07.21.2010 03:12 PM

I’m thinking a certain Prime Minister owes a certain MP an apology…

RCMP ends Helena Guergis probe with no action taken: lawyer (Guergis-RCMP)

Source: The Canadian Press

Jul 21, 2010 16:00

OTTAWA – The lawyer for deposed cabinet minister Helena Guergis says the RCMP has given his client a clean bill of health.

Howard Rubel says an inspector with the Mounties has advised him that the police probe found “no substance” to any of the issues raised by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Rubel says the RCMP assured him that all concerns related to Guergis have been “resolved” and that there will be no further action.

Earlier this year, Guergis was booted from cabinet as minister for the status of women after allegations surrounding misuse of her office by her husband, ex-Tory MP Rahim Jaffer.

She was also kicked out of the Conservative caucus and made to sit as an independent backbencher.

Guergis denied any wrongdoing, saying Prime Minister Stephen Harper never made clear what allegations he had passed on to the Mounties.


  1. Anonymously Posted says:

    Yeah, that will happen!

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Only a Liberal would considering that hiring and retaining consultants is a good idea and that it adds value.

      Here is a discription of what a consultant does, you pay him large amounts of money for them to tell you what time it is, when all you needed to do is look at your own watch.

      Simple fact and outcome, the Conservatives it would seem having tired of having possible Liberal consultants hired by the former Government keep telling them the wrong time and acted.

  2. Raymond says:

    Oh, please.
    Liberals were howling for her head over the PEI airport incident and a host of other issues.
    Me thinks Mr. J was the real liability, and ‘Steve’ moved quickly to eliminate it.

    • Namesake says:

      Sure, the Opp. & the media howl for cabinet resignations at the first scent of blood, even where it’s scarcely a nick, and was on someone else.

      So what; that’s (sorta) their job, all Parties do it, and they’re often way off base even tho’ they end up killing someone’s career (ask Jane Stewart, whose notoriuous “billion dollar boondoggle” turned out to be a net accounting discrepancy of a mere $85,000: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Stewart_%28politician%29 )

      The issue here is the competence, judgment, and integrity of the leader in deciding to either stand by, suspend, or completely expel a member of his team when they’re under attack.

      From a shareholder or Board Member’s point of view, what do you make of a CEO who makes rash decisions and brings expensive wrongful dismissal suits upon themselves which ends up hurting the brand and costing you all a lot of money?

      Hmm, cognitive dissonance; resort to default — circle the wagons, attack the critics, attack the critics, Exterminate! Exterminate!


      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        Using wikipedia as a reference, excellent choice as individuals can go in, place the information that “proves” their POV and then use it as a reference.

        Speaking about competence, just where is the 23% man who was at almost 40% in the polls just a year ago April and what does that say about him and his parties competence, judgment, and integrity, judging from the numbers not much, unless you are part of the wolf pack.

  3. Cam says:

    While there are differences, there are also some similarities between the HG affair and Doug Tipple. See the Current from July 20,


    “Doug Tipple was hired to save the government billions, but by the time the final tally is made, his treatment in the public service will cost the Canadian government, and taxpayers millions.

    About four years ago, he was head-hunted from the private sector to carry out huge reforms in the Public Works department. One year into his three-year contract, he was fired.”

    I am NOT saying this is soley a CPC issue, see the recent over-reaction by the Obama Administration in the Shirley Sherrod affair


    You have to wonder if governments are way too sensitive to adverse publicity, even when it’s patently unfounded.

  4. robert says:

    The RCMP said, there was no substance to any of the issues forwarded to them by the Prime Minister?s Office.
    The RCMP then would feel right at home with the rest of Canada.

  5. Then she should immediately be invited back into the Tory caucus.

    Cricket .. cricket…

  6. Dave Roberts says:

    Isn’t she still under investigation from the Parliamentary Ethics Commissioner?

    • wilson says:

      Yes, there is that matter of Jaffer using her office to do some ‘alleged lobbying’,
      which was considered serious enough by all parties to propose amendments to the Lobby Act to included pretty much anyone who walks the halls of Parliament.

  7. Sandra says:

    The Con supporters/strategists keep saying the opposition parties were demanding that she be fired – well, ye as a cabinet minister.

    I don’t recall any of them asking her to be kicked out of caucus.

    And, remember Bernier didn’t get kicked out of caucus – why the double-standard with the Cons – man okay, woman not.

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      Speaking about the double standard.

      What ever happen about Pablo and the DUI and refusing to blow, Lee and his famous web site and we may never know as the Liberals blocked it and as one dooes know a Liberal is entitled to their entitlements or how about Judy and her I will give the condo to my children and rent it back from them and claim $22,000 in rent and not the $10,000 if I owned it and there is always that future Liberal and his six counts.

      last count at least three were still in Iggys shadow cabinet and their action does put a whole new spin onn the shadow part.

