The latest in Guergis - Macleans.ca
 

The latest in Guergis


 

Conservatives in Simcoe-Grey are concerned the party is attempting to bigfoot them. One potential replacement candidate says she’s not a candidate. Meanwhile, two cabinet ministers are politely refusing to appear before the government operations committee to discuss their knowledge of Mr. Jaffer’s behaviour.


 

The latest in Guergis

  1. Here's a quick two part decision tree!

    Are BOTH Geurgis and Jaffer cleared of all wrong doing

    Y Geurgis is the candidate

    N Kelly Leitch is the candidate

    • And if the election is held some time in the next six months and the investigation hasn't finished?

      • Its official, she's goners.

        She didn't own enough cats I guess.

  2. Good to see Kellie Leitch hasn't damaged that remarkable brain of hers. :-)

      • Plus no discernible skills, education or other job prospects.

        • She should run for leader of a political party then. She seems to have the right resumé.

        • Plus a husband to support, he what likes the bling.

          • That seemed racist.

            It don't matter if a cat is black or white…

  3. Speculation turned to Raitt last last week, and Paradis clearly has some 'splainin to do…they surely look all the more guilty by refusing to come clean.

    I feel confident that sooner or later, we're gonna find Rahim got money. Can't their staff and bureaucrats be subpoenaed to talk at committee?

    • I think you are right. The documents showing no money was given were produced quickly and then the matter was referred for investigation. Now, no more info will come out as the mattter is "under investigation." This is just another stall tactic. This is the pattern this government follows but I don't understand why they continue it. Refusing to allow committees to access documents or witnesses just increases the appearance of misdeeds. If no misdeeds took place, the government should be happy to make that clear.

      • Refusing to allow committees to access documents or witnesses may increase the appearance of misdeeds.

        But sure doesn't increase teh appearance of misdeeds as much as actual proof of misdeeds.

        Thus the plan, nay the policy of delay and distract as long as you can.

        • It's despicable but it does seem to work; they don't pay for their distrustful behaviour at the polls. The fact is that most people DO lose interest in a slow-moving story that never seems to end. The public is fickle and has a short attention span.

          Contemptuous lot, the government. Raitt has long had allegations of misbehaviour with public money.

        • Yes, I get that. It would likely work if there were only one issue involved. But I don't see it as an effective strategy to use on multiple fronts. Can any misdeeds be worse than what imagination can produce? Do they really want to stand fast on the defense that nothing was "proved?"

          The government would do far better to find out if any money was given to anyone with connections to Jaffer and then purge those responsible. By thwarting the efforts to get at the truth they look guilty, not only of misdeeds, but of approving of the misdeeds.

          • I think they learned their electoral strategy from observing Martin and Gomery… and doing exactly the opposite.

            Less disclosure, less accountability, less access, less policy, less discussion (just "shut the f**k up), less communication.

    • I thought it curious that Harper moved Raitt away from sitting behind him all of a sudden and put in Ambrose and Oda to sit as his "women" in caucus – to be seen on TV clapping and nodding and clapping and nodding.

      Why was Raitt moved?

      I also remember Jane Taber reporting (I know, I know – we're talking Taber here) that the restaurant in question with Jaffer is a favourite hang out for Tories, especially Raitt.

      This is getting curiouser and curiouser all the time.

  4. Man, this story has petered out. Now it's about the riding association?

    • Yes, because near-daily revelations of far deeper connections and involvment and complicity of the significant cabinet ministers and secretaries followed by a sudden refusal of cabinet ministers to say anything or disclose anything makes this… all the more petered out and irrelevant and just fence-line gossipy.

      Right.

    • It takes a while for things to work through the system. For example, in a Wherry blog, I postulated on April 14th:

      And why would Jean be so forthcoming at this point? My guess is that a reporter has submitted an FOI request (or one could be reasonably expected to be forthcoming) asking for copies of all proposals for the government's $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund originating from Rahim Jaffer, Patrick Glemaud and/or Green Power Generation Corp. Get it out there, rather than one-two months later through an FOI disclosure/reporter's story. http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/13/tonight-in-gue

      Earlier today, David Akin reported on the FOI request sent to Lisa Raitt's Dept (amongst others no doubt):

      On April 16, the Opposition Leaders Office submitted a request to the Ministry of Natural Resources asking, under federal Access to Information laws, for all "records of communications your department may have had with Rahim Jaffer, Patrick Glemaud or any representative of Green Power Energy Generation COrp. (sic)." http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2010

      So, given the evolution of revisions to the Accountability Act wrt lobbying, the story has hardly "petered out". It has rather morphed and broadened. Like a virus.

  5. Are we still talking about this? Oh, wait, I wrote one of those stories…

    • Lol!!!

  6. Why would Helena want to run for the Conservatives after they threw her under the bus? Self-flagellation?

  7. I don't know why Jason showed up. That was me.

    • Maybe you're using a public computer?