07.22.2010 12:22 PM

Canada AM, July 22: Guergis remains under the bus

Paradis stays in, Guergis stays out: Sound fair to you? Me neither.
Link somewhere in here.


  1. Derek Pearce says:

    If she finds a way to drag the government through some sticky mud with a lawsuit or something (though they’d probably go out-of-court to settle in one second) then I’m happy.

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      A law suit for what, getting thrown from cabinet.

      I do not wish to disappoint you, but people have been thrown out of cabinet by all parties for a very long time now and as people serve in cabinet at the request of the PM and that they can be removed from Cabinet at his request, there is not really any grounds for a suit.

      Now if she did, can you envision all those Liberals who were removed or dropped from a Liberal cabinet during the Turner Chertien and Martin years lining up to collect on their entitlements in their very own law suits.

      • Ronald O'Dowd says:


        Shows you’re not a lawyer. In Quebec, we call it “la prescription”, otherwise known roughly as a civil statute of limitations.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:


          Never said I was and I was not questioning whether or not a suit is legal, just the possible outcomes were.

  2. moose says:

    Don’t speak too loudly on her behalf.Up here in Collingwood we want to be
    rid of her.She’s as shallow as a drink of water.

  3. Sandra says:

    Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the Liberals and other opposition parties wanted Guergis to resign as a “cabinet minister” – not out of Con caucus and party.


    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Why is it so difficult for people to understand that the Liberals and other opposition parties do not understand that sometimes that the allegations deserve being remove from caucus and party.

      The reasoning would be that the Liberals have keep Derek (lobbying), Judy (ethics), Pablo (DUI and refusing to blow) and that Liberal who has been charged with six counts in the party and in the shadow cabinet and while there is a presumption of being innocent, it would on the surface appear that it is better to be a Liberal than a Conservative.

      • Sandra says:

        Well, excuse me – you have partisan ADD? I believe the topic was Helena Guergis.

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          Insults not debate, how Liberal of you.

          The point other than the one on your head (see I can do insults) was that the Liberals are being at their two faced best by showing that they have two standards – one for them and one for the rest of Canadians.

          Personally I do find that it is a dangerous policy from a party that wishes to govern and that this view is very regressive.

          As to the topic you are then one who brought up the removal from caucus and party, I just pointed out that the difference in how the Conservatives handled it and the lack of action on those individuals who have actual charges against them by the Liberal party and that would appear that it is better to be a Liberal who has been charged than a Conservative and frankly the acts do speak for themselves.

  4. Tceh says:

    If you read the Glob article above linked by Michael F you’ll note it’s about Guergis’s behavior at Charlottetown airport in February which was pretty bad for anyone especially a Federal Cabinet Minister. http://www.scribd.com/doc/27491445/Unsigned-Letter-Redacted

    Regarding Paradis, the Cons really really want to hold on to the seat. They will spend taxpayer money freely to keep that seat in PQ. http://pr-canada.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=222793&Itemid=58

    2 reasons why Guergis is still under the bus:
    1. The Cons also think they can win Simcoe-Grey without Guergis.
    2. To admit Guergis was ejected prematurely would also be to admit Harper was wrong.

    • Rick T. says:

      The Cons are going to win that seat and many more in Ontario. Why? Because the Liberal Ship is rudderless.

  5. Zachary Scott Smith says:

    What a number of Liberal fail to see is the difference between being throw under the bus and jumping in front of the bus and if there are any Liberals out there, all they have to do to see the difference, is to see what the Liberals did to Martin and Dion and what Ignatieff did to Rae, not to mention those 9 COS and the numerous times the Liberals have savaged their head office.

    There is an old saying , that we reap what we sow and in this case it appears that HG planted a bad crop and that it was her choices that lead to that crop being planted and in that way she jumped.

    • Philip says:

      Reap what we sow? Really? What are you, seven?

    • Namesake says:

      Well, that’s progress: you’re at least partly addressing the actual topic, for a change.

      Sure, she’s repeatedly shown bad judgment and a lack of competence, not to mention emotional instability, and there were ample reasons to remove her from Cabinet (and indeed, for never appointing her in the first place).

      But as one of the P&P journalists opined at the time (I think it was Don Martin), her main flaw / sowing in this whole debacle was just the all-too-human familiar one of falling for someone of questionable character, and continuing to believe in/see him through rose-coloured eyes, even when the evidence of his straying from the straight and narrow continued to mount. (The old “Stand by your man” refrain.)

