Really, Alf Apps? I mean really?

I know Peter Donolo was supposed to bring adult supervision to Michael Ignatieff's OLO. Apparently his brief doesn't include the party office, because some adult supervision would have told Liberal president Alf Apps this line of attack is pretty dammed stupid:

Ousted Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis is getting some sympathy from an unlikely quarter: the president of the Liberal party.

Alfred Apps, the federal party president and lawyer, told CTV's Question Period Sunday that he believes Guergis was treated unfairly by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"This whole Guergis situation is what I hope will become a big wakeup call to Canadians," he said. "We treat our public servants … with just horrific disrespect these days and then we go on and treat our members (of Parliament), we don't give them the natural justice that we would expect to give to ordinary Canadians."

Really, Alf Apps? I mean, really? Guergis was treated unfairly. Wasn't it just like, last week, our party was forcefully calling for Guergis to be turfed. For airport tantrums, for the sins of her husband, most importantly, just for sheer incompetence? Didn't we want her fired, or to resign? I know memories are short in politics, but I do remember that.

Now, you can certainly take issue with the way she was booted by Harper, the reasons he gave for the belated action, and how he framed it. There are big gaps between what Harper and the PMO stated as the reason for her ejection from caucus (the Snowdy allegations) and what Snowdy has apparently actually said. You can argue it's unfair for Harper to have cast this criminal cloud over her based on what are seem like some pretty dubious accusations from questionable sources, and you can argue the fairness of taking away her nomination in Simcoe-Grey when nothing has yet been proven.

Personally, I think Harper had long-decided to get rid of Guergis, and he just needed an excuse. He seized on the flimsy Snowdy allegations as a way of booting her without having to wear it himself, and he has no intention of letting her back in: she's become embarrassing and he wants her gone. He's certainly being less than honest with Canadians about the whole thing.

But you know what? Who cares. Let the media explore those angles. For the president of the Liberal Party to be now feigning sympathy for Guergis – well yes, we wanted her out, but couldn't you do it nicely? -- is dumb, and it makes us look pretty stupid. It's as if we can't pass up any opportunity to reflexively attack the Conservatives, no matter what – even when they sloppily do what we were calling on them to do.

Here's the bottom line for me: was Guergis treated unfairly by Harper? Yes. But the fact is, no matter how the deed was done, she was an incompetent minister that had to go. Her departure from the cabinet table is a net positive for the country.

In our system of government, ministers serve at the pleasure of the prime minister, and can be fired with or without cause at any time. It's how the system works, and you agree to it going in. As for her nomination, I'd prefer she have the chance to contest it, but that's an internal debate for the Conservative Party. My, and Alf's, party has enough of its own nomination issues.

So I hope the Liberals will instead focus on more important issues, and let Helena Guergis run her own defence.

And let's keep Alf Apps off tv, please.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

I'll be back...just not quite yet...first, to Israel

Apologies for this corner having gone dark recently.

It's been a busy stretch at work, including spending most of the last week in Las Vegas for HP's Americas Partner conference. It's an event that always generates lots to cover for us, but then throw in HP deciding to drop $1.2 billion to buy Palm while I was there, and it got even busier. Was a fun trip though. Stayed at one of the newer Vegas properties, Aria, and I quite liked it. Unlike most cavernous Vegas properties where they don't want you to be reminded of the world outside, Aria has lots of glass and natural light. And there's also a route from your room to the conference centre that doesn't involve going through the casino , a first in my Vegas experience and surely a design flaw... And speaking of the casino, I'm not a big gambler but did finish in the green, including a win in the sports book from taking the Habs in game six. Didn't bet on game seven; they surprised me there.

After less than three days back home though, on Sunday afternoon I'm on the road again, but this time for pleasure. I've been invited on a week-long trip to Israel, organized by the CIC and funded by a private donor. Steve at Far and Wide will also be coming, along with some NDP/left-wing bloggers I look forward to meeting. Steve has a good run-down in the itinerary so I won't re-hash it, suffice to say it's busy, diverse and interesting. A good mix of sight-seeing and meetings with an interesting group of local politicians, journalists and bloggers, and even our ambassador to Israel. I shall try to approach it all with an open, but slightly skeptical mind. (If you're interested, here is the current Coles Notes of my opinion on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.)

I'm not sure the schedule will allow for much time for blogging during the trip, but I shall try, and certainly I'll have lots to say and share upon my return. All I ask are for two things while I'm gone: my Canucks to still be playing hockey, and my country not to have bumbled its way into an election.

Since my hiatus is to continue a little longer, a few brief thoughts on recent developments in Canadian political land:

* While we've all been distracted with either Jaffer/Guergis nonsense or the detainee docudrama, the Liberals have actually been talking and releasing policy. And much of it is aimed at rural Canada. First was some very sensible ideas around getting more doctors and nurses into rural areas by, among other things, forgiving part of their student loans if they make that commitment. This was followed by a "Canada First Good Policy" to support and promote local farmers and access to safe, healthy food, and a commitment to rural postal service.

Of course, policy isn't sexy enough for media coverage these days so you may not have heard about any of this, and the punditry that scolded the Liberals for not talking policy are, when they talk about it at all, scolding them for talking policy. Outside the Ottawa bubble, however, Canadians are much more concerned about finding a family doctor than they are about who Rahim Jaffer e-mailed. So I hope we keep pushing the policy.

