Jaffer boasted to businesses: I can get government money easily

[jbg]

I smell hypocrisy everytime a Conservative is in hot water.

All that I ask is consistency.

In the case of Sponsorship large amounts of money was moving arond so either the Finance and Prime Ministers knew and were responsible or didn't know and were irresponsible.

No one is suggesting that Harper was a Hells Angel. He looks better behind a piano than in a motorcyle jacket.

[Smallc]

All that I ask is consistency.

In the case of Sponsorship large amounts of money

A couple hundred million dollars isn't much in comparison to what the country spends...about 1/10th of 1%.

[capricorn]

A couple hundred million dollars isn't much in comparison to what the country spends...about 1/10th of 1%.

Misappropriation of taxpayer funds is wrong, regardless of the amount.

[Smallc]

Misappropriation of taxpayer funds is wrong, regardless of the amount.

I think you're missing the point. The point is that there's no reason that the Finance Minister would be aware of the movements of such a relatively small amount of money...not to mention the Prime Minister (although, IIRC, the program was run through the PMO, making it more possible that the PM may hve known something). It doesn't make it right, nor did I claim that it does.

[capricorn]

The point is that there's no reason that the Finance Minister would be aware of the movements of such a relatively small amount of money...

You never made that point in your post therefore there was nothing for me to miss.

But with the clarification you put forth, I see your logic.

[Smallc]

You never made that point in your post therefore there was nothing for me to miss.

But with the clarification you put forth, I see your logic.

Well, I made the point in my own mind...

Didn't mean to sound snappy, if I did (which I think I did).

[capricorn]

Well, I made the point in my own mind...

Now you've got me worried. That actually makes sense to me.

[capricorn]

I've been reading about Patrick Glemaud and listened to his interview on CTV. He and Jaffer were partners in a firm called Green Power Generation. Listening to him speak, I found him rather candid and credible. Of interest are these statements in the Toronto Star.

Glemaud said he firmly believed at the time that, just as the Internet spawned many new business ventures, there was a great deal of money to be made in the “Green” movement. As a lawyer, he had worked for the federal natural resources department reviewing and approving government grant contracts. That taught him both how to make a grant application and gave him a basis for his green energy company.

“I wanted to be at the forefront.”

“I wanted to build businesses, we were going to own many pieces of projects and then go public.” Glemaud said he hoped to get private financing and, if it was possible, secure government grants as well.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/794806--jaffer-business-in-shambles-partner

No doubt, these days green technology is a budding enterprise and whoever gets in on the ground floor would have a certain advantage in the marketplace, especially if an entrepreneur had a background conducive to growing such a business. Glemaud seems to have the basics and the drive to make it all happen.

There's something not quite right about the enormous efforts in some parts to blacken the name of Glemaud's company, Green Power Generation, of which Jaffer is a partner. I'm certain there may be more than one entity that would benefit if Green Power Generation died before it became a viable firm. Another green technology budding or planned business perhaps? If this was the case, Glemaud's long standing association with Jaffer would present a prime opportunity to sink a competitor.

Glemaud is obviously not going to take this lying down. But I'm afraid his company is now dead in the water as there is no freeking way he could ever hope to get to first base with his company, especially with the Conservatives in government.

This in no way abdicates Jaffer on matters unrelated to Green Power Generation. Just that I question whether Glemaud's company had any involvement in any of Jaffer's troubles or if something else is at play.

[Shakeyhands]

The addage about not sleeping with dogs came to mind when I read Glemaud's comments.

as an aside, why is it that Conservatives are all for free market ventures until it comes to "Green" issues, why is that an evil way to make a buck? I thought pretty much anything went for you folks.

[Wild Bill]

as an aside, why is it that Conservatives are all for free market ventures until it comes to "Green" issues, why is that an evil way to make a buck? I thought pretty much anything went for you folks.

You have to be at least a bit of a techie yourself to understand. To most techies, the whole idea of "Green" technologies being our lifeline for our economy is a bit of a crock! It is something driven by politics, not by economics or often even physics. There are huge questions about whether these technologies are necessary or will even work, let alone put us in a competitive position compared to other countries that are playing in these waters.

Have you noticed how quick politicians are to abandon ideas of free trade to promote "green" industry? McGuinty has rigged the game with his "MicroFit" program to allow only private local manufactured wind and solar power equipment to qualify for the program.

