Guergis-Jaffer hearings nixed by NDP

[daleo]

The New Democrats have pulled their support for special parliamentary committee hearings to look into the conduct of former Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis and her husband, Rahim Jaffer.

The NDP had previously said it would support a Liberal motion calling for the government operations and estimates committee to call several witnesses, including Guergis, former Conservative MP Jaffer and his business partner, Patrick Glémaud, to appear in Ottawa to answer questions about a billion-dollar green infrastructure fund.

But NDP Leader Jack Layton's office said Monday the party would no longer back the motion.

New Democrat MP Pat Martin, the party's sole member of the operations committee, has said he was worried that the hearings would turn into a circus, even though the questions were supposed to be all about the green fund.
...
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/19/guergis-jaffer-hearings.html#ixzz0lZiuXnXk
========================================================================================================
I don't care for this. I wonder if Layton was worried that the Liberals were benefiting too much from the Jaffer affair.

[CHIMO]

1. Doesn't Make

Sense to me.

But that is the way it is.

So now my crystal ball says that the NDP will not be going along with the Liberals and the Bloc. I suppose they will propose stronger language on motions?

Ignatieff pitches long-gun registry changes

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says he still supports the embattled federal long-gun registry, but will propose changes to make it easier for gun owners to register their firearms.

Ignatieff, speaking to the Canadian Police Association in Ottawa on Monday, said his proposed changes would give police the tools they need to make communities safe, while removing the "frustrating" elements of the registry to address "legitimate criticisms" from rural Canadians.

But Ignatieff said he will require Liberal MPs to oppose the next vote to abolish the registry in the House of Commons.

During the last session of Parliament, Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's private member's bill passed second reading 164-137 in a House vote with support from 18 Liberals and New Democrats, most of whom represented northern and rural ridings.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/04/19/liberals-long-gun-registry-ignatieff.html
Seems like a reasonable solution to me?

The NDP hasn't been quite the same since Bill Blaikie left.

[Clintonista2]

2. Polls have the liberals up and NDP remaining stagnant

Jacky boy always follows the poll numbers.

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. The Guergis/Jaffer Affair is a distraction from the government's real crimes.

Oh, look over there! Shiny thing! Blow! Busty hookers!

Meanwhile, deep, dark, dank rot is spreading through governance and the Harper government is dismantling Canada bit by bit. And while the media and public are paying attention to this scandal, the Afghan prisoner scandal is being shunted aside, at least for the moment. And that's just what Stephen Harper wants.

I think it would be a good idea if the Opposition stayed on course and concentrated on the more important scandal, because it's quite obvious that neither the media nor the public is capable of multitasking.

[daleo]

8. I don't agree

Sad as it may be, a home grown scandal involving drugs, offshore accounts, prostitutes, etc is much more damaging to the government than anything to do with the Afghanistan war. I think Harper would prefer focus to be on the Afghanistan detainee issue - the "support our troops" meme can then be employed. It's much harder to deflect from allegations of drugs, prostitutes, and influence peddling right here in Canada.

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. I hope you're right. Damage is damage. n/m

[Bragi]

4. The NDP want the Libs to own the "corruption" issue

The NDP strategy is always to position the Conservatives as "too right wing" and the Libs as "corrupt." They don't like it when their narrative gets muddied. In particular, if Lib voters turned off by the 8-years-ago sponsorships scandal start to see the Conservatives as "corrupt", then they may forgive the Libs, which will cost the NDP seats. In consequence, the NDP tends to go only so far in uncovering Conservative scandals.

Remember the Cadman scandal, or the in-and-out scheme, or the Mulroney hearings? If I recall correctly, in all of these cases, the NDP eventually sided with the cons to have the matters removed from Committees and sent elsewhere. In all cases, the reason was just as it is now -- their electoral fortunes require that the Libs continue to own the corruption brand, so they don't like to see the cons painted too much by this brush.

In other words, it's venal electoral politics at its worst.

[IntravenousDemilo]

7. Interesting theory. n/m

[daleo]

9. That's has the ring of truth to it. n/t

[glarius]

5. You hit it on the head ...Layton is worried that the Liberals will benefit too much!

This guy is desperate to be Prime Minister and that's his main goal.

[Clintonista2]

6. delusions of grandeur

eom

[glarius]

10. As I've watched Layton thru the years on TV, he has impressed

me as being mainly interested in getting power for himself. He would even line up with the Conservatives if it would hurt the Liberals and possibly help him. I think there are many sincerely motivated NDPers, but Layton is not one of them...IMO.