Helena Guergis cleared

[msj]

Looks like Helena has been cleared by the RCMP.

So, why did Harper drop her?

The Ethics commissioner is still investigating so maybe that's why?

The cynic in me thinks Harper was just playing politics and finding a way to drop an embarrassing couple by kicking her out of caucus.

For Harper's sake this likely will work even if the EC comes up empty since no one seems to care anymore - yesterday's news and all that.

[William Ashley]

Looks like Helena has been cleared by the RCMP.

So, why did Harper drop her?

Could it be the drug charges and possession of cocaine of her husband?

Regardless of whether he was found guilty or not in a plea bargin.. as the former conservative party chairman.

Her erratic behaviour could indicate she had drug use issues - do MP's require drug testing?

Is harper getting his caucus to pee into cups to see if they are people he wants on his team?

-----

It could be the fact that regardless of "criminal charges" the behaviour of letting your family use your office financial systems or communications systems to be "unprofessional".

Even though many people do this. Using your company phone for personal usages, or letting your family members do the same, can be frowned on. Even if many business people may do this.

You need to draw the line somewhere I suppose, and Harper seems to have his - family drug use, drunk driving bringing shame on the company, abuse of services, freaking out with airport staff.. that is three strikes.

I'm not condoning the action but it could be seen as "a professional response" to a loose cannon.

Or competition, who knows. Maybe she is just under stress, and a loadstone to the caucus. Eg. oh its her again. can maybe damage moral.. and maybe the fixes just arn't available right now. So they need some time apart.

Maybe SHE JUST LOST THE KEY!!!

-------------------------------------------------------

Will she keep her seat, will the publicity help? You know?

On June 16, 2010, Jaffer excused his absence from a parliamentary committee hearing by claiming that Guergis was pregnant

Seriously.

It is hard to joke about the situation. First thing I think of is for xrays.. what idiocy (the RCMP investigation was investigating something else perhaps...). Maybe she plans on taking - maternity so harper canned her to avoid paying the maternity leave. Maybe pregnant women are seen as eradic or not fit for a professional position like CABINET member for status of women.

OH but lets get this straight - SHE QUIT her post, then she was canned.

On May 5, 2010, the Conservative Party's National Council removed Guergis as their nominated candidate for Simcoe—Grey. Earlier in the week local Conservatives in the riding wrote a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking that he not interfere with the local Conservative riding association to choose a candidate. Executives of the association stated "head office personnel have deliberately interfered with, obstructed and circumvented our autonomy as an association, and our right to freely express our opinions" if Harper took action to remove Guergis

Edited July 21, 2010 by William Ashley

[msj]

Could it be the drug charges and possession of cocaine of her husband?

Regardless of whether he was found guilty or not in a plea bargin.. as the former conservative party chairman.

Her erratic behaviour could indicate she had drug use issues - do MP's require drug testing?

Is harper getting his caucus to pee into cups to see if they are people he wants on his team?

I don't see how her husband's drug use could be justified to give her the boot.

The speculation you are doing about her supposed drug use is nothing more than a smear campaign and ad hominem attack so I'm going to ignore it for the weak and petty argument that it is.

[Topaz]

Question still is, Harper why you fire her?? Days leading up to her firing Harper was praising her as a minister and so was other within the Tories. I guess they were lying....again. I hope she can sue the Tories and Harper.

[Sir Bandelot]

When the prime minister fired her, he was faced with a choice. He knew that firing her would hurt the party, because he was forcing a minister to resign. If it could be denied or ignored, that would cause less damage. He would not consider dismissing a minister, and the damage that creates in the public image, unless keeping her would be even more damaging.

Harper is also cognizant of the implications of dismissing someone wrongfully, ie. Lawsuit.

So, unless Harper re-instates her we can only conclude, there is something rotten in the state of Canada. Which we already know but the question is, just how rotten. Rotten enough for a cover-up?

Edited July 22, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[Keepitsimple]

What a crazy series of events - not the least of was the opposition. First they said fire her. Then then said Harper was a meanie and he shouldn't have kicked her out. Then they reviled her again......and tomorrow? What will their story be?

[capricorn]

Let me see if I can help answer Topaz's question about why Harper fired Guergis.

The Liberal party is calling for the resignation of Conservative MP Helena Guergis as minister of state for the status of women after she threw a tantrum last week at the Charlottetown Airport.

"Her behaviour is certainly unconscionable. It's not what one expects from a leader," said Anita Neville, Liberal critic for the Status of Women.