If we need to rig the game to be competitive at home then how on earth do we expect to make our fortune exporting green technology stuff to the world? The answer is obvious. We won't! Green technologies are no different than any other technology. Those countries with labour, tax and government paperwork advantages like China or India will still be more competitive than us.

Since Conservatives tend to be more practical and detail oriented, that explains why they don't offer the same support for these green initiatives. If you don't believe in something you can't help but feel like a hypocrite for promoting it!

I'm not saying that Liberals and NDP find it easier to be hypocrites. Since they tend to be more "artistic" rather than scientific in their backgrounds they put their faith in these "green" ideas without noticing discrepancies in the science and economics behind them. They aren't "detail" people! So they aren't lying with their support. They are quite sincere, since they have "faith" in it!

You can see even in "green" discussions on this very board how the "left" tends to view the argument in terms of character, as in "Harper just wants to pollute the planet" and "businesses don't support the latest green initiatives because they are evil money grubbers". Conservatives tend to be the ones asking if the science or economics behind a plan are valid.

I'm generalizing, of course. Not everyone on the left or right falls into these definitions. Still, I believe the percentages favour my points. As Judge Judy says: "The preponderance of the evidence...".

Edited April 14, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Sir Bandelot]

You have to be at least a bit of a techie yourself to understand. To most techies, the whole idea of "Green" technologies being our lifeline for our economy is a bit of a crock! It is something driven by politics, not by economics or often even physics. There are huge questions about whether these technologies are necessary or will even work, let alone put us in a competitive position compared to other countries that are playing in these waters.

Yeah Bill!

[Dave_ON]

So now we're finally getting some details on why Jaffer got off so easily. Turns out it was two major mistakes made by the OPP that forced the crown to plea bargain.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/13/rahim-jaffer-plea-mansbridge.html

He tried to contact two lawyers in Calgary, but couldn't reach them and left a message. Police then suggested he call a 1-800 line offering 24-hour legal aid.

When he called, he received their typical advice: Take the breathalyzer test. By law, police must administer the test — which can take about 20 minutes and involves two samples — within two hours after pulling over a driver.

Midway through the test, one of Jaffer's Calgary lawyers called the detachment several times but was told he must wait because the breathalyzer was being administered, sources say. The second lawyer also returned Jaffer's call in that time and was told it was too late

And to make matters even worse they give him the latex glove test...

Shortly after the breathalyzer, police made another key decision: to strip search the former MP, an act Cowan argues wasn't "defensible at all" in the Jaffer case.

For police to justify a strip search, they must have "reasonable grounds" to believe someone in custody is hiding something illegal or something that could hurt themselves or the police.

[Argus]

A couple hundred million dollars isn't much in comparison to what the country spends...about 1/10th of 1%.

The Liberals are in a panic because Guergis might have had her chauffeur drive her hubby around a time or two and you dismiss hundreds of millions in theft and wasted spending as if it was unimportant?

[Argus]

The addage about not sleeping with dogs came to mind when I read Glemaud's comments.

as an aside, why is it that Conservatives are all for free market ventures until it comes to "Green" issues, why is that an evil way to make a buck? I thought pretty much anything went for you folks.

Green power ventures are welfare ventures. None of them are viable commercial enterprises. All derive the great majority of whatever profit they make from government grants, loans and subsidies. That's why the guy is, not a businessman, but a former employee of the government who knows how grants are processed.

[Born Free]

The Liberals are in a panic because Guergis might have had her chauffeur drive her hubby around a time or two and you dismiss hundreds of millions in theft and wasted spending as if it was unimportant?

Is it important to you to make stuff up like that?

[DrGreenthumb]

So now we're finally getting some details on why Jaffer got off so easily. Turns out it was two major mistakes made by the OPP that forced the crown to plea bargain.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/13/rahim-jaffer-plea-mansbridge.html

And to make matters even worse they give him the latex glove test...

Those are not good reasons to drop the charges. There shouldn't even be an option to refuse the breathylyser, and in Manitoba refusing it is the same as failing it. The strip search was completely justified, they had already found cocaine on him, not a big stretch to think he may have had something illegal hidden. These things would not have gotten most people's charges dropped. The rich and connected always get special treatment by the courts. Easy to vote for "tough on crime " measures when you know that they won't apply to you or your wealthy friends.