* That's not to say the Jaffer/Guergis stuff isn't important. The investigations should proceed, and if serving ministers acting inappropriately or in contravention of the rules, that should be exposed and they should face the consequences. The e-mails and other documents that came out this week certainly seem to show that the Conservatives have been far from honest about Jaffer's access and influence in his seemingly not overly successful non-lobbying career. And it's often more the lack of honesty than the actual deeds that seems to hurt more in these stories, in my experience.

* On the docu-drama, the speaker's ruling this week was certainly very significant, as was the reaction of Conservative partisans. I think what some of them fail to recognize is that this isn't really about detainee torture anymore. It's about democracy, and it's about the right and responsibility of the legislative branch to be a check on the activities of the executive branch. Harper was elected by a little over 38,000 people in Calgary Southwest; he has no right to thumb his nose at the Parliament of Canada.

One has to think saner heads will prevail here. Ignore the testosterone-fueled rantings of the likes of Kory Teneycke. The Conservatives don't want an election over this. They won't be able to make it about coddling the Taliban, it's an asinine argument. It would be about a dictatorial leader refusing to respect the will of the people's elected democratic representatives. And the Cons didn't exactly fare well during the prorogation drama, now did they?

There will be a compromise reached that allows the opposition access to the uncensored documents, likely in a secret or confidential manner that respects national security concerns. We've seen signals along those lines already from Conservaland. Ironically, always concerned about political posturing and positioning, they're already trying to paint such a compromise as an opposition back-down. Truth is though, the opposition has been proposing such a scenario for months; the government has continually rebuffed it. So, as much as it matters, it would be them backing down. Let's just hope saner heads prevail all around though.

* Speaking of saner heads, the head of our military, General Walter Natynczyk, is cool with giving all of the un-redacted documents to parliament, saying the military has nothing to hide. Which raises two questions for me. One: must it be the Harper government with something to hide then? And two, if we employ standard Conservative logic here and respond as the government would in question period, I have to ask, why does our Chief of Defence Staff not support our troops, and why is he a Taliban sympathizer?

* Speaking of interlopers in our midst, turns out that pollster Frank Graves, who the Conservatives are portraying as some kind of undercover Liberal mole polluting the public airwaves of the CBC pretending to be unbiased, has actually been getting millions of dollars of polling contracts from the Conservative government. Including $131,440 from Harper's own Privy Council Office.

I'm sure Dean Del Mastro will join me in demanding that a Parliamentary Committee immediately investigate how this government could give millions of dollars in polling work to a know Liberal stooge. Or maybe they could just, you know, admit this whole manufactured drama is stupid and move on to serious issues. Either one would be fine.

* And on Graves and this culture war nonesense the Cons are hyper-ventilating about, I could go on at length but let me just say this: the Cons have been fighting a culture-war for years in this country. Urban vs. rural, Tim Horton's vs. academic elites and fancy gala goers, support the troops vs you're all taliban lovers, tough on crime vs hug-a-thug. They've been fighting a culture war, we just haven't been fighting back. All Graves "advised" was for the Liberals to start employing some wedges of their own, to fight back, to basically use some of the same tactics Harper et. al. have to some success. And this is news, somehow? For the Cons to be all bitchy about someone suggesting their own tactics be used against them, tactics which have been part of politics, by the way, forever, is just stupid.

* Lastly, I have a great deal of respect for Ujjal Dosanjh, for what he has consistently and resolutely stood for throughout his career, the principled approach he takes to public life, and the energy and commitment with which he approaches it. And I join those who have condemned the threats and attacks against him and others who have dared to stand up to extremism in any of its guises. I'm no sure I agree completely with his take on the impact multiculturalism is having on Canadian society. But it's an important issue we should be debating, and it should be a debate free of threat and intimidation, in the best of Canadian traditions.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

In the end, it’s really about judgment

The revelations, rumours and innuendo are swirling about so quickly these days in the drama of Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer that I think it’s about at the point where we need to step back, let the investigation proceed and, when all the facts are in, consider the results.

I will make some comments though, now that we apparently know the allegations that led the PMO to accept Guergis’ resignation and remove her from caucus, as broke by CTV and the Toronto Star:

The central allegation Snowdy presented is that Gillani, an accused fraudster, claimed to Snowdy that three offshore companies in Belize – a tax haven – had been "reserved" to hold cash for Guergis and Jaffer. Snowdy said he also told the Tory lawyer that Gillani boasted that he had cellphone pictures of Jaffer and Guergis partying with high-class escorts when cocaine was being snorted.

As was reported last week, the issue here is the possibility of a minister of the crown facing the threat of blackmail. That’s a very serious issue that does need to be investigated in full. That goes above and beyond the moral and comparatively minor potential legal issues of alcohol, drug use and association with dodgy characters to possibly calling the integrity of the government (as an institution, not the governing party) into question. When it received those allegations, the PMO was absolutely right to act swiftly.

Let me say though that, now that we know the source of these allegations: allegedly Gillani, via a private investigator hired by one of his alleged victims posing as a potential business partner, let me say that, while they must be investigated, I find it hard to give these allegations too much merit. Given what we’ve read of Gillani, I wouldn’t be surprised if these were just flamboyant boasts designed to impress a potential business partner with no more basis in reality than Jaffer’s alleged boasts of access to the PMO. I could be proven wrong. We’ll see what the investigation reveals. But the original source doesn’t inspire confidence, and in fairness I think we need to wait for the results of that investigation.

Anyways, the allegations are swirling so thickly like smoke now that we’ll have to wait for it all to settle. What we do know however, and what is abundantly clear, is that at its core this is all about judgment: that of both Helena Guergis and Stephen Harper.