"I don't think she warrants a cabinet position with this kind of behaviour."

Neville said she was speaking on behalf of the party in asking for Guergis's resignation.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/02/26/guergis-liberals.html

“Under her watch, Ms. Guergis has overseen the steady erosion of women’s rights and women’s advancement in Canada. Canadian women deserve a better representative at the cabinet table. An apology is not enough. She must resign now.”

https://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/liberals-call-for-minister-helena-guergis-to-resign/

Liberals are once again calling for embattled minister Helena Guergis to resign, or be booted from cabinet, this time for a deceptive letter-writing campaign carried out by her staff.

As uncovered by QMI Agency, Guergis’ assistant Jennifer Craven had written letters to the editors of several newspapers in the minister’s riding north of Toronto praising her and cutting down her critics.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/03/31/13424476-qmi.html

Prime Minister Stephen Harper defended his embattled junior cabinet minister Thursday under continued attack from the Liberals who are demanding Helena Guergis be booted from cabinet.

Deputy Liberal Leader Bob Rae opened question period Thursday by challenging the prime minister to explain how Ms. Guergis meets the standards of “probity and ethical conduct” that Mr. Harper instructed his ministers to adhere to when they were appointed to cabinet.

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2754612

Then this.

- April 8, 2010: The Toronto Star publishes a front-page account of the dinner meeting Jaffer and Gillani held on the night Jaffer would be arrested in Palgrave. Ont. Snowdy, seeing the article, recalls his conversation with Gillani about the photographs Snowdy claims Gillani boasted about having. Snowdy calls Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's at 3:58 p.m. and leaves a message for Ignatieff's chief of staff, Peter Donolo, to call him. Rebuffed by the Liberals, Snowdy gets in touch with an unnamed Toronto MP who puts Snowdy in touch with Arthur Hamilton, the Toronto-based lawyer for the Conservative Party of Canada. Later that evening, Snowdy's allegations about the alleged photographs are brought to the attention of PMO;

- April 9, 2010: Harper announces that Guergis has resigned but concedes that she had little choice in the matter. He also suspends her from caucus and refers unspecified allegations to the RCMP and the ethics commissioner. Hamilton, the Conservative lawyer, contacts Guergis by telephone. She is in the Dominican Republic on holiday. Hamilton informs Guergis of the nature of the allegations. Guergis publishes her letter of resignation;

http://www.canada.com/technology/dates+Guergis+affair/2916930/story.html

Backed by a revolving door of excessive staffing, she projected a high opinion of her political abilities and inflated sense of her importance to her own Conservative colleagues, which quickly made her one of the most unpopular members of the caucus.

But as her behaviour deteriorated from haughty to naughty, she seemed to acquire that most dangerous of attitudes for a Conservative government - a sense of political entitlement.

Being entitled to entitlements was former Liberal cabinet minister David Dingwall’s claim to fame, a label that stuck to the Liberals more than any other public perception. Prime Minister Harper could not risk that sort of taint becoming a permanent stain on his government.

Of even greater Conservative concern was how Guergis was hurting the government’s efforts to woo women to the party. Having her represent the Status of Women portfolio while delivering a performance of almost constant embarrassment was threatening to derail the party’s election hopes.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/09/don-martin-conservatives-gleeful-over-fall-of-guergis.aspx

The Liberals wanted Guergis gone and so did most Conservative MPs. Looks like everyone got what they wanted except Guergis and Jaffer, and their supporters.

Edited July 22, 2010 by capricorn

[msj]

Oh, so now the Liberals are making CPC decisions?

Did the opposition ask for her to be booted from caucus?

[Shwa]

Let me see if I can help answer Topaz's question about why Harper fired Guergis.

Excellent synopsis. I would have also accepted that the 'taint' she was accused of was either bringing MacDonalds in for lunch - or microwaving cheap scat popcorn in the West Block kitchenette - and stinking up everyone's office.

[Borg]

Looks like Helena has been cleared by the RCMP.

So, why did Harper drop her?

The Ethics commissioner is still investigating so maybe that's why?

The cynic in me thinks Harper was just playing politics and finding a way to drop an embarrassing couple by kicking her out of caucus.

For Harper's sake this likely will work even if the EC comes up empty since no one seems to care anymore - yesterday's news and all that.

You are known by the friends you keep

Borg

[msj]

You are known by the friends you keep

Borg

So Harper should step down from caucus because he was friendly with Mulroney at one time?

