81

Tonight in Guergis


 

Ms. Guergis says Mr. Jaffer didn’t use her office for personal business. The Liberals allege Mr. Jaffer may have violated the Lobbying Act. Ms. Guergis says Mr. Jaffer isn’t a lobbyist. Mr. Jaffer’s business partner says the business is in shambles. Sources tell CBC that police mistakes led to Mr. Jaffer’s plea deal. And now there is this from CTV.

The mysterious third party who uncovered serious allegations that led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to toss MP Helena Guergis out of caucus is a private investigator, CTV News has learned.

Police sources say the licensed private eye contacted a Conservative Party lawyer in Toronto, and expressed concern about a potential threat of blackmail arising from allegations about the purchase and use of drugs. It has not been confirmed who may have purchased or used the drugs in question, or who may have been prone to blackmail.


 

Tonight in Guergis

  1. *** EXCLUSIVE: Must Credit Anon 001 ***

    The name of the PI is Inspector Jack Clouseau, and yes, he is licensed in multiple countries.

    He assures me that he used his monocle to get this information.

    • So what you're suggesting is that our prime minister acted on advice from Inspector Clouseau? Just wanted to double check.

  2. private investigator

    Is that the fellow that did the strip search?

  3. OK, so who hired the PI?

    Putting 1.9 and 1.9 together…
    [The PI] expressed concern about a potential threat of blackmail arising from allegations about the purchase and use of drugs.
    and
    On Monday, Transport Minister John Baird said the allegations "came forward from a third party." He said the alleged misdoings "do not involve any minister, any MP, any senator, or for that matter any government employee."
    …except, presumably, for Ms. Guergis.

    My speculation can get me no further than the two following ALLEGED scenarios:

    (A) Jaffer bought drugs and Guergis knew it, exposing this cabinet minister (or secretary of state, or junior minister, or whatever) to a risk of blackmail;
    (B) Guergis herself bought the drugs, exposing this cabinet minister (or secretary of state, or junior minister, or whatever) to a risk of blackmail.

    Any other creative ideas out there?

    • You've raised the same question that went through my mind: who hired the PI?

      Maybe the Conservatives? I mean, who else?

      • Who ever was investigating Nazim Gillani, sounds like the info turned up from that….?

  4. The most obvious explanation is that Guergis could have been blackmailed by someone who knew that she new about Jaffer's drug pruchases.

    I think Jaffer is owed an apology. People accused him of political favours http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/12/this-actually-
    when in reality he was strip-searched for no reasonable cause by law and he was not granted access to his own lawyers.

    As for Guergis, she is owed an apology for the insinuation by many that she had committed a crime when in fact there is clearly much more to the story.

    Of course, knowing the lax ethics of Liberals, I don't expect to hear an apology though.

    • This makes no sense. Guergis is the one in the doghouse.

      • No, what makes no sense is our putrid excuse for political media.

        • what makes no sense is the putrid excuse for political reporting we have in this country

          Replace "reporting" with "leadership" and I'll agree with you.

    • You're funny today.

    • you are so moronic it makes my head hurt

  5. A report that has mysteriously disappeared and is replaced by Mr Wherry's link.
    Before it's disappearance:
    (Libs (Mark Holland) make accusations not knowing Liberal governments also hired the same company…oops)

    By STEPHEN MAHER Ottawa Bureau | UPDATED 5:55 p.m.
    Tue. Apr 13 – 4:46 PM
    OTTAWA — A company linked to Rahim Jaffer's business partner has won $2.7 million in contracts with the federal government since the Conservatives took power, a link the Liberals used Tuesday to suggest people connected with the former MP may have improperly benefited from a relationship with the government.

    continued

  6. But the same firm has worked for previous Liberal governments, and Jaffer's partner only started working for the company in 2009, after it won many of the contracts, blunting the Liberal attack in the House.
    The Liberals produced paperwork showing that BMCI Consulting Inc. has won more than 50 contracts with the Conservative government…

    “The firm does this kind of work,” he said. “It has done this kind of work for years under previous governments. Whether it's Health Canada, the auditor general, the RCMP. The list goes on. They're playing politics. That's what opposition parties do. But to try to imply some sort of guilt for a well-known Ottawa firm, which I don't think the firm will take kindly to. There's nothing improper here at all.”

    but, the story is gone, replaced later in the day with http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9016043.html

    • Typical for these dishonest, dirty, elitist and corrupt Liberals and their supporters. Of course the story is gone, we wouldn't want the truth to get out!