Even if these latest accusations prove to be groundless, at the very least it’s clear that Guergis made some very poor choices about who she has been associating with, as did Jaffer. A person’s character isn’t always readily apparent, and politicians certainly do have all kinds of people trying to develop relationships. And they can't read minds. But for a minister of the crown a degree of discretion is in order, and for a normal person all kinds of alarm bells should have been going off here.

And while Harper moved swiftly when he learned of these latest allegations, the fact is he shouldn’t have put her into cabinet in the first place, and certainly shouldn’t have stuck with her until this bitter end. While these explosive allegations may have been news, there was an encyclopedia of information that should have made it readily apparent for some time that Guergis lacked the competence or the judgment for the job.

He couldn’t have known it would end up like this, but there was enough reason to seriously doubt her judgment. The fact that Harper stuck with her anyways, for what seem like purely political reasons, until he had absolutely no choice but to act, raises serious questions about the judgment of our prime minister and what guides his decision-making in any number of areas of fundamental import to this country

Those are important points that should be made. On a final note though, were I plotting Liberal strategy (perish the thought) I’d step back from this, and spend more energy on the economy and jobs, on health care (I agree no to user fees, but what IS the answer?), on pensions, on more substantive issues.

The media will keep pursuing this story anyway; better to step back and let the investigations proceed unless more information emerges. Polls are a dime a dozen, but one does show this morning that the Guergis affair may be hurting the Conservatives. That’s unsurprising. It’s not going to help the Liberals however, so let’s not worry about it.

People may briefly be willing to consider alternatives. As I’ve long been saying though, the only way they’ll consider the Liberals is if we actually offer one. So let’s build on the work that has been done, from Canada at 150 to the cross-country tours to the roundtables, and take this opportunity to put some ideas out there. That needs to be a long-term, ongoing process.

Frankly, even just BEING SEEN talking about substantive issues at a time like this would be an effective contrast.

Such a focus would be far more productive for the Liberals – and welcome by the Canadian people -- than all the ethics and conflict commissioner referrals, committee hearings and question period bluster in the world.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Rahim Jaffer: no logo, no influence

Word on twitter is that the Harper PMO has demanded embattled former Conservative caucus chair Rahim Jaffer remove the many prominent Conservative logos from his personal Web site. I guess his association with alleged con men, and allegedly busty hookers, is bad for government business. Plus the whole booze and drugs thing.

In cyberspace, though, you can never really erase these things from the record...

I wonder how long it will be before the disappearance of this photo is demanded too...

Meanwhile, spokespeople for the guy standing to the right of Rahim in that picture say it's "absurd" to thing the guy on the left would have any influence with him. I mean, it's not like he was once his hand-picked caucus chair or anything.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

What does it take for Harper to punt a minister?

Reading Kevin Donovan’s explosive Toronto Star investigative piece linking Rahim Jaffer to an alleged conman, booze and drugs and, yes, busty hookers, I can’t help but wonder what it takes for someone to get fired from Stephen Harper’s cabinet.

Now, I’m not saying it’s fair to hold Helena Guergis responsible for the sins of her husband, alleged or otherwise. I think Guergis has done plenty on her own to merit her punting from the cabinet room, from her airport tantrum to the letter writing to her sheer incompetence for the job. (I think the mortgage stuff is stupid, for what it’s worth.)

It’s not fair to hold her responsible for Jaffer’s sins as well as her own but, let’s face it, fairly or not, as long as she’s in cabinet Jaffer’s indiscretions are a drag both on her and the Conservative brand. And it has to be pissing Stephen Harper and the PMO off mightily.

Guergis and Jaffer have become a distraction for the government, and are throwing them off message. The latest story will only intensify that. This isn’t an inside the Queensway story. This is a Tim Horton’s story, and erodes the very image the Harper Conservatives have been trying to portray: work hard, play by the rules. Already we’re hearing about Conservative fundraisers being told no more donations will be coming while Guergis remains in cabinet. The Conservative grassroots are angry, and the Conservative talking heads – likely with PMO permission – have been turned loose to attack her.

Still, Harper has publicly maintained his support for her. While he clearly would like her to quit and seems to be encouraging that, he seems unwilling to fire her only for fear of handing the opposition a victory. Give them snarling masses one trophy, the old Ottawa theory goes, they’ll only be back for more.

At some point, though, you’d think enough would be enough. At some point you have to weigh giving the opposition a trophy vs. the constant embarrassing revelations and distractions, even if they’re not all on her, and say it’s just not worth it keeping this person on. It's not like this guy has ever been known for personal loyalty. Just ask Jim Hawkes and Preston Manning.

Will Harper reach that breaking-point soon? I think many would have long ago.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Dear Helena Guergis: Don’t quit!

I know I’ll be swimming against the tide here, but if I had one piece of advice for Helena Guergis it would be this: don’t quit!

Certainty, the Liberal Party isn’t offering that same advice. They just moved a press release succinctly titled: Minister Guergis must step down. I agree with all of the reasons cited in the release, from her staff letter writing club to her airport meltdown and, well, her just plain general incompetence for the job. She shouldn’t be a cabinet minister in the Government of Canada. She is plainly just not up to the job.

Why, then, do I not want her to resign? Because of all the grief and abuse she has been taking from her own party leadership who, instead of backing her up, have cut her adrift, and have taken to giving comments on background to every reporter on Parliament Hill bad-mouthing her, insulting her personally, and expressing their strident wish that they be free of this meddlesome woman.