      So for that reason, re: the things she’s still being investigated for — the letter she wrote to her cousin the municipal official encouraging him to use the green technology project Rahim told her about — I believe she (in some denial sorta way) took Rahim at his word that had no financial interest in it, and that in her eyes, this was just doing something to benefit a constituent _and_ the end-user in a win-win situation.

      And if, ahem, Tony Clement can be forgiven for doing the same thing in his Dep’t of Industry associated ShamWow! commercial for his constituent’s green cleaning product that he was hawking to China; and as I mentioned in the last thread, if Vic Toews can be forgiven for not declaring his pension; then WK’s right: we’re left thinking there may be some kind of discrimination going on here, for kicking her out of Cabinet but not them.

      As for the kicking her out of caucus, too, though, that’s really streching it.

      The, ahem, sole-source of this info, the PI who has tailing Gillani, made it clear that he was just recommending that they cut her loose from Cabinet because the “optics” of the shady circles her husband was travelling in were bad for the party — but he didn’t have any evidence that she herself was involved in any criminal wrongdoing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/private-investigator-tells-committee-he-has-no-evidence-against-guergis/article1566722/ So it appears Harper absolutely had no good basis for doing what he did.

      What gets me is that if this happened to their own innocent wives — if their wife’s boss not only fired them but called the cops on them simply on the basis of some PI telling him that he’d seen their husband associating with some unsavoury types, but didn’t even have the balls to tell the employee this to her face and also announced it to the whole factory and indeed to the world on the news — then the Sun-addled, melanin-challenged types who make up a large part of the Cons’ core constituency wouldn’t be defending that underhanded narcing behavior or trying to deflect attention from it: they’d condemn and confront it head-on. So ultimately, they have the same “Stand by your man” willful blindness that was Guergis’ undoing.

      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        I still see that you are only still only able to do personal attacks and that is shown in your comments once again.

        The second point is that I do not do Liberal talking points as they have all been discredited, so when you have something intelligent to add, I will only be to happy to reply at that time.

        So until then, happy howling as I see that the moon is out and do try to remember that people seldom take notice of the barking dog, no matter how loud the dog is.

        • Philip says:

          You might want to turn your irony settings back on.

          • Zachary Scott Smith says:

            Irony settings are lost on a Liberal blog and its chattering classes as I have found that with only a few exceptions and you are not one of them, that the concept is over their head.

  6. Robbie says:

    The fact that Ms Guergis currently resides under the rubber imprint of a Conservative bus tire, and not beneath the sulphuric stench of the Magic Bus’ exhaust pipe, speaks volumes to the state of Canadian politics in the summer of 2010. Harper’s Diesel better be an equal opportunity repair shop.

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Did you know that on day one of the Ignatieff bus tour and if you do not remember that was the day that the bus broke down, that the bus was hauled away to the garage to be fix, that it was Harpers garage – you cannot buy this type of news.

      • Namesake says:

        Well, I’ll say this for our new eager to displease, tireless Con-Bot friend: he certainly is well trained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMQWlX7OcX8

        (check it out: he raises the flag, jumps through hoops for his leader, and even has a red neck)

        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          For the lack of a better name, I see that you are using that old and very repeatitive barking line “con bot”, in any case can I order my coffee now, large, black, double cup and try to get the order right.

          I saw a similar video, only it was the Liberal party being put throught their paces, sit, roll over, stay, lay, walk and my favourite roll over and play dead, and I must say that after 5 years the Liberals are the best trained party of dogs that I have seen.

          I mean just how many times have they rolled over, it must be at least 150 times now and the one time they did bark at their master “Harper your time is up” and they got their nose smacked good and hard.

  7. James Smith says:

    Sheesh! This story has lots of flies around it eh?
    If I may, I think I’ll stick to the topic; OK?

    While folks get dropped from cabinet all the time, I think the phrase: “at the pleasure of the PM” – is deliciously ironic no? My feeling is regardless of how or why this happened, the handling reveals more about the present PM. My wife, who’s much smarter about such things read about, but never really interested in the original story nor has she any affinity for the former cabinet minister, she just thinks Ms Guergis was treated badly, bullied was her term.
    So what? I suspect this sentiment is not uncommon with other women, all things being equal I think the present PM may be judged more harshly by women as a result of this file. Will it loose him an election? Nope. However if enough women get the bully vibe from this person, in part from this story, the result could be very interesting.

    Off Topic Alert!
    Zachary Smith??
    Dude, I TOTALLY feel sorry for you going through life named after one of the 60’s worst coward/traitors on kid’s TeeVee!
    I used to get teased by folks calling me DOCTOR SMI-ITH!! But still I could not pull myself away from Robot – & always wanted to see more of Penny.
    Guess that’ why you use the middle name eh? Me? I get pulled aside & bumped off flights in the America all the time, that’s what one gets for having such a POPULAR last name.

