Bernier Resigns

noahbody · May 30, 2008

Considering that Bernier's girlfriend was travelling on a special passport, I think it was only fair that she be vetted by security.

She wasn't travelling on a special passport.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0530?hub=Canada

Alta4ever · May 30, 2008

I submit to background and criminal checks all the time. What have you got to hide?
Security is an important issue and if you want to be a cabinet minister, you submit to a check. Spouses and families should also be checked. Many companies do exactly that when they hire someone.

I have nothing to hide I submitt to them when asked but the government has no right to run them at will you have to submit to it.

jdobbin · May 30, 2008

I have nothing to hide I submitt to them when asked but the government has no right to run them at will you have to submit to it.

Then Bernier should not have become minister. I have worked for companies where not only I had to submit but they had the right to look into my family background as well.

jdobbin · May 30, 2008

She wasn't travelling on a special passport.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0530?hub=Canada

But she was listed as "spouse" by Bernier on papers.

It will interesting to hear what her testimony will be in committee.

jdobbin · May 30, 2008

Susan Riley in the Ottawa Citizen outlines what Harper's problem are:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/o...0adbaae&p=2

That doesn't mean the affair doesn't reflect badly on the prime minister - on his judgment, lack of policy sophistication and top-down style. Bernier was, like all ministers, a mere talking head: chosen for his demographics, not his talents. Lately, ministers are not even allowed to speak: they sit, mute, featureless and disposable, while House Leader Peter Van Loan fields all questions. That is because Harper, and his chosen few, have all the answers. To everything.

And therein lies the problem.

Which makes it incredible, to the opposition, that the prime minister wasn't told about the missing documents until a day after they were returned, as is being claimed. Harper's people apparently let him down yesterday, too, wrongly informing the media that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was changing tack in Afghanistan - then issuing a retraction.

noahbody · May 30, 2008

It will interesting to hear what her testimony will be in committee.

It will also be interesting how much she's offered to pose in Playboy. I'll buy that one, but only for the articles, honest.

jdobbin · May 30, 2008

It will also be interesting how much she's offered to pose in Playboy. I'll buy that one, but only for the articles, honest.

The article itself should be enough to seal Bernier's fate. I wonder if he will run again. I doubt Harper will ever put him back in cabinet again.

I'm sure Harper will try to get his cabinet change in soon. The next weak link to get chopped is Guergis.

Edited May 30, 2008 by jdobbin

Fortunata · May 30, 2008

What about the special diplomatic passport she must have had to accompany Bernier overseas? Did she have one? If so she must have been investigated. Did she give it back? If she didn't ... ooops, why not?

madmax · May 30, 2008

Show me where she was a member, please.......Nothing but speculation.
You are filling in the blanks with you imagination.

Another die hard.

Be prepared to go down with the ship.

Argus · May 30, 2008

Trudeau would have been the first one to say security trumps privacy. Don't remember the war measures act?

Trudeau didn't give a shit about security. There were routine leaks from the RCMP about how they'd caught this or that spy doing this or that but been forbidden to do anything about it by the government. They valued not rocking the boat - good relationships with the soviets and chinese over security issues.

Trudeau, and later Chretien, slashed the budgets for the military and coast guard, and Martin even eliminated the Ports police - so that our major ports are now controlled by organized crime, and Martin's owns ships can be used to smuggle drugs.

Argus · May 30, 2008

Flaherty spent beyond what he promised in every budget he has been responsible for. More broken Tory promises.

The difference being, of course, that he spent it on things like the military, while your party spent it on pork and graft, on canoe museums and roads to nowhere, on rebuilding private airports for the PMs father in law, and building fountains in the river in Shawinigan.

madmax · May 30, 2008

there's really no favour to be had, since the Hell's Angel's aren't likely interested in foreign affairs.

I thought Conservative supporters understood Criminal Activity? Holy ^&*^ man, wake up. This is no longer funny, defending the incompentence and absurd actions by the former Cabinet Minister is one thing, but to defend Outlaw Bikers is definitely out their.

Why does someone leave documents with someone they weren't seeing?

Would anyone be met with suspicion if they had 3 girlfriends and 1 was assasinated and 2 committed suicide.

Ignore the fact that mercenaries, soldiers of fortune, security personel and ex military are not uncommon in Outlaw biker gangs.