When her male cabinet colleague, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, was in an airport incident of his own involving a now infamous bottle of tequila, what did a senior government official tell CTV? "He remained polite. He didn't pull a Helena apparently." Classy, throwing your own minister under a bus like that. The Conservative punditry such as former Harper communications guy Kory Teneycke, usually tightly scripted by the Harper PMO, have been unleashed to attack Guergis and demand she quit.

They’ve also certainly been feeding Bob Fife lots of anti-Guergis vitrol. This piece he filed today is a doozy, where he reports Conservative officials have told him Guergis has a revolving door of staff, has made no friends in caucus, PMO officials want her to resign to end the misery (they’re praying before a Buddha, apparently), no one in caucus or the party is defending her, she’s not very popular, no one really likes her in caucus, and so on. They also reportedly won't let her join in any reindeer games.

If you believe that we wouldn’t be hearing all this negativity on Guergis from official Conservative circles without Harper’s say-so, then I have a bridge in New York to sell you. It is obvious that the Harper Conservatives have launched a campaign to make Guergis as unwelcome as possible in the hopes that she will just take the hint, do them a favour, and just go away already.

A Guergis resignation would solve all their problems. They’d be free of the dead-weight, and could say how they’re so sorry to see her go, they’ll miss her, what a shame, etc. If they boot her out involuntarily, it’s more of a reflection on Harper: how could he have appointed someone so obviously unqualified in the first place, and why didn’t he cut her loose sooner?

What’s happening now is all about the optics and framing of her inevitable departure, whether it’s now, or later in the next shuffle. It’s also all in the very spirit of constructive dismissal (not legally, of course, since ministers serve at pleasure).

So that’s why I make this plea to Helena Guergis: don’t resign. No matter how many dirty stares they give you in the hallway, or nasty things Conservative surrogates say about you on Power and Politics, don’t give in. Don’t let them win, and give them the satisfaction of seeing you slink away. Just keep enjoying the ministerial limo and the business-class travel (just get to the airport on time, please) until the Harper crew finds some stones.

Don’t quit, Helena.

If they really want rid of you, make them fire you.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Blackburn’s tequila tempest: Exposing the contradictions of airport security regulations

In Conservative Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn’s altercation with airport security staff in Ottawa, when told airport security regulations on liquids prevented him from bringing his bottle of tequila onboard, he reportedly demanded the bottle be poured-out on his presence. I guess he feared the CATSA staff would be having a little fiesta at his expense. The request was refused, which likely incensed him further. (Although he himself helped bring us these rules.)

Blackburn’s request was rightly refused, though, and it was his second attempted skirting of our country’s asinine airport security rules. And it exposes just how stupid, and useless, those rules are.

We’re not allowed to bring liquids onboard because of the fear liquid explosives could be disguised as, say, a bottle of tequila, and used to bring down a plane. So we’re restricted to a small amount, containers of 100ml, confined to a one quart zip-lock bag. This is supposed to make us feel safer. It ignores, of course, the scenario of two or more people each bringing in their own bags, then meeting and combining them post-security. It’s bureaucracy masquerading as security, and we’re supposed to just ignore the fact it’s all a sham.

In the name of making us “feel” safer though, no bottles of water, juice, or tequila. Here’s the thing though. Blackburn wanted his tequila poured-out in his presence; no fiestas on his dime. That couldn’t happen though because, in theory, that tequila, or your Evian or my Coke Zero, is a possible liquid explosive.

Now, if you follow the illogic that I can’t bring my cola on because it might be an explosive, then every confiscated bottle should be treated as a possible explosive: carted off in a bomb-proof container and destroyed safely. Does that happen though? Of course not. It would be prohibitively expensive and cumbersome and, besides, we all really know your Evian is just water and Blackburn’s tequila is just booze. His fear they’d take his bottle home and have a party likely isn’t unfounded. I recall reading many confiscated contraband is also donated.

It’s all a farce. It’s a farce that regular Canadians have to deal with every day. While the both handled it very, very poorly, Blackburn and Helena Guergis simply saw front-hand the mess that successive governments have made of air travel in this country.

Unlike you or I though, they’re both in a position to reform the rules and bring a degree of sanity to our airports. Perhaps their experiences will spur them to act.

In the meantime, leave the tequila at home.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Move over, Helena Guergis: Another Conservative minister has an airport meltdown. With tequila!

You know how they say truth is stranger than fiction? Well, if you told me that, after Hurricane Helena Guergis' airport meltdown in PEI, where she berated airport security staff, threw her boots, tried to break through a security door and called the province a hell hole, that we'd have another Conservative minister would have an airport blow-up, I wouldn't believe you.

And if you told me it would involve a bottle of tequila, I'd say you're smoking something that Stephen Harper would definitely not approve of.

Yet tonight on CTV, Bob Fife reported that just such an incident happened involving Conservative veterans affairs minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn, just four days after Hurricane Helena ravaged Charlottetown:

Veterans Affairs Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn caused a fuss when airport security stopped him from carrying a bottle of tequila onto a plane in Ottawa, just fours days after Helena Guergis berated airport employees in P.E.I., CTV News has learned.

Blackburn wanted to bypass a rule that all Canadians must follow: You cannot pack containers filled with more than 100 millilitres of liquid.

When security at the Ottawa airport told Blackburn he would have to give up his bottle of tequila, sources say he asked that the bottle be kept for him. When security refused, he demanded that they empty the bottle in his presence.

Sources told CTV News the argument became so heated, security almost called the police.

Apparently, Blackburn never apologized and never told the PMO, who I'm sure were thrilled to hear about it.

