Very rarely does anyone assume the leadership of a major political party without having gained experience as an elected representative at some level of government.
Brian Mulroney pulled it off. True, at the end of his term he was the most hated prime minister in memory and the federal Progressive Conservative party was decimated in the 1993 election. But he did manage to win two consecutive majority governments; an unheard of feat for a party without the word “Liberal” in its name.
Then there was John Tory who became the leader of the Ontario PC’s without ever having held elective office. During the 2007 provincial election, Tory ran on a platform that experienced politicos knew would cause the electorate to run to Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals. McGuinty was vulnerable to at least ending up with a minority government but thanks to Tory’s inexperience, he won another majority.
Nowhere has Michael Ignatieff’s inexperience been seen more clearly than in the aftermath of Helena Guergis’s resignation from cabinet and her expulsion by the prime minister from the Conservative caucus. Beginning the following day, the Liberals and the Bloc hammered the government over rumours of illegal lobbying, offshore accounts, improper use of government resources and parties with busty hookers and cocaine. The questions asked by the opposition all had to do with the practice of illegal lobbying as well as what the PM knew or didn’t know or did or didn’t do since the evening of April 9. All except for Count Iggy.
During six Question Periods following the sacking of Guergis, Ignatieff questioned Harper as to why he didn’t begin an investigation of the former minister, seven months before. Seven months before was when Guergis’ husband, former MP Rahim Jaffer who is at the centre of the illegal lobbying fiasco was arrested and charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine. Those charges were later dropped by the Crown and Jaffer pleaded guilty to careless driving, a non-criminal offence.
There is absolutely no evidence that Guergis had ever driven a vehicle while impaired, was present while her husband drank and then drove or that she ever used cocaine. Yet the former Harvard professor thinks that she should have been investigated immediately after Jaffer’s arrest. The honourable leader of the Liberal Party of Canada; the party that gave the country the Charter of Rights obviously thinks that Guergis is guilty by association and the prime minister was negligent in not going after her for the sins (or alleged sins) of her husband.
Ignatieff is the only MP who questioned the PM about why he took no action against Guergis after Jaffer’s arrest last September. Either Ignatieff actually believes that the prime minister really should have investigated his minister after her husband’s arrest or he was just playing politics. Either way it does not bode well for what was once referred to as the Natural Governing Party.
It is hard to believe that Professor Ignatieff actually believes that people like Guergis should be investigated because they are guilty by association. If he really does believe this, he should immediately shut up and investigate one of his caucus members, Justin Trudeau. There are similarities between Guergis and Trudeau and if one is worthy of an investigation, the other is too.
Guergis is married to a guy who has been alleged to possess drugs and who drove with an illegal amount of alcohol in his system. But Margaret Trudeau, a self admitted druggie, was also charged with drinking and driving. She was convicted but won on appeal. So like Jaffer, she does not have a criminal record for impaired driving or a related offence.
While Guergis has only lived with Jaffer for a couple of years, Justin was raised by his mother. Which one should really be investigated? If guilt by association is the order of the day, Ignatieff should take immediate action and dump him from the caucus. But of course he’s won’t. Not only is Justin a Liberal but he’s a Trudeau. Nonetheless, he should be held to the same standard that Guergis is when it comes to living with someone who’s involved in drunk driving and drugs.
The other and more likely possibility is that Ignatieff was simply playing politics. This alternative is scarier because while other MP’s asked at least somewhat probing questions, Iggy couldn’t get off the subject of Jaffer’s arrest last fall. If he was playing politics, he was playing badly. No one else tried to go after Guergis for what happened last September.
If all this wasn’t enough, the Count showed his arrogance when asking these questions. By referring to Guergis as “Mrs. Jaffer” and the private investigator who provided information as a “gumshoe” and “sleazy”, Iggy has shown his utter contempt for those he considers his inferiors, which is pretty well everyone else. And he’s proved one thing; he’s no John Tory. It’s hard to picture Ignatieff as a post-politics talk show host, talking to ordinary people who he considers beneath him.
And some of the pundits wonder how the Conservatives can still lead in the polls after all the scandal surrounding Guergis and Jaffer.