    • Namesake says:

      Classic! But judging by his stilted prose, painful attempt at poetry,* lame insults (like-the-point-on-your-head, bleep), and ELIZA** on ‘roids canned argumentation subroutines, I think he’s The Robot*** — the sole survivor of the mission that’s been trying to pass for a human by stealing the Dr.’s identity.

      Danger, Warren Robinson!

      * http://warrenkinsella.com/2010/07/guergis-gate-not/#comment-7080
      ** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA
      *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Space

      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        Lame insults, please you used “Quackery” and I called you a barking dog, which howls at the moon and barks at the fence – personally I would say that I came off better in the exchange.

        Well as an old fan of the Doctor and there is really only one real Doctor and that is Doctor Who and do not confuse that Who, as with the Horton hears a Who.

        Now if I was going to pretend I was someone else, that Doctor would be a good choice for me, saving the universe from the evil Liberals, sorry I meant Dalek and other dangerous life forms, NDP, Greens, Bloc, CBC and the list goes on.

        And just what is a Dalek;

        Well they are creatures of a powerful race (liberals) bent on universal conquest and domination (Government), utterly without pity, compassion, or remorse, (Mr. Kinsella and I am sure he get the joke)

        Various storylines portray them as having had every emotion removed except hate (getting reelected), leaving them with a desire to purge the Universe of all non-Dalek life (Conservatives)


        As for you, well I do see you sitting in your mothers basement pretending to JAR JAR BINKS playing with your Star Wars Toys, sorry I meant collection as I do know how upset you people get when they are called toys.

        As for Mr. Kinsella, I rather doubt he has given me a passing thought as he without doubt has better placed individuals with who to cross swords, than a fly on his blog.

        Have a good day Jar Jar Binks and go get yourself towelled off, you must be a Little wet behind the ears.

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      One can say that flies is what Liberals and their Sh*T attracts and the only suggestion that I can offer, is stop writing Liberal Sh*t and you will not get any flies.

      1) You did write,

      “she just thinks Ms Guergis was treated badly, bullied was her term.” and is that from first hand experience? alternatively, an uninformed opinion generated by Liberal talking points.

      2) You also wrote,

      “I suspect this sentiment is not uncommon with other women”, if you were able to understand how to read a poll and were to get your information other than liberal Blogs.

      You would see that the Conservatives are consistently polling higher with women voters than the Liberals – good to CBC and the Ekos data for the poll numbers.

      3) Now this is just a talking point, but it does need to be addressed,

      “However if enough women get the bully vibe from this person,”

      Fact is that this talking point is going nowhere with Canadians and that the stupidity of the tactic is one of the reasons that Ignatieff is now testing the low twenty percent in the polls from his high of 36.% in April 2009.

      Moreover, as I am well aware of the Liberal adverse to the facts, I have included the two links.

      EKOS/CBC Survey ? April 2009, POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, IGNATIEFF, AND THE IBERALS TAKE OFF. Liberals take Significant Lead, with 36.7% to 30.2% Conservative.



      You also write,

      “I TOTALLY feel sorry for you going through life named after one of the 60?s worst coward/traitors on kid?s TeeVee!”

      That is so unoriginal, that it boards on asinine and shows just how limited you are in your repertoire of insults – please raise the bar as it is difficult to write down to this level.

      You also write,

      “Guess that? why you use the middle name eh? Me? I get pulled aside & bumped off flights in the America all the time, that?s what one gets for having such a POPULAR last name.”

      Hey, Ronald can you clear this up of the retentive one here.

      Got to go, that dog is barking again and I need to put some water over its head again to shut it up.

  8. Raymond says:

    Hey Lipmann..(cont’d) that was long before drunk driving and white powder. Don’t get too worked up about the use of government Challengers. Many years ago, when I was in commercial aviation, we were number two behind a Challenger that deplaned ONE lonely Liberal minister, eighteen-hundred miles from where the flight originated. One person…a minister that didn’t want to wait for a commercial flight, as there was a ladies luncheon to attend the next day (according to the press).

    As she strutted across the ramp, we sat in the cockpit, dumbfounded.
    Even the Challenger crew was shaking their heads when we chatted with them later.

    Guess things really haven’t changed a great deal since then.

  9. northbaytrapper says:

    I don’t mean her any harm, but my God she was useless.
    Who would I wish for next to leave cabinet? Gotta think on that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.