Here's a "senior government official" doing some sort of damage-controlling spin:

"The minister wasn't pleased by the fact he had to leave the bottle of alcohol behind. He was upset that they wouldn't destroy it in front of him," the official said, on condition of anonymity. "He remained polite. He didn't pull a Helena apparently."

Yes, that is apparently a real quote, apparently from a real senior Conservative official, presumably in the PMO. I'm sorry, Helena. Some people claim that there's a woman to blame. But I know ... it's his own damned fault.

And here's my favourite line from the story:

The PMO says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law.

Yes, the PMO really said Harper would remind his ministers they have to follow the law. And not just the big ones, but all the stupid little ones too, just like the regular Tim Horton's folks. They are, however, entitled to their entitlements.

Let them eat apple fritters!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

(UPDATED) Helana Guergis earns an MBA while serving in cabinet?

In her testimony Monday before a parliamentary committee, Conservative minister Helena Guergis (who will not be suing Air Canada and Charlottetown Airport employees for exposing her behaviour, by the way) mentioned in passing that she held an MBA. And indeed, this is confirmed in her biography on her official Web site, which lists her as holding an MBA from the University of Alberta:


I found this interesting as I recalled that, last March, Guergis' educational credentials were called into question. In the last election in the fall of 2008, Guergis' campaign literature said she was "completing her Master's in Business Administration." In an article following-up on the literature by the local Enterprise Bulletin newspaper in early March, 2009, after some initial resistance, a Guergis staffer told the paper that the minister had been pursuing the degree, but wasn't actively at present (h/t):

Helena Guergis, Simcoe-Grey MP and cabinet minister, has put her aspirations for a graduate degree on hold.

In a profile in her campaign literature last fall, Guergis said she was "completing her Master's in Business Administration."

Her office was tight-lipped about her progress on that degree when it was contacted twice by theEnterprise-Bulletin in a follow-up to the election campaign.

Guergis would not return calls, but her office spokesperson Valerie Knight told the E-B that "I have great concern with your editor expressing so much interest in Minister Guergis personal life."
In the first contact, Knight denied that Guergis was studying for the degree.

"I answered your question the first time, perhaps you did not receive it? She is not," Knight wrote in an email.

After the second attempt to interview Guergis, when the Enterprise-Bulletinproduced the campaign literature, Knight clarified her original comment. She explained that Guergis had been studying for the degree, but wasn't pursuing it at present.

No further information was provided as to where Guergis was taking the program, how far she was from completing it or whether she would continue her quest for the degree at a later date.

Looking around the Web though, we can see that in Guergis biographies as far back as October 26, 2009 (note the last modified date) she is listed as having completed the U of A program.

It would seem, therefore, that at some point between March of 2009 and October 2009, Guergis decided to once again pursue and complete her MBA studies. An impressive achievement, given her busy duties both as Member of Parliament for Simcoe-Grey, and as Minister of State for the Status of Women.

One wonders how she was able to find the time, what with all the travel. I hear she's had to go to some real hell-holes. Her time management skills must be quite impressive.

UPDATE: Hill Times reporter Harris MacLeod raises a very valid point about Guergis' undergraduate degree credentials:

It says nothing on the official website about this, but the minister’s Wikipedia page says she completed an Ontario Real Estate program from Georgia College. Now I’m not trying to be elitist about Ms. Guergis’s education (or lack thereof) but my sense is said real estate certificate would likely not be enough to gain entry into a masters program.

And indeed, a check of the admissions page for the University of Alberta's MBA program indicates a four-year undergrad degree is a pre-requisite (emphasis mine):

Admission to the Alberta MBA Program requires a strong, broadly-based undergraduate degree. Since we value the diversity of backgrounds, we accept students from all disciplines. To be considered, an applicant should hold a four-year undergraduate degree from a recognized institution with a minimum grade point average of 3.0/4.0. Unfortunately, applied undergraduate degrees do not meet graduate admission requirements. Only official transcripts from post-secondary educational institutions will be accepted for application purposes. Two official transcript degree certificates must be sent directly from the issuing institution to the Alberta MBA Program office. If the transcripts and degree certificates are in a language other than English, official translated copies are also required.

Which raises the question: Does the "Ontario Real Estate Program" at Georgian College qualify as "a strong, broadly-based undergraduate degree" or does Guergis have another undergraduate degree we're not aware of?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: The slow motion train wreck that is Helena Guergis

The History Channel showed the movie Bonnie and Clyde on the weekend. I'm not sure if the showing was scheduled before the recent drama in the lives of Conservative power-couple Helena Guergis and Rahim Jaffer, but it did cause me to pause and watch for a bit. Two thoughts occured to me: Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were far more engaging, and it appeared that Clyde let Bonnie do the driving. Maybe that was Rahim's mistake?

Anyway, as even the Conservative punditry lines-up against Guergis and Jaffer, she's inexplicably doing her best to keep the story alive. CTV's Bob Fife reports that Guergis is threatening to sue Air Canada and Charlottetown Airport employees for slander and breach of privacy, for daring to blow the whistle on her behaviour at their "hellhole" of an airport. Behaviour which she to date hasn't denied, and even issued a half-hearted apology for.

I'm no legal expert, but I fail to see much merit in her case. I also find it a somewhat amusing position for Guergis to take, given her flouting of DND regulations in the past. It would also be politically suicidal. This story is already going over like a lead-balloon for the Conservatives, reportedly dragging-down fundraising and leading to calls from within the party for her ouster.

Still, perhaps the two sides can sit down and work something out. Would Guergis be willing to settle for $500?

