Let me say that I don’t buy the complete explanation that Rahim Jaffer gave about Garth Turner’s expulsion.

The MPs felt “the theme of confidentiality was not being respected” and that Turner was too critical of his colleagues, said Jaffer, speaking to reporters after the weekly Conservative caucus meeting.

He said the suspension was due in part to Turner’s blog, which he often uses as a soapbox to make his opinions known.

“This is not something that one person has felt. There were attacks that were made on individuals, including the prime minister, on his blog at different times,” Jaffer said.

Jaffer said Turner’s indiscretions were hurting the caucus’ ability to function behind closed doors./i>

The problem with this is, if you look at his blog, you’ll see that he hasn’t really done anything to embarrass the caucus. Even Stephen Taylor’s example of an altered post doesn’t really paint people in too bad a light.

It also doesn’t explain the unanimous vote of the Tory Ontario caucus — I don’t believe the entire Ontario caucus would draw a collective thumbs-down on Garth’s blogging activities, otherwise he would have been turfed long before this.

I also don’t believe Garth’s suggested theory that he may have been turfed for his political views. First, he’s been expressing them long before this, and apart from being treated by some like a pariah, he hasn’t suffered. And second, not even Blahgger Bob would believe that an MP would be expelled for merely being a pain in the posterior.

No, you actually have to had done something to merit this sort of action. Carolyn Parrish was expelled from the Liberal caucus when she stomped on a George Bush doll. Bev Desjarlais was expelled from the NDP caucus stripped of critic responsibilities for voting against the Civil Marriage Act. In both cases, an action would be needed.

So what action did Garth do to merit expulsion?

Not the one given by Jaffer, since we’ve seen that Garth’s blog hasn’t really done anyone damage by revealing anything shocking. But given the line of “confidentiality,” I’d venture to guess that it’s something along those lines.

As Mr. Spock would say, I have no evidence, only a theory that happens to support the facts. So consider this:

– Over the weekend, what was one of the major news stories covered? The reactions of the environmental lobby to a leaked copy of the Tories’ new environment legislation. With tons of the expected Tory bashing, of course.

– What is one of Garth’s major concerns? The environment. His blog entries make it clear that he really wanted to see something spectacular out of Rona Ambrose’s ministry.

– Could Garth have some influence on this upcoming legislation? It’s possible, since he sits on the House Standing Committee on the Environment.

So here’s my theory:

What if Garth, or someone in Garth’s office, was the source of that leaked legislation?

That would explain a great many things. It would explain the unanimity — leaking what’s meant to be a confidential document would be taken far more seriously than blogging an opinion of a caucus meeting. It would explain Garth’s confusion in two ways: first, he would still be responsible for his staff’s activities even if he didn’t know they did anything; and second, he would have a credible defence that the legislation would have gone public in a few days anyway. It would also give a motive: if Garth felt the legislation wasn’t strong enough, a calculated leak might bring about enough pressure to change it. And the time frame is just right, since the document in question was leaked only last week.

Why not say up front that Garth’s office is suspected of leaking? Because that would give rise to speculation that there’s active dissent in the ranks, and that the Tories have having big-time problems with party discipline. Also, remember that suspicions aren’t proof, not any kind that’d be good enough for a court (and there’s even the question of whether the draft legislation is protected by law or not).

As I said, this is just a theory, but I think it makes sense. If you want to poke holes in it, please feel free.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 18th, 2006 at 21:57 and is filed under Can Cons, Parliament. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.