Scales of justice
If Rahim Jaffer were still a federal MP, the public could fairly ask for more explanation of the circumstances that led to the plea bargain on his impaired-driving charge, but, as Mr. Jaffer holds no public office, the grey areas of his case need not be made public, any more than they would be in the case of any other private citizen who has been charged with an offence.
With holders of elected office, the old proverb that "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" has some application - but surely Mr. Jaffer, who is the spouse of a federal cabinet minister, Helena Guergis, the Minister of State for the Status of Women, is, like other Canadians, entitled to the presumption of innocence, until proven guilty of a crime.
If Mr. Jaffer puts himself forward by trying to run for office again, voters and reporters could then fairly ask him more about the factors that led to the criminal charges. He would be asking for trust, and would need to show he merited it.
The Constitution Act, 1867, as a result of a compromise among the Fathers of Confederation, granted the power to legislate on criminal law to the federal Parliament, while assigning the administration of justice to the provinces. In this case, that division of connected responsibilities should remove any reasonable suspicion of a political deal. Marie Balogh, a provincial Crown attorney employed by a Liberal government, who is any case not a political appointee but a professional of two decades' standing, decided not to persist with doubtful criminal charges against an accused person with some links to the federal Conservative government.
The plea agreement was presented to Mr. Justice Douglas Maund of the Ontario Court of Justice, who took no part in its negotiation and merely accepted it. His remark to Mr. Jaffer, "I'm sure you can recognize a break when you see one," sounds as if it was intended to admonish the defendant about the seriousness of the events in question, rather than to hint at any sinister favouritism.
The principle that trials should be held in open court is very important, but it simply does not apply to settlement discussions that may or may not lead to an agreement that makes a trial unnecessary, sparing the courts time and money. Though the provincial government should not make public the ambiguities of this case, it is up to Mr. Jaffer to decide whether or not he wants to clear the air.