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Video: Helena Guergis, beauty pageants and death threats?

It all sounds hard to believe, but those are the shocking and unproven accusations made in this CBC report from 2000 about Conservative minister Helena Guergis and her beauty pageant days in Huronia.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hey! Look how much we care about drunk driving!!

In what I’m sure is completely coincidental timing, coming as it does as Canadians express their outrage over former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer (loving husband to boot-throwing, PEI hating, airport security staff berating Conservative minister Helena Guergis) walking into a courtroom facing charges of driving under the influence and possession of cocaine, and walking out with a $500 fine for careless driving, comes this bit of justice-related diversion from Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson:

The Harper government appears ready to move ahead on imposing random roadside breath testing, which a new federal discussion paper says has produced "remarkable results" in catching more drunk drivers in other countries.

The Justice Department is inviting public input on the idea of random sobriety tests and federal officials plan to meet this month and next with provincial ministers and other experts to measure support.

In a rare move, the federal government has posted on its website a discussion paper, weighing the benefits of random testing, seeking feedback by the end of April.

Empowering police to conduct random breath tests would replace Canada's 40-year-old legislation on impaired driving, which dictates that breathalyzer tests can only be administered when there is reasonable suspicion of drunk driving.

You know, my first thought was that this was an attempt to distract from the latest drama of everyone’s favourite Conservative power couple, but on second thought, if it is, it’s a pretty poor one. After all, it only serves to draw attention back to the Jaffer case.

Would this proposed change -- which as I’ve written before is a really bad idea, a completely draconian invasion of privacy, unlikely to do much to prevent drunk driving, and could quite possibly be unconstitutional – have made any difference in the Jaffer case? Not with the facts as they’re known at the moment. (We could use more facts, though.) The police apparently did perform a breathalyzer in this case, which Jaffer is alleged to have failed. If there was a problem with the admissibility of that search, that may have led to the plea bargain, we don’t know right now.

The whole point of this proposal though would be to subject many more people to random searches to see if they happen to be drinking and driving – and maybe have a look around their car for other fun stuff at the same time. If the Jaffer case shows anything though it’s not that the problem is getting them pulled over, it’s what happens after that, and as the case is turned over to the justice system.

Everything in law-making is a balancing act, security vs. personal liberty. And if you’re asking me to sacrifice a great deal of my personal liberty for a marginally greater likelihood of seeing people given meaningless $500 fines, then I’d say no, and try coming up with a plan that isn’t completely stupid, please.

Personally, I think the problem isn't the laws. It's a lack of resources to enforce them. Invest in police, and invest in a justice system so they have the resources to actually try cases. Too often, prosecutors feel pushed into plea bargains to keep their clearance rates up, because they don't have the time to deal with the backlog of cases. There's also the fact prosecutors are judged on their win/loss records, leaving them leery of pursuing borderline cases.

If you really want to get tough on crime, let's start there.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

A non-partisan edition of Crappy Moments in Journalism

While most of the entries in my new regular feature, Crappy Moments in Journalism, will likely focus on the progressive end of the spectrum (my Conservative friends keep a sharp eye for crappiness, real or imagined, down in their neck of the woods) sometimes incidents will be egregious enough to deserve an entry here.

And this entry from the CanWest News Service certainly meets the qualifications. The article covers a United Nations women's rights conference where Conservative minister Helena Guergis would be speaking, and making her first public appearance since news of her Hurricane Helena performance at a PEI airport came to light.

Now, obviously the PEI incident merits mention, and were I a reporter at the event I'd use the opportunity to ask her about the incident, will she resign, did she read Anne of Green Gables as a kid, wasn't Road to Avonlea lame, yada yada. All fair ball. And most of the story is fine, talking about what she plans to talk about, and her government's record on women's issues, with comments from women's groups.

But the first three graphs of this story? Pretty crappy:

Status of Women Minister Helena Guergis kept her temper on an even keel Monday as she spent Day 1 representing Canada at a major United Nations women's rights conference -- just days after apologizing for using her own status to allegedly disparage Prince Edward Island airport workers and their province.

Scheduled to take part in what the UN billed as a "high-level" roundtable debate, Guergis planned to stick strictly to the rule that she speak for no longer than three minutes, her handlers said.

That contrasts with her alleged off-the-cuff outburst at Charlottetown Airport after she arrived late for a flight Feb. 19 -- for which she issued an apology Thursday.

They make her out to be like the Incredible Hulk. Is this going to be how they cover every Guergis public appearance now, watching for signs of the emergence of evil Helena? "Conservative Minister Helena Guergis refrained from throwing her shoes and calling the province a hell-hole as she spoke to the Podunk chamber of commerce Monday..." You won't like her when she's angry.

Guergis deserves all the flack she's taking for her behaviour. Maybe she won't be able to get past it, time will tell. I'd support the call for her resignation, but one has to wonder, just who would take her place?

But the Incredible Hulk stuff is lame. If she does explode, report that. Otherwise, stick to the news.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Hurricane Helena and the taxing trials of travelling by air

First of all, if I had done what Conservative cabinet minister Helena Guergis did at that Charlottetown airport, particularly trying to break down a security door, I’d have been arrested. And there’s a better than decent chance her husband would have been tased by overzealous airport security. Her behaviour was unacceptable, full stop.

I think there will be plenty of commentary on her behaviour though, so I’d like to instead segue into airport security. It’s useful though that news of the incident came on the day her cabinet colleagues were announcing a hike of airport security fees – Stephen Harper calls it an “air tax” – because not only does it call attention to the plight of air travel in this country today, it also helps bring the stupidity home to folks at the cabinet table, like Guergis, who are in a position to do something about it.