[Dave_ON]

Those are not good reasons to drop the charges. There shouldn't even be an option to refuse the breathylyser, and in Manitoba refusing it is the same as failing it. The strip search was completely justified, they had already found cocaine on him, not a big stretch to think he may have had something illegal hidden. These things would not have gotten most people's charges dropped. The rich and connected always get special treatment by the courts. Easy to vote for "tough on crime " measures when you know that they won't apply to you or your wealthy friends.

Police are bound by due process just like anyone else. There was no good reason for the OPP to not allow Jaffer to speak to either of his lawyers. The issue is not refusing the test; the issue is not allowing him legal counsel of his choosing prior to administering the test. This was a screw up on the OPP's part plain and simple.

Strip searches need to be justified and possible drug possession is not justification enough. Not to mention logic should win the day. Let's be reasonable about this, do you honestly think if Jaffer was carrying blow around in his coat pocket he'd also hide it in a body cavity? Is that reasonable or even realistic?

I'm upset about this miscarriage of justice as much as any other citizen of Ontario. But the blame lies with the OPP for not following due process. It has nothing at all to do with his connections or wealth. In fact given that he was a former MP should have caused the OPP to be that much more compliant with due process.

[capricorn]

CTV reported that the PI investigating Gillani for fraud on behalf of clients who invested with Gillani is the source of the allegations to the PM.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100413/guerigis_100413/20100413?hub=TopStoriesV2

We now know that the allegations are tied to blackmail related to drug use or drug purchases. The question is who was doing the blackmailing? Jaffer? Guergis? Gillani? Someone else? My bet is on Gillani, a rather shady character to be sure. What if Jaffer and/or Guergis refused a favour to Gillani with respect to helping him with his troubles with the law or access to the government or some other consideration? Would it not be conceivable that Gillani would plant the cocaine in Jaffer's coat pocket? And what if Gillani alerted the cops that Jaffer was impaired and driving to make sure he got caught returning home from a meeting where both were present?

I'm sleuthing here. May as well have a little fun with this.

Edit to add. Gillani may have been peed off that his credibility with his investors would be tarnished if they found out his claims of pull with Jaffer and Guergis were bogus.

Gillani has claimed to his associates that Jaffer, who is a partner in green energy consulting firm Green Power Generation Corp., could give them special access to the Prime Minister's Office, a claim that Harper has refuted.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100413/guerigis_100413/20100413?hub=TopStoriesV2

Edited April 14, 2010 by capricorn

[M.Dancer]

I find this quote ....amusing....

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ethics-commissioner-refuses-to-investigate-helena-guergis/article1533523/

Drivers were only asked to bring Rahim to and from me and have only done what a normal driver would be required to do to support a minister.

Driver...I am....in need. Bring me the Rahim.

20 minutes later.

Driver...I am sated, take the Rahim away.

Edited April 14, 2010 by M.Dancer

[capricorn]

Wicked.

[Argus]

Is it important to you to make stuff up like that?

Just cause you didn't read it in your comic book doesn't mean it's not true.

[Wild Bill]

I doubt Reform was acting on some high principle. It's political expediency, as measured by concern over public image.

Zero is preferable to a negative.

And the Liberal motivation to keep their scandalous candidate was...? Obviously, they considered having a candidate with a shot at winning the seat more important than their candidate's character...

[Born Free]

Just cause you didn't read it in your comic book doesn't mean it's not true.

I get the sense that you are trying to replace that Bush..Cheney poster.

Try to tell everyone which Liberals are in a panic and how you came to know that?

Argus, on 14 April 2010 - 08:13 AM, said: The Liberals are in a panic

[Molly]

And the Liberal motivation to keep their scandalous candidate was...? Obviously, they considered having a candidate with a shot at winning the seat more important than their candidate's character...

David Emerson?

[scribblet]

The Liberals are throwing mud hoping it will stick but they have nothing, most of this is simply allegation, and Watergate it ain't. Driving the government car and using the Blackberry are out of procedure, a Minister should separate personal business from Government business but this is not huge scandal.

The opposition's hair is on fire in the hopes they have found something that'll stick, too bad they don't have anything else worthwhile to chow down on. There must be something else they can foam at the mouth about.