      • Don't forget about the driver! He had better be able to produce a log of all these 'personal business rides' he took Jaffer on , or his new employer will be showing him the door too.

        O f course the Libs and their media won't give a rip whose life or business they destroy in the process.
        Iffy is not 'political class', he is low class.

        • It's always such fun watching one person have a conversation with herself.

          • You apparently cannot count to two. Here goes, take it slowly: 1……. 2.

          • No, it's more fun watching you carry on a conversation with yourself.

      • "Jaffer's plea bargain was justified due to police malfeasance"

        dirty corrupt scf, soft on crime.

        • Frustrated BC?
          Libs roll around in the mud and come up with nothing to stick on Harper.
          4 years of it, Liberals have lost their way.

  7. Hey, listen, Harper is not a liberal. He called in the RCMP.

    • Yes. And where in that statement you just wrote is justification for people to assume she was the one suspected of a crime? She could just as easily be a victim. Do you seriously have a reasonable theory by which she might be accused of blackmail?

    • Revising history are you? Chretien called in the RCMP and asked the AG to investigate.

  8. If she was a victim, why would it even go to Harper?

    • I don't understand your question. Harper terminated her because she was a crappy minister, and this situation provided him the opportunity to do it.

      • She herself contacts the RCMP and Ethics Commissioner, offers full co-operation, claims allegations are untrue and unfounded. If the allegations aren't concerning her actions, why make the efforts and statement, and why not divulge the allegation if it is about someone else?

        • You just answered your own question.

      • Harper didn't just remove her from Cabinet, he removed her from Caucus and cast a further shadow over her reputation by saying he had referred the matter to the RCMP and would not give any information.

        Do you think this is the way Harper treats a "victim"? I don't respect Harper, and I think he could treat anyone like dirt, including a victim, if he thought it would further his political ambitions. However, I don't respect Guergis or Jaffer either, and think it is possible that one or both have been involved in criminal activity. In this specific case, I think that is the more likely possibility.

        • "cast a further shadow over her reputation by saying he had referred the matter to the RCMP"

          See, that's where the smear comes in right there. Good job.

          The two phrases do not go together. When you refer something to the RCMP, that does not mean that she is a criminal. She could be a victim, or incidentally involved, or there might be no criminal matter at all in the end, depending upon the investigation.

          • First, having a shadow over your reputation does not mean you are a criminal. It means someone in a high position of authority, such as the Prime Minister of Canada, thinks you might be. Harper said he kicked her out of caucus AND referred the matter to the RCMP because of new allegations. Again, while Harper is certainly not above treating a victim this way, it is not the most likely explanation. Guergis and Jaffer are no more trustworthy than Harper, and it is more likely they are in the wrong here.

            Second, Harper did not need to tell us he had referred the matter to the RCMP. He withheld lots of details and he could have withheld that one if he wished. He wanted that information in the news.

          • So are you saying you think the PM acted too harshly?

            Just imagine the howls of 'cover up' had PMSH not acted swiftly, he did the right thing.
            Zero tolerance.

          • So are you saying you think the PM acted too harshly?

            No, because I don't think Guergis is an innocent victim. I'm commenting on s_c_f's suggestion that she is a victim, a hypothesis I don't agree with.

          • "thinks you might be"

            That is where we disagree. Harper was likely upset with her performance, hence the cabinet dumping. But when it comes to the RCMP, he was not accusing her of anything, nor insinuating anything.

            In fact, he said "serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Honourable Helena Guergis. These allegations relate to the conduct of Ms. Guergis". Nothing in there says: Guergis committed a crime. She may very well have witnessed a crime and not disclosed it. And in fact, they are allegations, so there may be no crime at all.

            Yet headhunters like yourself have decided to come to your own conclusion: guilty until proven innocent, even though no crime has yet been identified.

          • "guilty until proven innocent,"

            Gosh, imagine that. Now just where…WHERE…have we seen examples of that before? Could it be in hundreds of ten percenters mailed to my home at taxpayers expense over the course of four years? Could have been MP Ablonczy implying Maher Arar was a terrorist in the House of Commons? Could it be…well, I'll stop there. We'll be here all day otherwise.

