Speaking of the PMO, courtesy of Kady:

For anyone wondering whether to start the countdown to a touching, running-through-the-meadows long distance commercial-like reunion between Guergis and her erstwhile caucus colleagues, you might want to hold off on hanging the giant WELCOME BACK sign in the government lobby: According to PMO sources, this "does not affect decision to expell Ms Guergis from caucus." There were "several issues" that led to her resignation," iand there is still an ongoing investigation by the ethics commissioner. "This is a final decision," PMO told me when I asked, point blank, if there was any chance that Guergis would eventually be brought back into the fold. "It won't be revisited."

I wouldn't describe the PMO reaction as a "feeding frenzy" in any sense. Seems to me the PMO was trying to make the Guergis story disappear, as opposed to milking it.

Still, wasn't the opposition's "frenzy" mostly along the lines of "Wait a sec! Is there any proof she's actually done anything wrong!?!?!"

More along the lines of: “Enough is enough. Minister Guergis is clearly not fit to represent the Crown. She must voluntarily step down, or the Prime Minister must demand her resignation" (Wayne Easter)

It's kind of amusing that the Opposition demanded her resignation so zealously, over so many weeks, yet as soon as she got the boot they shifted tack to: "Why was Harper so mean to poor Helena?"

different from being booted out of caucus without an explanation

Sure, it's different, but the Prime Minister has the power to dismiss a member of his caucus at any time, for any reason, without explanation. In this case, Harper actually did provide an explanation, but it was annoyingly vague.

His explanation was that her wrongdoing was so bad he launched a criminal investigation. There was no basis for launching a criminal investigation we now know.

Well, I'm only going by what I read and what I read was "Inspector John Keuper advised Mr. Rubel that the RCMP has concluded that there was no substance to any of the issues forwarded to them by the Prime Minister's Office. All concerns relating to Ms. Guergis have been resolved and no issues remain outstanding."

Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to equate "no substance" with "no basis", but it seems to be a distinction without a difference.

No it is not a false equivalence. Harper said the criminal accusations were "serious and credible".

That to me is the whole basis of any defamation claim right there. How serious and credible were they if there was "no substance" to them. I noted at the time that after that press conference, you only saw "serious" and not the repetition of the word "credible". I suspect his lawyer spoke to him.

"Also, I'd wait to see what the RCMP says instead of just relying on Guergis's lawyer's version of events."

That's certainly fair, but he said he was quoting them.

He already is on the record saying nothing he offered, by proxy, to the PMO was of a criminal nature. Nor did he seem to suggest that there was anything to pursue regarding Ms. Geurgis. Was that not his testimony?

You are mixing up two very very different charges/accusations.

The opposition parties accused her of not being competent enough to represent us as a cabinet minister.

Harper accused her of actual wrongdoing, criminal wrongdoing, kicked her out of caucus, said she couldn't be a Conservative, and has barred this democratically elected woman from running as a Conservative despite the wishes of her riding association and constituents.

Tell me you see just a wee bit of a difference.

He also refused to specify the exact nature of his charges, leaving everyone else to speculate.

That was in reference to her "cabinet" position. I don't recall anyone asking that she be totally kicked out of cabinet and caucus. Nice try though.

Bernier wasn't kicked out of caucus – why the double-standard?

He should, of course, offer an explanation to Helena's constituents, the people who voted for her, and the local Conservative Riding Association. Don't you think that's the least they deserve?

Re-write history much?
SHEEEESH!

"He doesn't have to provide a reason at all"

wow

It's not the compliance. It's the double standard.

I was simply pointing out that the PM is under no obligation to explain why he dismissed a member of his caucus. You may believe that he should provide a detailed explanation, but it doesn't mean that he has to.

entirely on the basis of vague allegations brought forth by a charlatan "private detective" that are ultimately proven to be utterly without merit".

Sigh. I'm guessing that you don't know any more about the details of the investigation than the rest of us. So your hyperbolic, oddly specific claims about the allegations and the investigation should be probably taken with a grain of salt.

I've been extremely skeptical of Snowdy all along. But we since we don't know the specific allegations, we can't conclude that Guergis was expelled from caucus "entirely on the basis of vague allegations". We don't know if the allegations were vague, we don't know if Snowdy's allegations were the only reason she was expelled.

The PMO claims that "There were several factors that led to Ms. Guergis' removal from cabinet and caucus and the ethics commissioner is still conducting an investigation into her actions."

"I was simply pointing out that the PM is under no obligation to explain why he dismissed a member of his caucus. "

Except when he calls a press conference to accuse the said member of ficticious criminal wrongdoing. You saw Snowdy's testimony to the committee, did you not? Snowdy himself said that he never made any allegations against Guergis.

Are you suggesting that a Prime Minister can publicly slander anyone in his caucus with no repercussions? He effectively ruined Guergis' career.

that's about as one dimensional as it gets.

dictatorship, anyone?

Paul Martin

He would have privately asked her to step aside for the investigation, allowed her to publically offer to do so, and stood by her to the death. He was loyal to a fault.

From what I understand Gurgis refused to step down. What would Paul have done then? How many months of news stories before he would have turfed her.

For the record I think the expulsion from caucus was excessive, and said so at the time. Removing her as minister was what she deserved. She was a major headache there. That being said Harper should immediately welcome her back (to the caucus table).

Garth Truner was booted without an investigation.

That whole thing was orchestrated. They were following orders from the PMO.

I know! Let's ask Ruby Dhalla!

I'm splitting hairs to defend here, and I don't much like it, but…

They weren't in government at the time. Scandals are more dangerous when you are. Ruby was also behaving much better then Helena, when she was being investigated.

I believe the word you were looking for was "technically"

Technically/Literally my ass.

Sooner or later the grunts that are left figure out the only way to be safe from a trigger happy boss is to shoot the boss.

Harper stood in the House and defended Helena numerous times.

''..Prime Minister Stephen Harper has referred “serious” allegations involving Helena Guergis to the RCMP and ethics commissioner. ''

Both the RCMP and the Commish made their own decision to investigate, or not.

I'm just trying to remember what I should be enraged about.

Oh, that's an easy one Olaf. You're supposed to be enraged about the sky-rocketing crime rates and our hug-a-thug, Tal-ee-ban-loving elites doing nothing…(nothing, I say!)…about it…!!!!!!! ;)

Seriously, you rightly point out that the Opposition may as well be called Her Majesty's Loyal Opportunists, as they will pounce on any government vulnerability without feeling the least need to be philosophically consistent in the process. Frankly, I don't suppose we have a right to expect more consistency from our Oppositions than we get from our governments; I expect (yet never cease to be disappointed by) Opposition cynicism as readily as I do the government variety.

In partial and rather indifferent defence of Opposition and media, though, it could be argued that calling for Guergis' resignation because of incompetence half a year ago and feeling that she was denied due process consequent to specious allegations of criminal activity by some fly-by-night gumshoe are not entirely inconsistent positions.

The issue is one of process. It does not appear that Harper was willing to provide Guergis with the reasons for her dismissal(s) which would certainly not be permissible in a typical workplace. As Crit has pointed out, the PM has that right. However, in not providing her with an opportunity to refute the accusations against her, he went against some fundamental tenants of Natural Justice. He also apparently intended those dismissals to be permanent irrespective of any new evidence. ( I am not saying he is not technically allowed to do this, but it does render him open to characterization as a scumbag boss).

Indeed, some probably wonder why many on the left and some on the near right view Harper's PMship as such a disgrace. I think the most common theme would be not the specific policies or decisions made but rather his consistent eagerness to circumvent appropriate process. His epitaph could certainly read "he could rationalize any means to get to his preferred end".

I think they are referring to defamation of character. You know, the thing that happens when your employer goes on the national news and suggests you are involved in criminal activity?

Remember the absolute refusal to say anything about what the allegations were, no leaks, no mentions in Parliament even (the area that is immune).

Ms Guergis is going to have a tough time saying she was defamed when at the same time she is saying nothing was ever said about her. As well, courts are likely not going to venture into the area of being kicked out of caucus, losing ones cabinet seat etc. It just isnt their purview and they know it.

Like most things in politics that doesnt make it right, its just the way it is.

How can you be defamed by an accusation that is never said. You might be in Kafka hell, which she was….but she claims she was never told….so if she claims she doesnt know then nobody uttered it in public. Accept the possibility that she, and the opposition were trying to get the statement made for this very purpose, so she could sue for defemation later.

Remember the trigger with Mulroney was that the letter got out and was published…not to go down that hole by the way…just saying it is a good example of a trigger being that it was in public rather than just a badly written letter between police forces.

It isnt that they arent told, it is that you cannot sue for defemation if it isnt in the public realm….because nobody knows about it.

The Mulroney thing absolutely spun around the letter being leaked. It still had to be written badly, as in it did not allege it said it as fact. Had the letter said alleged or in its imperfect form hadnt been published in the Fin Post then Mulroney couldnt have sued.

In your example, nothing you stated was necessarily defaming if you had acted reasonably, ie were given a video that contained someone who looked like me doing the act. If you just made it up, then fine you have a case.

All the government ever said, or ever leaked, was credible allegations that were referred. Once again, the oppos were teasing the government to say it, because they know what that opens up. Why do you think Guergis claimed no knowledge…..that one strains credulity and always did.

This is totally seperate from whether it was necessary, but that is the essence of this anyway….it was a judgement call. Personally, I think she should have found a way to back out of cabinet after Jaffer has charged with cocaine posession.

Lets boil this down. You are claiming she has a good case at being defamed. The source of the defamation would have to be an unreasonable reference of the allegations to the RCMP and along with the publicity of that reference. There is no other source of defamation since the cabinet removal and caucus removal are the only other possibilities. The ethics reference is a right of parliamentarians to ask for whenever they want. So we are only left with the reference and publicity of the RCMP.

Publicity is a statement of fact…..to say the government could have avoided saying they referenced allegations to the RCMP is laughable. So all we are left with is, did the government make an unecessary reference of allegations to the RCMP.

The RCMP didnt say the allegations were minor, they said there was no substance to them….which we should all be happy about. She can sue, but I still dont see the source of the defamation….with Mulroney they stated a crime as fact not as allegation.

OH! Libel you have defamed me ;-)

I am not insulted, and thank you for moving this to some more substance. So yes I agree that is the definition, one is defamed by libel (written) or slander (verbal). Re: publicity, all that is that the remarks need to be made to third party or published. this is part of defamation. What is relevant here, imo, is that the actual allegations are kept quiet. One would assume that allegation is the harm not the statement that there is an allegation.
Guergis would have to build her case that these statements, that there were allegations, were slanderous. But the way it was worded, as far as I know, was serious and credible ALLEGATIONS. To the extent that they didnt use the word allegation and made statements that wrongdoing HAD happened not allegedly happened then they would be in trouble. Thats the argument as to why I dont think she has strong case.

Certainly, Harper's statements lowered her reputation in the estimation of others. The allegation of wrongdoing/criminal behaviour was so "serious and credible" that he had to come out and public announce he was launching these investigations, that she had to be kicked out of cabint and out of caucus and banned from running for the Conservatives.

Harper is the only source for our sense that she might have done something illegal. If a reasonable person would conclude that the allegations were not credible – and the RCMP says there was no substance to the claims – then she has a case.

I'm not sure qualified privilege applies here.

How strong a case or not, I'm not venturing to say because I don't know enough. Certainly it's enough to start one and find out what else they were saying about her, internally and to the RCMP.

“I don’t want to make false accusations but you don’t get cocaine at a corner drug store, right? You have to get it from somewhere, from someone and usually that means organized crime.”
(Ignatieff on CTV Question Period)

“The calls for public accountability from the status of women minister and Rahim Jaffer are growing everyday,” Quebec Liberal MP Marlene Jennings charged.
“They are being called the Bonnie and Clyde of the Conservative Party. They are young, Conservative and above the law.”

Hence why I used the word "effectively", to hopefully get around semantic crap as Harper supporters like to bring forward.

Holding a press conference to announce that you're referring a matter to the RCMP is very different from literally accusing someone of a crime, however much you try to torque it.

So when will the opposition be sued for many of these tactics.

Distinctions do matter and so do implications.

He didn't just say he was referring the matter to the RCMP. He said that, based on information he had just received that day (from his lawyer who spoke with the PI), she's been fired, kicked out of caucus, and a criminal and ethics investigation launched.

I expect her lawyer has advised her to go for it, because, on the face of it at least, she has a strong case and an even stronger likelihood of a settlement to avoid discoveries.

The defamation case is obvious. False accusation of criminal wrongdoing.

As you know, a defamation case involving false accusation of criminal wrongdoing requires an actual, literal accusation to be made. Do you really think that anything Harper said in his public statement was actionable?

I'm not so sure he can, without grounds, permanently kick her out of caucus and permanently ban her the way she did, even in accordance with the Conservative constitution.