And what does Aghanistan have. Drugs, Security Personel, Mercenaries, and government contracts.

Nothing important. Right.

Fortunata · May 30, 2008

Trudeau didn't give a shit about security. There were routine leaks from the RCMP about how they'd caught this or that spy doing this or that but been forbidden to do anything about it by the government. They valued not rocking the boat - good relationships with the soviets and chinese over security issues.
Trudeau, and later Chretien, slashed the budgets for the military and coast guard, and Martin even eliminated the Ports police - so that our major ports are now controlled by organized crime, and Martin's owns ships can be used to smuggle drugs.

This has nothing to do with Trudeau, Chretien or slashed budgets. This all too familiar refrain ... but the Liberals... is getting to be monotonous and is used even when there is no connection whatsoever. The Bernier affair is all to do with Steve being caught flat footed and refuses to admit it or correct it. It's not "manly" to back down even if it is to correct something that could have serious ramifications for the whole country. It seems to be their motto to look right rather than to do right - hence all the posturing.

WIP · May 30, 2008

The article itself should be enough to seal Bernier's fate. I wonder if he will run again. I doubt Harper will ever put him back in cabinet again.
I'm sure Harper will try to get his cabinet change in soon. The next weak link to get topped in Guergis.

This thread is moving so fast, I can't keep up!

But just in case it hasn't been asked already, why did Stephen Harper think this guy was qualified to take on Foreign Affairs in the first place? And why wasn't he yanked after making stupid comments like saying the local government in Kandahar should be replaced, potentially destabilizing Karzai's fragile government? Add to that, the latest scandal which Harper tried to ride out instead of immediately replacing Bernier, and it looks like Stephen Harper gives about as much thought to the actual qualifications for the job as George Bush does when he's picking his staff!

Argus · May 30, 2008

The old "but the Liberals" argument.

The old "but the Liberals" argument is still as valid as ever since they're the same bunch of people who were in power a couple of years ago. It's valid not only to show they would do no better, but it's also valid to show what crass, lying hypocrites they are to now pompously decry security considerations when they never showed any interest in security considerations while in power.

It is hardly a defence for not vetting people who might have posed a security threat today.

What kind of security threat do you think she posed? I mean, seriously. Foreign affairs? Do you think her old biker pals cared about what Bernier's briefing notes had to say about the chances of getting Georgia into NATO? Do you honestly think there was any information there which wasn't readily available to anyone reading the reams of freely available analyses coming out of Afghanistan and Europe?

Fortunata · May 30, 2008

The old "but the Liberals" argument is still as valid as ever since they're the same bunch of people who were in power a couple of years ago. It's valid not only to show they would do no better, but it's also valid to show what crass, lying hypocrites they are to now pompously decry security considerations when they never showed any interest in security considerations while in power.

Is it just Liberals that are being critical? Nope. It's security experts. Nothing to do with the Liberals. It's the public (like me). Nothing to do with the Liberals. The pseudo Liberal justification/deflection has no place here.

What kind of security threat do you think she posed? I mean, seriously. Foreign affairs? Do you think her old biker pals cared about what Bernier's briefing notes had to say about the chances of getting Georgia into NATO? Do you honestly think there was any information there which wasn't readily available to anyone reading the reams of freely available analyses coming out of Afghanistan and Europe?

In the hierarchy of importance in levels of government the PMO is first, Defence second, Foreign Affairs, third. So Foreign Affairs would have the third most top level security information/documents in government. How can you honestly not see why security is important.

madmax · May 30, 2008

She wasn't travelling on a special passport.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0530?hub=Canada

Why are we paying for her on the Taxpayers TAB?

Edited May 30, 2008 by madmax

WIP · May 30, 2008

The old "but the Liberals" argument is still as valid as ever since they're the same bunch of people who were in power a couple of years ago. It's valid not only to show they would do no better, but it's also valid to show what crass, lying hypocrites they are to now pompously decry security considerations when they never showed any interest in security considerations while in power.
What kind of security threat do you think she posed? I mean, seriously. Foreign affairs? Do you think her old biker pals cared about what Bernier's briefing notes had to say about the chances of getting Georgia into NATO? Do you honestly think there was any information there which wasn't readily available to anyone reading the reams of freely available analyses coming out of Afghanistan and Europe?

We won't know until all of the dust settles, what level of security threat was posed by cabinet minister giving his biker chick girlfriend his briefing notes; but we do know that Harper was only concerned with burying the story, hoping that the public would quickly forget about it!

As for your "Liberals did it too" argument, I have never been a fan of the Liberals, but I give Jean Chretien a few points for putting people he didn't like, such as Paul Martin and John Manley, in his cabinet. He kept Martin in finance for a long time, even after Martin's plot to replace him, was becoming part of public debate! Would Stephen Harper consider keeping any malcontents in his cabinet? I doubt it!

A few days ago, Johnathan Kay in the National Post, made a good point that the Bernier affair highlights one of the weaknesses of parliamentary government -- a Premier or a Prime Minister has to select his cabinet from members of parliament, as opposed to the U.S. republican system, where the president can go outside of government to pick the people he wants. In principle, Kay's example is sound, but if you have an incompent president who picks a bunch of cronies for his personal staff, it ends up with the same mess! And judging from Harper's aversion to criticism, I doubt he would pick the best and brightest if he was governing a republican system either! In fact, a leader who's prone to cronyism would probably be making even worse selections if his choices weren't restricted to people who have to think about keeping their seats in parliament!

Shakeyhands · May 30, 2008

Is it just Liberals that are being critical? Nope. It's security experts. Nothing to do with the Liberals. It's the public (like me). Nothing to do with the Liberals. The pseudo Liberal justification/deflection has no place here.

K, I thought it was just the media, civil servants and activists judges... Now its security experts too????????????? Man... the CPC can't catch a break anywhere!!

HisSelf · May 30, 2008

Well, this article says it a lot better than I can...
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=547653

An attack driven by hypocrisy and sexism

David Asper, National Post Published: Thursday, May 29, 2008

Asper's moral compass can be a little fickle. Today's National Post features a front page article referring to convicted felon Conrad Black as a "Prison Professor" because he is giving jailhouse lectures on American History. Beats staring at the walls I suppose.

gc1765 · May 30, 2008

K, I thought it was just the media, civil servants and activists judges... Now its security experts too????????????? Man... the CPC can't catch a break anywhere!!

It's a "vast left-wing conspiracy"... :lol:

noahbody · May 30, 2008

I thought Conservative supporters understood Criminal Activity? Holy ^&*^ man, wake up. This is no longer funny, defending the incompentence and absurd actions by the former Cabinet Minister is one thing, but to defend Outlaw Bikers is definitely out their.

I'm not defending Outlaw Bikers, I'm just saying the likelyhood of a security concern in this instance is somewhere around zero once you put her associations into perspective. Did you get this worked up when Chretien put Gagliano in his cabinet after he was red-flagged for having direct associations with the maffia? How would you characterize that one?

This might be news to you, but the sponsorship scandal was organized crime. You defend the organization responsible with almost every post. Holy ^&*^ man, wake up.

margrace · May 30, 2008

Doesn't this all go to prove that most of our politicians are crooks or a least out to make money on the backs of the tax payers/

E.G. what did Chreitien make out of his forays, what did Martin gain, What did Malroney gain and we all know that Harper probably isn't in it for anything but control and Power. Harris walked away with some pretty lucrative appointments and wil all the others. And lowest but not least our wonderful Health Minister running our health system while owning 25% of a drug company. If that isn't the most blatant shoe of his compete distain for his voters.

Edited May 30, 2008 by margrace

madmax · May 30, 2008

I'm not defending Outlaw Bikers, I'm just saying the likelyhood of a security concern in this instance is somewhere around zero once you put her associations into perspective. . Holy ^&*^ man, wake up.

She was supposed to now be a real estate agent, but the company she listed with couldn't remember any sales. Neighbours noted a parade of expensive import cars in front of her house.

The Government must address her associations. You are expected to be a naive citizen or A bleeding heart.

Edited May 30, 2008 by madmax

jdobbin · May 30, 2008

The difference being, of course, that he spent it on things like the military, while your party spent it on pork and graft, on canoe museums and roads to nowhere, on rebuilding private airports for the PMs father in law, and building fountains in the river in Shawinigan.

Totally incorrect. Flaherty's increase does not include Defence or Indian Affairs. The promise was to limit all other spending. Flaherty instead spends on Portrait Galleries and Human Rights Museums and building trains in Flaherty's own riding.