One wonders if we grounded the Challenger fleet tomorrow and forced them all to fly commercial – heck, maybe in economy – and get a taste of what we plebes have to put up with, how long the cabinet would wait before bringing some sanity to our airport security regime.

I was amused, reading the anonymous letter from the Charlottetown Airport employees detailing Hurricane Helena’s behaviour, about her frustration with the trials of airport security. She refused to remove her blazer, or her shoes when told they might set off the detector. When she did set it off, she “huffily” removed her boots and “slammed” them in the bin, then complained about not wanting to walk around in “sock feet.”

She also tried to drag oversized suitcases onboard, and huffed when she was told they’d have to be checked. It’s rich because, flying to the U.S., the Harper government sharply limited carry-on baggage post-Christmas attack to the point where we were questioning if books were kosher, all because the government didn’t want to hire more security staff to do the hand-screening demanded by the over-reacting American government.

Welcome to Canada circa 2010. This, Ms. Guergis, is what the asinine security rules imposed by your government (and, to be fair, the previous Liberal administration post 9/11) have made of air travel in this country. It’s good that she got a dollop of what those abstract decisions at the cabinet table have become in implementation.

Showing-up 15 minutes before your flight is crazy, and, indeed, were it anyone else but a “VIP” they’d have turned her away from the check-in desk. Domestically, you need to be at the gate 20 minutes before departure, and with bags 30 minutes, or even if the plane is there still you’re not getting on. They recommend an hour, and I usually show up closer to two, just to be safe (and enjoy some lounge time).

But we shouldn’t need to allocate as much time for security now as we currently do. I haven’t flown to the U.S. since last year, my first work trip of 2010 is to Santa Monica in March and I’m dreading the heightened post-Christmas attack security already. I’ve already resigned myself that my days of not checking my rollaboard (and not having to wait for baggage claim) are over.

I flew domestically in January though, and it has gotten even more ridiculous. I fly regularly so I know the drill and have the procedure down to a grim science: coat and sweater off and in bin, belt off, laptop in separate bin, no metal in my pockets. No liquids or gels, I'll buy toothpaste there and expensive water post-security. I’m still four people back in line when I have everything off and ready for the bins. Yet still, both ways, I set off the metal detector, which meant sitting down, shoes off, full patdown and bag check. And what set the detector off? Literally the (small) button of my jeans.

Needless to say, everyone was pinging the detector. One has to ask, how is any of this making anyone safer? The answer is it’s not. I could go on at length but a recent Maclean’s article, “The scary truth about airport security” does it well enough.

And now, with a doubling of the airport security tax by the Conservatives (don’t tell me it’s not a tax, Stephen Harper agrees with me) we see John Biard, Harper and, yes, Guergis doubling-down on a stupid strategy that is designed only to make us feel safer, not to actually make us safer. Rather than trying to fix things, the government is giving us sound and fury, signifying nothing. Any system that makes a pilot surrender his nail clippers but doesn’t screen the baggage staff at all is asinine. The pilot doesn’t need nail clippers to cause serious damage, does he?

It’s time we got serious about reforming airline security in this country (at least for domestic travel, though we should pressure the U.S. to smarten the hell up for transborder traffic, because this is an international issue) and we can start by dumping the Harper security tax hike.

And if it takes Hurricane Helena to get the government to see what it hath wrought, then we’ll owe the good folks of PEI an ‘atta boy.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stephen Harper's Top Ten Cabinet Duds

So, apparently Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet tomorrow. And hopefully apologize to New Zealand on Greg Thompson's behalf, before they cut off our sheep supply.

And by the by, I'm willing to fly business/first class to New Zealand and can be at Rideau Hall for the morning, if anyone at the PMO is reading this. If you fly me Air Canada, you can even book it in economy and I'll use a certificate to upgrade. See, I'm saving the taxpayers money already!

And if the PMO is reading, hopefully the reports that tomorrow’s minor cabinet shuffle will reward incompetence by retaining ministers who have failed miserably in their portfolios are untrue. But alas, Stephen Harper seems content to keep a tight rein on the Conservative agenda and stick to a course that lacks any vision for Canada’s future.

If Harper was willing to start clearing out the deadwood however, here are ten ministers he'd be well advised to shuffle off into the sunset:

1. Lisa Raitt

Her greatest hits: Botching Canada’s medical isotope supply; her insensitive “cancer is sexy” comment caught on tape; leaving a top secret briefing binder at a TV station and then forcing her young ministerial aide to take the fall for it; signing off on thousands of dollars of questionable expenses as President and CEO of the Toronto Port Authority (TPA) and then, once in federal cabinet, organizing a partisan fundraiser out of the TPA offices. She now faces no less than three investigations – by the Ethics, Privacy and Lobbying Commissioners.

2. Peter Mackay

Ever since becoming a reality TV star, Mr. Mackay’s ratings have plummeted – first for attacking sympathetic civil servants who speak the truth, and then for using the Canadian Forces as a shield for all political criticism.

3-5. Jim Flaherty
Tony Clement
and John Baird

In a move that should terrify investors, Mr. Harper is leaving his Harris-era cohort of front-bench ministers intact.

John Baird has little more to show for his infrastructure spending spree than delayed projects and underwhelming job creation.

Jim Flaherty is responsible for a record $56 billion deficit.

And Tony Clement shrunk his side of the balance sheet after giving away Nortel’s made-in-Canada technology.

Mike Harris would no doubt be proud of what his children hath wrought.

6. Jim Prentice

The onetime cabinet superstar has lost all independent willpower. Charged with the impossible task of trying to communicate the government’s excuses for inaction on the environment, he became the laughing stock of the world in Copenhagen.

7. Gerry Ritz

Combining his cavalier attitude with a dangerous mismanagement style, Minister Ritz felt it was funny to make jokes while Canadians were dying of listeriosis.

8. Jay Hill

Conservative MPs use Mr. Hill’s Parliamentary "disruption" manual as a guide on how to dismantle important committee work. Mr. Hill’s Afghanistan committee no-show technique wasn’t even good enough for Mr. Harper, who took it a step further and canceled Parliament altogether.

9. Helena Guergis

After nearly two years of promising an ‘Action Plan’ to advance women’s equality, we wish that Minister Guergis had achieved nothing. Instead, she has stood silently in the background while her cabinet colleagues chipped away at women’s equality rights – whether through cuts at Status of Women, the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program or attacks on pay equity – leading to a growing gender gap under her government.

10. Stephen Harper

Our Prime Minister has shuttered our dearest democratic institution for the second time in a year so he can stage daily Potemkin village photo ops. He followed up his tirades against delayed government legislation by killing 36 of his own bills, and blew up his Senate reform agenda by appointing more cronies in one year than any Prime Minister in history.

But if Stephen is shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic, perhaps it would be best if the captain went down with the ship...

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

If national security...

…is suddenly so important to Stephen Harper perhaps he'll retroactively do the right thing and ask Helena Guergis to "resign" as well.

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Dion said Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, put his security at risk by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Guergis discussed plans of Dion and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

Since Helena still has a job it would seem more likely it's embarrassing The Leader, and not national security, that led to Bernier's departure.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Do the rules not apply to Helena Guergis?

One of the many stories that has fallen under the radar over the past few weeks, given all cavalcade of embarrassing news the Conservatives have been facing, is the case of Conservative junior minister Helena Guergis.

She released information to the press that potentially endangered the safety of Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, as well as the soldiers protecting them during their visit to Afghanistan:

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Dion said Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, put his security at risk by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Guergis discussed plans of Dion and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

The response from the Conservative ranks, and Guergis herself, has of course been nothing but righteous indignation. I just came across this passage from a CP story (via On the Hill) that exposes yet another Conservative double standard. The story, from last May, is about the secrecy that surrounded a visit by Stephen Harper to Afghanistan:

"Only upon leaving Europe were the journalists informed of the final destination. They were warned in a briefing by security officials that they risked arrest and prosecution under the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act if they did one of two things: mention the prime minister's itinerary during the next layover, or describe the location of that layover to anyone. Reporters were told they could wind up in handcuffs for breaking the rules."

Sounds pretty harsh, and pretty clear. Does Harper not think his ministers should at least be held to the same standard he would hold the media? Is there some exemption to the National Defence Act and the Official Secrets Act for politicking Conservative ministers?

I hope the appropriate authorities are investigating. If not, the appropriate parliamentary committee should get on the case.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Bizzaro news, Afghan trip edition

As much as Conservative apologists try to downplay an unacceptable breach of security by junior minister Helena Guergis, this story won’t be going away. At least not until she does.

In a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Dion said Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, put his security at risk by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Guergis discussed plans of Dion and deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

It makes me wonder what the Conservatives would be saying if the situations were reversed. (Starts rubbing his chin and looking pensive) I can picture it now…picture it now….picture it now…

Opposition blasts ‘treasonous’ Liberal minister
Harper demands immediate dismissal, files RCMP complaint

By Bizarro News Staff

Opposition leader Stephen Harper held a press conference yesterday to demand the immediate dismissal of Liberal junior foreign affairs minister Joe Blow, saying Blow’s unauthorized disclosure of confidential information put Canadian lives in danger by revealing details publicly of his itinerary in Afghanistan during a visit last weekend.

Information on such visits is usually blacked out to protect dignitaries, and the soldiers accompanying them, from attack by Taliban insurgents. But in an email to reporters on Saturday, Blow discussed plans of Harper and deputy leader Peter McKay to visit the Provincial Reconstruction Team before the two men revealed them.

In the press conference, Harper accused the Liberal minister of intentionally endangering their lives, and the lives of the soldiers guarding them, saying the disclosure of their itinerary constituted a “treasonous offence designed to give aid and comfort” to the enemy and silence legitimate criticism or the government’s Afghan policy.

“Luckily for Blow treason is no longer punishable by death in Canada, although a referendum on that question will be held under a future Conservative government. And there's no statue of limitations on treason ,” said Harper. “Life in prison doesn’t seem like enough. Blow needs to be fired from cabinet immediately, and the RCMP must investigate this case forthwith.”

Harper also called for the appointment of a judicial inquiry to explore if Blow was acting alone, or as part of a Liberal conspiracy involving the Prime Minister, Bill Clinton and Osama Bin Laden.

“Blow isn’t smart enough to have cooked this up on his own, he had to have help,” said Harper. “We all know the PM keeps his ministers on a tight leash, and nothing is said publicly without permission of the PMO.”

Diluting the power of the PMO and promoting ministerial and MP independence will be a key priority of a future Conservative government, Harper added, promising he would be much more of a "hands off" PM.

OK, maybe the death penalty thing was a little over the top. You get the idea though. I have no doubt the Blogging Tories would be crying TREASON! from the highest rooftops…or the lowest basements…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers