watch QP anymore and “yes” regarding BTDT’s comment.
When we are finally given the opportunity we all need to engage in some heavy duty firing.
I don’t have a party ,though at the moment , I’d vote conservative . I have voted liberal and ndp before but I don’t see any reason to do so in the future and I quit watching QP long before Jaffer and Guerguis started their respective gong shows. Jaffer was charged and tried by the Ontario provincial police and the Ontario justice system . I don’t understand why this is even coming up in QP at all since Jaffer isn’t an mp and wasn’t when he was charged . The liberals need a scandal . It’s their only chance . What’s next ? An unpaid Diefenbaker parking ticket in Saskatoon . Hey liberals , heres a hot tip for you . Diefenbaker used to talk to Gabriel Dumont about Canadian politics . Quck , call an inquiery.
“Wouldn’t have mattered what party he was in but it happened to be yours.”
Good grief, spare me. I couldn’t care less what party this guy belonged to. If the evidence showed that the crown stood a reasonable chance of conviction, then the charges should have proceeded to trial. Everything isn’t always all about party lines and other such nonsense. With some yes, but with others no. Try and accept that fact. By the way, a couple of times during my career Crown’s IMO stepped over that line and pulled a stunt like this with one of my investigations. I dealt with it on paper (they hated stuff like this in writing….evidence). My bosses used to go white when they read my memo in the out basket, but they had to forward it anyway. When the appropriate person in the DOJ opened them up it’s a wonder they didn’t burst into flames as they read them. That’s all I could do but I did it anyway. Another form of ‘career ending’ to be sure and I knew it. My attitude was they were wrong and I was right, I didn’t give a shit so screw’em.
A question: The fine was $500.00. What was the value the bag of cocaine in possession — you know, the EVIDENCE. It is irrelevant that he was a former MP. As Brodbeck in the Winnipeg Sun rightly says it causes the public to lose confidence in the system. no kidding.
the cocaine charge was dropped.
What I am finding interesting is that the media in a sense is rallying around Jaffer a bit, instead of applying the full court press of negative/attack reporting.
The Conservative Party is still an uneasy alliance between the Reform and the PC’s. If politics is entering this at all I’d say Jaffer would be a PC and any support he is getting comes from that side of the aisle – which has plenty of support in the media.
(yes I know he started his career as a Reform MP but that was just a politically calculated move much another progressive Keith Martin)
Well it does seem that if one is well connected and it doesnt matter what party they come from, are treated a little different than your average citizen.
For example, even Maggie Trudeau’s drunk driving case was thrown out:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051122/trudeau_case_051122/20051122
Actually, it doesn’t matter whether you’re connected or not, UV.
The only reason it seems like famous people get breaks is because the media doesn’t report that “Joe Canadian” got busted for impaired driving and got a slap on the wrist. Trust me… it happens all of the time… Daily…
The Crown lawyers knows their performance evaluations take their success in court into account. A plea bargain counts as a “win” and the defence lawyers know that too. So the heavier charges get tossed and a lesser but included offence gets a guilty plea. The only thing which will keep Crown lawyers from playing “let’s made a deal” is if they believe the public will be outraged by a particular crime or penalty. For instance, they miscalculated with the Karla Homolka deal… the public was outraged…
The lawyers try to claim they do such deals in an effort to clear backlog or because the courts are overloaded or whatever… but the backlog is due to lawyers playing games… rolling the dice… trying for a more lenient judge… delaying tactics…
Do you know how many court appearances are necessary for the average case? The last time I looked it up, it was eight. First appearance, the lawyer usually claims the accused hasn’t had time to discuss the case so they’re unable to enter a plea. Second appearance, the lawyer complains about disclosure of evidence by the police (whether there’s a problem or not) and says still not ready to plea… and so on…
The lawyers know it’s a game. The judges know it’s a game. At the end of the day, they’re playing with people’s lives and we get to pay for it through our taxes.
Thanks for clearing that up Mac. I share your frustration.
Much of the court system is simply a make work project for lawyers. I witnessed on day two people come before the judge charged with assault. Person 1 had a lawyer and walked out without a record or fine. Person two did not have a lawyer and received a criminal record and a hefty fine. Person one did bodily harm to his victim person two was trying to protect his victim from greater harm.
Liberals appear to be very concerned, as well as the NDP, that politics played a part in the administration of justice in the Jaffer case even though they are not privy to any details, facts or evidence. If they really want to build a case, and launch an enquiry, about the possible interference of justice, because of political ramifications, it would be best if they worked with the case of Margaret Trudeau, because they do have access to facts and evidence in her case. She was given a roadside breathalyzer which she failed and later registered .107 in the police station breathalyzer ( legal limit being .08).
The breathalyzer was never proven to be wrong or inaccurate so there is no doubt that she was impaired. However there must be doubt whether politics played a role in beating her obvious impairment charge. Liberals should latch on to this immediately if they want to provide Canadians with answers about political interference in the justice system because the evidence of her impairment is public and above question.
No problem, UV.
Back to the situation in the article… The opposition are riding this for all that it’s worth but they should be careful as their hypocrisy will come back to bite them.
Let’s say the Conservatives propose sentencing guidelines which make plea bargains less attractive. The opposition has a choice between voting against it and making themselves look more hypocritical than usual OR voting for it and supporting their political enemies… rock and a hard place…
For myself, what I would like to see is a way of changing the court process itself so the delays and multiple appearances got away. Waste less of the court’s time, streamline the process. Less money for the lawyers? Too bad, so sad.
The thing is… we’re talking about matters of provincial jurisdiction… Here in Ontario, that means Dalton and his band of Merry Marxists. What’s the odds of those bandits making the court system work better? Somewhere between slim and nil.
Good recommendations Mac and as for Ontario, our province’s former liberal Attorney General Micheal Bryant is up on charges for killing a cyclist last year with his car so it will be interesting to see how the provincial court handles his case.
In the meantime, his driver’s licence was revoked.
If anything Bryant may be disadvantaged by being an ex Attorney General because charges may have been pursued to avoid giving the impression of him getting special treatment i.e. bending over backwards by laying charges when an ordinary citizen might not have been charged or charged with something less serious, maybe ?
If anything I have little personal sympathy for Bryant politics while he was attorney general, and although I might enjoy a bit of ” schadenfreude ” at his troubles in all fairness the incident can be interpreted as a crime or as self defence and it will come down to how reasonable it may have been to scrape the cyclist hanging on to his car on a mail box ? If the guy was hitting him or if Bryant he had good reasons to fear for his safety ? The cyclist may also have given the impression of being a treat while really only clinging to the car out of fear of letting go !
Anyway, good lawyers on both sides can make a case for either I think !