          • I hope you're getting paid for this – you're putting such a lot of effort into defending her. Harper left no doubt that he called the RCMP in about her conduct – and she almost immediately responded by saying she would co-operate.

          • "When you refer something to the RCMP, that does not mean that she is a criminal. She could be a victim, or incidentally involved, or there might be no criminal matter at all in the end, depending upon the investigation. "

            LOL!!!!

  9. Wherry wisely avoided writing "Tonight in Guergis: Jaffer"

    • Wherry knows the last thing he needs is to be sued for copyright infringement by Ralph Klein.

      • Last time a Conservative said something I actually found funny.

        • Quelle surprise.

  10. Here's something I don't quite get.

    OTTAWA — Former MP Rahim Jaffer and his business partner met with parliamentary secretary Brian Jean and submitted three green energy projects for federal funding in recent months without registering as lobbyists, as would seem to be required by law.

    On Tuesday, Jaffer's business partner, former Conservative candidate Patrick Glemaud, told The Chronicle Herald that he and Jaffer did not lobby the federal government or try to win funding for projects.

    He was contradicted by Jean, the parliamentary secretary to Transport Minister John Baird, who has been sorting through projects for the government's $1-billion Green Infrastructure Fund. Jean said he rejected three projects proposed by Green Power Generation Corp., a firm owned by Glemaud and Jaffer.

    "I did not recommend any of them for potential funding," Jean said Tuesday. "I did not feel that they were of any significant public benefit and quite frankly were most likely ineligible for funding. I will tell you quite frankly, the return on investment for taxpayers was not there. And none of the projects received any funding whatsoever."
    ,,,
    Jean said that's [Glemaud's denial] not accurate . He said Glemaud and Jaffer submitted proposals.

    "I've got the paperwork right in front of me."
    http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1177078.html

    Isn't Jean equally culpable for meeting with Jaffer and accepting proposals when he was not a registered lobbyist? Shouldn't he have ended the meeting, and refused their proposals?

    • 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.

      Glemaud's claim that they haven't profited to date from any alleged lobbying? – Red herring. They could have had a contingency/success fee arrangement, or even an equity position in any projects that may go forward in lieu of a fee. Lots of possibilities apart from what this lawyer argues.

      • 1. I don't believe Baird.

        2. None of the defences of Jaffer preclude lobbying to date; especially interesting is the fact that those in government keep talking about how he had no access to "the PMO," or "Ministers" when he could just as easily (and more likely) have been lobbying the gullible frat boys who make up too much of the ministry staff in the current regime.

        3. Sure, Jean could have been motivated by many things, and he should have known better for the initial meeting. But it's possible that Jaffer just asked for a meeting as a former MP and showed up to lobby without warning, for example. Anyway, I'll give Jean credit for coming forward without talking points, which is more than a single Conservative robot has done through this entire circus.

        • I could see your point 3 more clearly had there been only one proposal. But there were three (and highly doubtful they were all submitted at the same time- energy projects don't work that way). Having an ongoing relationship (more than one meeting if that is the case) would certainly tend to leave Jaffer with the impression that he did in fact have access to the Green Infrastructure Fund, though not through the projects so far submitted (they failed economic criteria /public interest/ benefit tests).

    • Furthermore, Baird, when confronted in the HofC, admits he met with Jaffer (last Sept?) but claims no business was discussed. If Baird's secretary had Jaffer's proposals "in front of me" at that time, or was about to receive them, hard to believe Jaffer didn't at least try to bring up the matters.

  11. I am assuming that the plan at this point is to never reveal exactly why Guergis was turfed out of the Conservative Party. I'll be curious to see if we ever find out what happened.

    • It is pretty clear that Guergis was turfed for essentially the same reason the Conservatives are protect-redacting information that would be damaging to Paul Martin's government. Of course, these events can be seen to be virtually inevitable once the linkage between the envelopes accepted by Mr. Mulroney and rejected by Mr. Cadman are fully understood. (and no… you will never find out what happened)

  12. The private investigator contacted a "Conservative" lawyer? Why? Was it the Conservatives that hired the PI?

    • I hope so. It wouldn't be appropriate if the government hired the PI, but the PI reported to the CPC. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish the PMO from the CPC, but in money matters they should be separate.

      • But why did he report to a Conservative lawyer instead of the RCMP?

  13. What? Pleading innocent? Yeah, that's never been tried before. Might as well dismiss all cases going to trial once the accused gives a "not guilty" plea.

    • Oh lordy, I appeal to you to please just stop talking to him! It's turning into "who's on first"!

      • if you don't want to be here, then get out.

        • I can think of an easier resolution.

          • good for you

    • The accusations may be untrue and unfounded. Harper never contested that fact. That's what investigations are for. There are no charges.

      Just because there was no charges laid, that doesn't mean Harper wants her in cabinet or caucus.

      There is quite a distinction there.

    • <sarcasm>Build more prisons; We need law and order</sarcasm>

  14. Why would anyone hire 3.14159265 to investigate Helena Guergis?

    • Please don't go starting circular discussions.

      • Don't you start any loopy discussions about irrational numbers.

        • Anyone who tries, I should break his radius and his ulna, so the pieces are at quite an angle. It would serve him right, for being so obtuse.

          • Uh, the broken bone imagery was a bit too acute for me.

  15. It doesn't strike me as unusual that parties that have people dedicated to digging up dirt on political opponents would also have people investigating their own, as a damage control/we don't like surprises measure.

    But then, I watch too much TV.

    • It's fairly clear that the PI wasn't investigating Guergis or Jaffer, but whoever he was investigating crossed paths with one of them. The PI then felt it necessary to share this info with the CPC lawyer. So no, I don't think the CPC is investigating their own for damage control.

  16. Whatever happened to the Tories much vaunted National Anti-Drug Strategy?? Now it turns out that the Tory cabinet is populated with probable drug users. Does anyone seriously believe that if Rahim Jaffer was snorting cocaine, his wife wouldn;t be in on it as well? I wonder who else in the cabinet was doing drugs and who their dealer was?

    • "Does anyone seriously believe that if Rahim Jaffer was snorting cocaine, his wife wouldn;t be in on it as well?"

      Yes, actually. I've noticed that couples often don't do everything together. As an example, an acquaintance of mine husband smokes. She knows about this habit and disapproves and doesn't partake in it. In fact, some people don't even know about their significant other's bad habits. So how about we stop spreading innuendo that Guergis is a cokehead until there is actual evidence that she indeed is a cokehead.

    • Does anyone seriously believe that if Rahim Jaffer was snorting cocaine, his wife wouldn[']t be in on it as well?

      Does anyone besides Pulsetaker seriously believe that, for all married couples, if a husband snorts, therefore his wife obviously snorts, too? I know I don't.

  17. If she was even aware of her husband doing cocaine then she should have immediately reported him to the police. According the Tories "tough on crime" anti-drug strategy – by not reporting her husband toi the police – she is an accessory to a crime and deserves to be charged as well!

    • Are you married? Is there NO law you have ever broken? Jaywalking? Littering? Driving 52 km/hr in a fifty zone? Rewiring a switch if your provincial law requires a licensed electrician? Paid under the table to move your old fridge to your nephew's place?

      Feel free to take yourself AND your accessory spouse to the copshop immediately.

    • Geez, you're getting carried away making innuendos about other cabinet members. Maybe he never snorted when she was around him. You don't know.

  18. Wha… I can't sine your cast…?

    • It just compounds the problem when a guy starts making puns cosecant find anything useful to add.

      • I am not convinced you have yet reached the root of the problem. You fail to note that the puns are integral to the thread itself.

        • OK, this has got to stop. Things are regressing big-time. I feel another wave of puns coming on. The groans are just getting too variable. Who wants to axis this nonsense any longer?

          All on-stage collapse in a hail of machine-gun fire. When the smoke clears, a shadowy silhouette figure of English-language protector Jack Mitchell is seen surveying the carnage with satisfaction. He slings his weapon over his shoulder, and silently walks away to the East…

  19. Speculative slug and mugs …. that's all you'all are here. God, go out and do something useful in your community. Walk an old ladies dog or pick up trash in a park …. please!

    "Well I'm outa here, have something better to do", he mumbled as he left the room.

Sign in to comment.