Of course he can. I'm starting to repeat myself here, but the PM has the unfettered power to dismiss a member of his caucus at any time, for any reason, without explanation.

And the aim would not be to win in court but to get a settlement.

Given the apparent frivolity of this hypothetical lawsuit, I doubt very much that the government would settle for any amount.

As you know, a defamation case involving false accusation of criminal wrongdoing requires an actual, literal accusation to be made.

There was a period between the two for a reason: two separate claims defamation and false accusation of a crime.

Do you really think that anything Harper said in his public statement was actionable?

Most definitely.

Of course he can. I'm starting to repeat myself here, but the PM has the unfettered power to dismiss a member of his caucus at any time, for any reason, without explanation.

You have read the Conservative constitution? I'm referring to my recollection of it. Cabinet absolutely. But caucus? There is a process and it is a caucus committee that makes those decisions. I have no doubt that he could have gotten her booted, but I have no doubt he didn't follow the procedure given how fast he claimed it happened.

Without a doubt they will fall into line. The point that Guergis could use in a claim is that Harper acted outside of the constitutional procedures of his own party, i.e. sign of malice. Not a big point, just an additional point.

Given the apparent frivolity of this hypothetical lawsuit, I doubt very much that the government would settle for any amount.

Just because you want Harper to always be right, and just because he may have a good defence, doesn't mean the lawsuit is frivolous. On the face of it, she has a very solid basis for a defamation claim at minimum. The consequences of not settling are that her lawyer gets to interview every cabinet minister and PMO staffer and retrieve their emails and memos. Do you really think Harper would think it was worth it to fight her all the way to court? He caved with Liddle rather than do that. He caved with the Liberals rather than allow that.

Wouldn't apply here. Your friend might have a claim but it would be based upon employment law.

As Harper's defenders have rightly pointed out, there is no employment law issue for cabinet ministers.

It would be extremely hard to get a defamation case thrown out at summary judgment stage since it is entirely fact based and a judge would be obliged to let the trier of fact determine if there is a case or not.

They most certainly did say she did something wrong and by reiterating that her RCMP vindication changes nothing they confirmed that again today.

As for 100% truth: they claimed the allegations were credible, they said it (the same seemingly illegal activity) justified kicking her out of cabinet and caucus (the PM can fire anyone he wants for any reason; where he gets into defamation trouble is if he says why and that proves to be groundless).

So if the RCMP has found "no substance" then they are in a bit of a difficult position. Especially given the whole of their conduct (not telling her, not giving her the chance to defend herself, by-passing CPC constitutional procedures in kicking her out of caucus, etc.)

The private eye said nothing he told the lawyer would have been the basis of a criminal investigation into Guergis, but Harper/Giorno said the info he brought to light caused them to act.

He can't possibly go on TV and deny that one of his ministers is under investigation, that would be lying. Or would you prefer him to say that someone other than him requested the RCMP for that investigation? If he said that, you will be out for his blood for not claiming responsibility.

Nobody ask him? Now who is lying?

Bingo

"The point is, he did what the opposition says he should have, and then he's criticized by the opposition for so doing."

Not quite. The opposition demanded she be fired because she could not do her job.

The Prime Minister, instead, went on national television and suggested she was a criminal. That leaves it open for her to sue for defamation, which will cost taxpayers, not Stephen Harper.

You cannot hold the opposition accountable for Harper's actions in this case. Harper is actually going to have to take responsibility for this one himself.

I dunno, I think one could easily make the argument that in a (seemingly) perpetual minority gov't situation it would be smart to try and pick up candidates who won the last election*

*all caveats about voter intentions (do they vote for the candidate or the party?) apply.

Oh absolutely – but I seem to recall that the major thrust of their argument was that she was performing poorly as a Cabinet Minister. I'm pretty sure that any aisle crossing message could be massaged with statements about how she'll make a fine addition to the caucus (and stress that she'll be a back-bencher somehow). Frankly I doubt that L'Affaire Guergis Act I is all that fresh in people's minds, it shouldn't be too hard a sell.

I have no idea what the numbers would look like – but I'd suspect that bringing over Guergis would be very well met by female voters (I'm of the firm belief that the Liberal's main purpose in this whole affair was too paint Harper as a bully in hopes it would win back some of the female voters they lost).

Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this proposition I've posited. I'm more surprised we haven't heard whispers of it happening.