An awfully slippery slope.

[ToadBrother]

Looks like Helena has been cleared by the RCMP.

So, why did Harper drop her?

The Ethics commissioner is still investigating so maybe that's why?

The cynic in me thinks Harper was just playing politics and finding a way to drop an embarrassing couple by kicking her out of caucus.

For Harper's sake this likely will work even if the EC comes up empty since no one seems to care anymore - yesterday's news and all that.

Obviously she was dropped because she embarrassed the Tories. She broke the cardinal rule of politics, don't make everyone else look like fools. Worse, the whole Jaffer thing did appear to have some legs and certainly raised some questions about some other members of cabinet.

The Ethics review is still coming down the pike, and while Guergis's allowing her husband to use her office, supplies, etc. wouldn't be a violation of law, it is pretty clearly on the dark side of the ethics question.

Guergis had become an embarrassment even before the whole ethics cloud settled over her head. I can find a lot of faults with Harper, but no sane leader would let such a person back into caucus. He did what he had to do to keep the Tory brand from being soiled by a couple of what look like slimy operators (to clarify, Jaffer is a slimy operator and Guergis, if not a slimy operator, is a contemptible fool, even worse in politics than being a slimy operator).

[ToadBrother]

The Liberals wanted Guergis gone and so did most Conservative MPs. Looks like everyone got what they wanted except Guergis and Jaffer, and their supporters.

Judging by the CBC Radio news item I listened to this morning on my drive into work, I think their supporters are a rapidly diminishing group. She ain't no Chuck Cadman or John Nunziata, and it looks like her constituents are coming to the same conclusion. She's eligible for her pension now, I believe, so if she has any sense (and I'm not sure she does) she'll keep her head down until the next election, and quietly walk away.

[msj]

So Harper is going to waste my tax dollars on any lawsuits that result from his smear campaign because he wasn't man enough to fire her for honest reasons in the first place?

Nice.

[ToadBrother]

So Harper is going to waste my tax dollars on any lawsuits that result from his smear campaign because he wasn't man enough to fire her for honest reasons in the first place?

Nice.

What smear campaign? The woman was letting her husband (a *former* MP with connections to some pretty shady business dealings) use her office and supplies. It certainly doesn't constitute criminal activity in and of itself, but ethically, this woman was a sewer.

[Moonbox]

I don't see how her husband's drug use could be justified to give her the boot.

I would say so. This is politics and it's about running an entire country. If anything, she's guilty by association. She's married to a piece of scum and she knows it. Her behaviour sucks (the airport fiasco) and she's an embarrassment to the party. Why would you want her around??

That should be the question. It's not a 'right' to be part of a political party.

[Topaz]

Well, with her being with child I'm sure she won't be back, at least to Ottawa. I also, would say, that with Harper, maybe if SHE had been a HE from the former Alliance party she/he would have still be part of the Tories and there's a double standard with him.

Althought , he did get the former Natural Resource minister out of the limelight, didn't he?

[msj]

I would say so. This is politics and it's about running an entire country. If anything, she's guilty by association. She's married to a piece of scum and she knows it. Her behaviour sucks (the airport fiasco) and she's an embarrassment to the party. Why would you want her around??

That should be the question. It's not a 'right' to be part of a political party.

I agree that she should have been let go from cabinet and, perhaps, even from caucus.

What I disagree with is the way that it was handled.

Very poor to bring in the RCMP (and waste time and money on them) based on some flimsy allegations from a "PI."

Especially wasteful since the PMO still is unable to tell anyone what the specific allegations supposedly were. Deceitful? Who knows and, apparently, who cares.

But then, Harper has never shown that he has cared when it comes to spending my tax dollars (G8/G20 being only the latest example).

[William Ashley]

I don't see how her husband's drug use could be justified to give her the boot.

The speculation you are doing about her supposed drug use is nothing more than a smear campaign and ad hominem attack so I'm going to ignore it for the weak and petty argument that it is.

Why take chances with national security? This ain't KFC. You want the weird girl who's boyfriend is transporting magic mushrooms to be your chef? This isn't meant as an attack it is meant as actually showing what exists with the persons personal profolio. Some people may prefer a coke head raging pregnant woman to represent them, so it isn't unneededly an attack. I wouldn't really care that much aside from the fact I prefer to represent myself.

People get commited and druged on mearly hearsay in Canada, without a trial. Suspicion is enough to have peoples rights removed in this day and age. That is the world of Canada we live in.

I'm not saying it is right, but it is the world we live in.

I am non partisan so all this independent bs is irrelevant. The whole not switching parties, and the crossing of the floor thing - they are judeans karma and eye for eye bs.

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Ashley

[msj]

Why take chances with national security? This ain't KFC. You want the weird girl who's boyfriend is transporting magic mushrooms to be your chef? This isn't meant as an attack it is meant as actually showing what exists with the persons personal profolio. Some people may prefer a coke head raging pregnant woman to represent them, so it isn't unneededly an attack. I wouldn't really care that much aside from the fact I prefer to represent myself.

People get commited and druged on mearly hearsay in Canada, without a trial. Suspicion is enough to have peoples rights removed in this day and age. That is the world of Canada we live in.

I'm not saying it is right, but it is the world we live in.

I am non partisan so all this independent bs is irrelevant. The whole not switching parties, and the crossing of the floor thing - they are judeans karma and eye for eye bs.

Of course you're "not" saying it's right because you are partaking in the smear.

There is no credible evidence to suggest that she is a "coke head raging pregnant woman" (well, maybe a raging pregnant woman) and your continued attempts at ad hominem attack show just how feeble minded your argument is.

[scribblet]

Guilty by association - give me a break, really !!

I think this whole thing says an awful lot of our dear media today - and it's not good.

[capricorn]

Looks like Ignatieff now thinks Harper went too far in firing Guergis.

At a stop in Trois Rivieres, Quebec, he said Harper ruined Guergis' career. Does that mean he thinks the calls for her resignation and firing also went too far? Details of his comments are in post 63 in the thread Ignatieff's Magnificent Summer Tour, linked below.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16754&pid=563536&st=60entry563536

[kimmy]

Obviously she was dropped because she embarrassed the Tories. She broke the cardinal rule of politics, don't make everyone else look like fools. Worse, the whole Jaffer thing did appear to have some legs and certainly raised some questions about some other members of cabinet.

The Ethics review is still coming down the pike, and while Guergis's allowing her husband to use her office, supplies, etc. wouldn't be a violation of law, it is pretty clearly on the dark side of the ethics question.

Guergis had become an embarrassment even before the whole ethics cloud settled over her head. I can find a lot of faults with Harper, but no sane leader would let such a person back into caucus. He did what he had to do to keep the Tory brand from being soiled by a couple of what look like slimy operators (to clarify, Jaffer is a slimy operator and Guergis, if not a slimy operator, is a contemptible fool, even worse in politics than being a slimy operator).

I quoted the whole message because it's really good.

That the RCMP didn't find enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings against Guergis is not an endorsement or vindication of her character. That she may not have done anything that violates the letter of the law doesn't make her conduct upstanding or exemplary or good. Criminal or not, letting Jaffer use her department's resources for his lobbying business represents monumentally bad judgment and highly questionable ethics, and both are plenty good reasons for not letting Guergis continue to represent the party.

And the premise that she could sue the Conservatives seems doubtful. Political parties can and do kick members out of caucus. Carolyn Parrish got booted out of the Liberal caucus for criticizing Paul Martin publicly. MPs have been kicked out of caucus for voting against the party line. They can certainly kick her out of caucus for bringing disrepute and embarrassment to the party. And it's up to the party who gets to represent the party next election. People have lost the chance to represent their party in an election for no reason other than the leader recruits a star candidate who they want to run there instead.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

She was fired for one reason only: as a political move to take the heat off the CPC. If Harper had kept Guergis on, the opposition and the media would have been blasting Harper/CPC this entire time, thus damaging the party.

Harper keeping her on would have been more politically damaging (especially if she was eventually proven guilty) than the damage caused by firing her even though she had not been proven guilty of anything.

She is now cleared, and Harper can bring her back into the party and apologize or make whatever moves he wants. Point is that it was the right political move for the CPC/Harper, even though it was wrong ethically and possibly legally. Actually it could turn out to be the wrong move after all if Guergis isn't let back in and she decides to sue.

[kimmy]

Point is that it was the right political move for the CPC/Harper, even though it was wrong ethically and possibly legally.

It wasn't the wrong move either ethically or legally.

There is nothing unethical about removing someone who has brought disrepute upon your political party from the caucus. And there's nothing illegal about it.

Actually it could turn out to be the wrong move after all if Guergis isn't let back in and she decides to sue.

She has no case.

-k