  8. Darrell says:

    The Conservatives won’t take her back, the NDP don’t want her, that leaves the Liberals….

  9. Paul R. Martin says:

    Sorry Warren, she was and still is toxic. Need I remind you of her husband. She is just too close to a man of very dubious ethics.

  10. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    I think she deserves a place in caucus. Granted, her husband is seen by some as a bomb waiting to explode but she shouldn’t have to pay an overblown political price for his alleged failings.

    And one more thing: not a good idea to be on the wrong side of Helena given the RCMP’s conclusions. If the Ethics Commissioner gives her a clean bill of health, smart minds will quickly be looking to mend fences…

    • Zachary Scott Smith says:

      good day Ronald,

      I was watching CBC P&P yesterday and it was brought up that if she wished to revive her political life, she would have to join the Liberals as the Conservatives, NDP have given her a pass.

      Personally I belive that that is an excellent outcome for the Liberals and Helena as they would now appear to have so much in common and further more, it would help the Liberals get away from that do as I say not as I do way of doing things, as how better to show their support for the way the Conservatives handled her, than offering her a job

  11. Lipman says:

    Nice generalization, Raymond. You paint all “Liberals” with the same brush when in fact many people who identify as Liberals just wanted to wait to see the facts come out. In fact, some (like the dude in charge of this site) initially wrote that HG was given too hard a time.

    This writer considers her behaviour at PEI disgraceful and warranting a dismissal.

    • Raymond says:

      Did I say all Liberals, Derek?

      Didn’t think so.

      At any rate, many Conservatives consider the once so-called power duo a toxic asset, and are glad to be rid of them.

      • Lipman says:

        But when they were in vogue, the CPC was delighted with who they were and what they represented. When Jaffer warned that the NDP would let things go “up in smoke”, his Party cronies were happy to stand by him.

        Is it possible HG could sue?

        • Raymond says:

          I’m sure the same could be said for drunk-driving (former) MP’s of any political stripe.
          Possible, yep. Probable, nope.

          • Lipman says:

            Every cunning move Harper makes is connected to a tireless effort aimed at his own self-preservation.

            It was not too long ago that Jaffer was (As Prairie reporter Alan Kellogg noted) the PM’s “eyes and ears” as National Caucus Chair.

            Also, Harper found Jaffer affable enough to take him on a hockey junket in which they secured elusive tickets only through the help of a private Challenger jet. See below:

            Harper’s hockey junket draws fire:; [Final Edition]
            Glen McGregor. The Ottawa Citizen. Ottawa, Ont.: Jun 20, 2006. pg. A.5

            Abstract (Summary)
            Mr. [Rahim Jaffer] identified the PMO staff at the game as press secretary Carolyn Stewart-Olsen; deputy press secretary Demitri Soudas; Mr. [Stephen Harper]’s executive assistant, Ray Novak; and special assistant Karine Leroux. Because the PMO bought only two tickets, most of the PMO staff and RCMP did not have seats.

            So on Saturday afternoon, Mr. Harper and four of the MPs flew from Ottawa to Edmonton aboard one of the Challenger jets that DND operates. To protect other passengers, the prime minister is not allowed to take commercial flights.

            Photo: Andy Clark, Reuters / Prime Minister Stephen Harper took four PMO staffers, six MPs and a number of RCMP officers on a Challenger jet to Edmonton for Game 6 of the Stanley Cup finals on Saturday. The PMO says staff members did not watch the game, but handled security and media liaison.

  12. JH says:

    I can’t believe most of the comments. I mean, I know many here are opposition partisans of various stripes and that’s fine but do you really think any Liberal or NDP (?) PM would have done any different? Anyone with an ounce of honesty knows that in the face of the media and opposition criticisms they would have done exactly the same thing. It would not even have been a close call. And just as guilty as Harper can be accused of being, if you feel that way, what do you have to say about the media and opposition baying for her head on a platter week after week?
    Jeez folks it’s not only the pols who look bad, some of you commenting here make yourselves look foolish in the extreme. If the ethics commissioner which is still investigating other issues concering Ms. Guergis makes a finding of wrong doing is everybody going to start back-peddaling again? Unreal stuff in this country these days from all sides and not a whole lot to be proud of.

    • Namesake says:

      What a drama queen you are, JH! and what a short memory! that’s why I ref’d Jane Stewart: Chretien stood by her thru all the baying of the hounds. And if, ugh, Guergis was one of his Ministers (if our bench were really that shallow), he would’ve called her into his office, looked her right in the eye & confronted her with the allegations like a man and take the measure of her, and backed her to the hilt if he was satisfied it was a smear, even if / though it would cost him in the polls. Not Harper. He just narced on her, w/o telling her to her face why, and washed his hands of it in when he got wind that it might somehow implicate or embarrass him personally. That’s some boss.

      • Namesake says:

        Meanwhile, the PMO is issuing a bunch of after the fact reasons for the firings & denial of the nomination (as with the alleged reasons for the Census neutering),


        even tho’:

        1) some of these (like the airport meltdown) had been previously explicitly discounted as not being worthy reasons for even removing her from cabinet;

        2) the sole & supposedly only reason given at the time was the “serious criminal allegations” (which turned out to have amounted to nothing, which even the alleged source of the allegations told the Parliamentary Committee weeks ago);

        & 3) some of the ones now being given — the failure to disclose to the ethics and conflict of interest commissioner that she had a mortgage liability (and a messy personal life) — have parallels in other Cabinet Ministers who’ve escaped censure (viz. Vic Toews, who didn’t disclose (or in his words, correct the omission of) several years of an $18,000 a year pension to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner



        • Zachary Scott Smith says:

          It would appear that the dog is barking at the fence again,

          “some of the ones now being given ? the failure to disclose to the ethics and conflict of interest commissioner that she had a mortgage liability (and a messy personal life)”

          Two points here,

          First one, she was fined $100.00 and that is one hundred dollars and not to confused with the two thousand dollars that the former Liberal who was entitled to his entitlements.

          Second point, while she may have a messy personal life in your view, it in fact most likely will exceed anything that you may hope.

          “the sole & supposedly only reason given at the time was the ?serious criminal allegations? (which turned out to have amounted to nothing, which even the alleged source of the allegations told the Parliamentary Committee weeks ago);”

          By the way what ever happen with Pablo, Judy, Derek and that Liberal that Iggy signed the nomination papers for and just why are the Liberals hiding this individuals from any review within the committees – just what are they hidding.

          “some of these (like the airport meltdown) had been previously explicitly discounted as not being worthy reasons for even removing her from cabinet;”

          That was not the reason for her removal, although the Liberal mis-stated what occured at the airport they were calling for her removal

  13. Mulletaur says:

    Nobody gives a flying fandangle about this, my dear friend. You need to recalibrate regarding the long form. If the Harperites insist on pandering to the crazy ass Libertarian right of their party on this, they will ensure that we can never measure our progress in defeating poverty again. I imagine that’s exactly what they want.

    • Namesake says:

      Um, this belongs in the now dormant discussion several threads back, but it’s not true no regular folk outside Ottawa care;

      a preliminary poll shows fully half of Canadians [who’ve heard about it & cared to give an opinion] already think this is a bad idea:


      • Zachary Scott Smith says:

        It would appear that you need to look for a more re”lie”able source as the polling company Ipos Reid has show that half of Canadians are in favour of getting rid of the form, so what was your point other than barking at the moon.

        • Namesake says:

          Hey, genius: that’s the same poll I ref’d, and speaking of moons, a whole minus a half = half.

          • Zachary Scott Smith says:

            Just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious that if half of Canadians were against it, then half were for it and already think that it is a good idea to drop it.

            Now as to thinking well that does on the surface appear to be something that you seem unable to do (see I can do insults).

    • wilson says:

      hmmm so 62% of Quebecers are ‘crazy ass Libertarian rightie in the CPC’?

      • Mulletaur says:

        Quebecers haven’t woken up to the implications of this change yet, wilson. Be assured, they shall :


        “Notons que le gouvernement du Québec s’apprête à envoyer deux lettres à Ottawa pour manifester son désaccord sur la question du recensement, une de la part du ministre Claude Béchard à titre de ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, l’autre du ministre Raymond Bachand à titre de responsable de la statistique au Québec. Le sujet a d’ailleurs été mis à l’ordre du jour de la rencontre annuelle du Conseil de la fédération par le Manitoba, qui en est l’hôte cette année. Québec se dit satisfait de cette décision.

        Un autre groupe a par ailleurs dénoncé la décision d’Ottawa. Cette fois il s’agit du Quebec Community Groups Network, qui défend les intérêts des minorités anglophones du Québec. Le groupe a déposé une plainte auprès du commissaire aux langues officielles, Graham Fraser.”

  14. Anne Peterson says:

    But we will all pay. Don’t we all pay for Harper’s mistakes. It’s a boundary issue of some kind. He thinks he owns us all and all our resources. Like some leech that marries a rich women and thinks everything she has is his to squander. Spend it on advertising himself, spend it on what he wants even if the people don’t, spend it on paying for his mistakes.

  15. JH says:

    Well I guess calling one names for having an opinion is your right – it’s your blog. However I still contend that given the attitude in the House today – it would have been the same result with any PM. And if Harper has a liability then I’d say some opposition members and members of the press are in the same boat. I don’t really care about any of them really but you cannot think that Ms. G’s legal team won’t be looking at all comments made outside the protection of the H of C as well as all media coverage.

  16. Lipman says:

    An election must be coming soon. The Tory cadres are back in full force on WK’s site!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *