H/T to National Newswatch for this one – Bernier has no memory of leaving documents: (Globe )
"He doesn’t remember forgetting them, that’s the question," one source said. "He doesn’t know if he forgot them or if it’s her who would have taken them. That’s why he doesn’t want to say anything and he’s waiting for the review to do its work."
This is something that I’ve been wondering about for some time. What if Couillard actually took the documents from his briefcase? Or could it have been a plan carried out by Couillard with the aide of some Liberal-supporting, disenchanted bureaucrats within Foreign Affairs?
The motive of the Bernier-haters is clear. But what about Mme Couillard? What would have been her motive other than possible revenge if she felt the relationship was threatened?
Meanwhile the focus is intensifying around the ‘lobbyist’ actions of Julie Couillard herself (Gazette ):
Opposition MPs are calling for the federal government’s lobbyist watchdog to launch an investigation into whether Julie Couillard violated government regulations by trying to influence government officials without registering as a lobbyist.
Liberal Bob Rae and Bloc Québécois MP Pierre Paquette both said they think Canada’s Registrar of Lobbyists should look into whether Couillard broke the rules when she reportedly tried to first influence Bernard Côté, a senior advisor to Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, and then-Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier to help Quebec-based Kevlar Group get the contract for a new federal office building in Quebec City.
"I don’t know if she did, but I believe that it merits questions and an inquiry," said Rae.
Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh said the new facts coming to light in the case mean the foreign affairs department inquiry simply isn’t good enough to get to the bottom of the affair.
"This thing has spread to all the various departments. I mean, how can a Mickey Mouse foreign affairs review deal with a government-wide inquiry when experts tell us that they’re not equipped to even inquire into themselves."
For once I agree with the opposition here. How can Foreign Affairs possibly investigate itself with any credibility?
And more attention has to be paid to Kevlar’s role in all of this (Star ):
…Later that year, Kevlar co-president Philippe Morin introduced her to Maxime Bernier, the Tory MP for Beauce who was then the industry minister…
What an interesting coincidence!
One thing for sure, if any politician sees Julie Couillard walking down the street, best to take off in the opposite direction as quickly as possible.
* * * *
Related: Don Martin – No longer prurient curiosity.
* * * *
Monday Update : Couillard affair points to need for review of security clearances by L. Ian Macdonald.
Wednesday Update: RCMP may probe Couillard affair – Post .
Friday Update: Bernier to talk! – Globe.
You mean it’s not obvious that Couillard was targeting Canadian government officials for criminal reasons, because they were easy marks? (Two that we know of… so far.) Blaming this on a liberal conspiracy is incredibly weak (and, I note, you have not a shred of evidence or even inference — only some very tenuous speculation). The government got burned at least twice and they’re going to have to own up to it.
As for Bernier leaving the papers behind, they needed an excuse to get him out of the portfolio, just like every cabinet minister who’s ever stepped down. The process is: do something stupid, get caught, deny deny deny, get hammered in the press, find an excuse to leave (preferably a technicality), fade into the shadows. It’s not a CPC, Liberal, or any other party thing. They all do it.
I think many of us suspected something like this from the beginning, and if the msm hadn’t jumped so fast the truth would probably have come out much sooner.
If the msm had done their job instead of gotcha politics, along with the opposition, the truth might have got out. I am just waiting for it to come out that she was involved with some liberal or bloc mp in the past.
Regardless, she could not have done it all without some help from someone in FA.
This might lead to places the bloc and liberals don’t want it to go.
I remember asking a while ago, who introduced her to Max, and what was the reason.
However, I do think she has a lawsuit against Ujjal for his stmt. Is he saying liberals slept with her also, they are part of the govt, or bloc members, they are part of the govt. And, they make up more than half to govt.
…Blaming this on a liberal conspiracy is incredibly weak
I am asking questions. I am speculating. I am saying that something doesn’t add up.
I am blaming no one.
But what about Mme Couillard? What would have been her motive other than possible revenge if she felt the relationship was threatened?
The relationship was long since over, as I understand it. But Ms. Couillard had agreed to appear to be involved with Bernier for at least a year, to make Bernier and the Conservative Party look like adults.
And if her motive was revenge, does that somehow absolve Bernier?
I have to agree with M@ in his remark above. To say that you’re not blaming the Liberal Party but rather just asking questions is a bit like me asking whether there might have been some involvement of the CPoC in the double shooting in Toronto the other night. I’m not blaming them – just wondering aloud is all.
Well here is my speculation:
Bernier is an idiot, and Harper knows it. He just wanted to put a Quebec minister in charge of FA to sooth any anti-war sentiment arising from the fact the Van Doos are in Afghanistan. Harper never expected to have to KEEP him there because he wanted an election.
When Bernier’s incompetence was exposed for all the world to see, Harper should have removed him. The problem was that the opposition was demanding his removal, and Harper is much too vain to ever do anything the opposition demand, even when it is the right thing. Therefore Harper had to find a reason, outside of the reasons cited by the opposition, to get rid of Bernier.
So I believe Bernier was set up – by Harper.
I see Gayle is doing a “Karnak the Magnificent” routine … you know, all-seeing, all-knowing, able to look into the hearts and minds of mere mortals.
I have to agree with M@ in his remark above. To say that you’re not blaming the Liberal Party but rather just asking questions is a bit like me asking whether there might have been some involvement of the CPoC in the double shooting in Toronto the other night. I’m not blaming them – just wondering aloud is all.
Please quote the line that shows that I somehow blame the Liberal Party. Thanks.
Its no surprise that either and or another political party would try and set up others for a fall …the facts of the matter may never come to the light of day if the media is expected to reveal the truth … http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20082.htm
John Pilger talks about this in the video link above .. Mme Couillard could for all we know be a member of mossad or some other secret group …One can only try and wonder if it is just cheep politics or does it have ramifications on some other issue .
The MSM swings both ways in the political spectrum but seldom do they find the truth in the facts …I guess what is needed is for a different sort of journalism , one that would not get caught up in the deceptive world of politics …but then they wouldn’t have much of a voice in main stream ..
My speculation is no different from Joanne’s Gabby, and yet surprisingly you did not direct any of your silly snark towards her.
Surprising that…
My speculation is no different from Joanne’s…
Wait a minute. I never said that Harper set him up. I think somebody did, but not Harper.
BTW, can anyone answer the question why those so-called sensitive documents flew under the radar of the bureaucrats for five weeks???
No you didn’t Joanne – you speculated the liberals did. I am speculating it was Harper.
We both have just as much facts as speculation to back up our respective theories.
Which is my point.
“My speculation is no different from Joanne’s Gabby, and yet surprisingly you did not direct any of your silly snark towards her.”
I did not direct my “silly snark” towards Joanne because she did not merit one, IMO.
Contrast your “statement of fact” «Bernier is an idiot, and Harper knows it …» and the fatuous statements that follow with Joanne’s speculations.
You make statements categorically as if there’s no other possibility, whereas Joanne presents possibilities, conjecture, with words such as “WHAT IF Couillard actually took the documents …” or “COULD it have been a plan carried out by Couillard …”
Your pronunciamentos are NOT the absolute truth that you delude yourself they are.
OK, Stormy?
Not OK – because I premised my statements with the fact they were “speculation”.
Silly gabby.
No you didn’t Joanne – you speculated the liberals did.
I speculated that liberal-friendly public servants may have had a hand in it.
Comment moderation on. Everyone take a break. I’m going to a picnic.
Gee Gayle, if you don’t like it ,
you can leave.
It’s not like you are a Conservative gal pal and have to stick it out.
No sirree, you are a Harper hater and tolerated as such.
What’s that saying…suck it up Princess.
Joanne, a word to posters, ignore Gayle, do not reply to her comments, she wont go away and she wont make any sense in what she says. She has been hypnotized by someone, as most liberals have, and is incapable of rational thought.
“My speculation is no different from Joanne’s…”
Wait a minute. I never said that Harper set him up. I think somebody did, but not Harper.
Joanne, Gayle wasn’t suggesting that you and she were saying the same thing. She was pointing out that your speculation is deserving of no more serious consideration than hers.
With respect to your response to me (12:20), I never did say that you had blamed the Liberals.
However, tell me how you would react if I asked “What if Stephen Harper was involved in and profiting from this recently discovered gasoline price fixing in Quebec”.
Does the fact that it’s only a question mean that I can’t be called a dickhead for asking it?
Enjoy the picnic, Joanne.
I hope you’re not annoyed by some other pesky pests …
“Silly gabby”
Oooh! I’m so impressed by your imaginative name-calling.
You could have used “Garrulous Gabby”
or “Chatty Gabby”
or “Talky Gabby,” but you chose a childish epithet instead. Oh well.
See, Gayle, my christening you “Stormy” was simply a play on your name, which, if spelled “Gale,” could be synonymous with “storm.”
That is the imagery that occurred to me because often you sound SO angry.
If it makes you feel better, and helps you deal with your anger management issues, by all means, keep calling me “silly.”
But remember, just because you think something, doesn’t make it so. If that happens too often, I’m afraid it’s time to seek professional help.
“I speculated that liberal-friendly public servants may have had a hand in it.”
Same difference – starting with the assumption that the public servants are “liberal friendly”.
Same difference – starting with the assumption that the public servants are “liberal friendly”.
No, that’s not the same thing at all as speculating that the Liberal Party had something to do with it. Not the same thing at all.
A few weeks ago there was speculation on some political show that some folks working in Foreign Affairs were less than enchanted with Bernier at the helm.
Now, I’m still waiting for any plausible answer as to why top-secret documents could go unaccounted for five weeks! How could that happen? And Bernier says he has no memory of leaving those documents at Couillard’s place.
I’m saying that I do think we need an investigation. I didn’t before, but I do now. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Enjoy the picnic, Joanne.
I hope you’re not annoyed by some other pesky pests …
Thanks, Gabby.
Actually it was a perfect afternoon – sun, cloud and enough breeze to keep the pests away. Out on a farm with 100+ relatives for a family reunion. Lots of good food & good times.
At least the files, (if they were actually missing) were not left on a train, as in Britain.
Several cases of missing terrorist files have been left on the train on more than one occassion.
Okay, you didn’t blame the Liberals (though, come to think of it, I never said you did — semantics are a double-edged sword, aren’t they?). As long as we’re all aware that you’re engaging in baseless speculation with nothing behind it but your own weird biases, I guess I’m good with that.
Here’s what Harperites don’t, or won’t, understand. Harper wants a government with control very much centralized around the PMO. To do this, he needs ministers who are not going to take initiative on anything with the PMO’s say-so; in other words, they have to be weak. Harper hand-picked Ministers who would work well within his vision of government.
So now he’s just reaping what he sowed. As one minister after another proves to be an incompetent boob, the door to cabinet continues to revolve; as a result, and our government can only ever be as good as the PMO is, for as much as PMO can handle. Eventually, and inevitably, disasters are going to happen.
M@, I’ll take Harper and his ministers over thhe list in the link any day. And hey, Collenete, Gagliano, MaCauley, Eggleton, Sgro, Stewart, Rock, to name a few, were far more incompetent or sleazy as ministers than any in Harper’s cabinet.
http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=5399
I think after Julie Couillard testifies,(if she does) that will tell the tale.
I noticed in her TV interview ,she squirmed when she was asked ,what was written on the outside of the envelope ,the missing documents were in. She paused and hesitated…seemed to have a problem with the question. It’s all in the EYES!!
M@, Actually I thought the master at controlling power within the PMO was PMJC, He was a god at it. Now if your talking communications policy, I might agree with you.
Paul, I never said Harper’s ministers were sleazy. I said that they were weak. How would we ever know whether they’re sleazy? They’re never allowed to speak.
I was no fan of Chretien while he was in office, and I had plenty of problems with most of the ministers you’ve mentioned. But like or hate Chretien, you have to admit that he was able to control his cabinet while having it full of people who were right for the job, but who he didn’t personally like — the classic case being Paul Martin.
Btw, what was your beef with Eggleton? That he gave that untendered contract to someone he knew (a girlfriend or family member I think — I forget)? Because you may have heard recently that they’re not the only ones with this problem…
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=837747bb-1c65-44c5-b32c-06b926c55596
Note: rhyming couplet in first paragraph was unintentional.
Kingston, yes, I agree. Chretien didn’t need weak-kneed ministers to do it, is the difference.
I hated the iron-fisted PMO under Chretien, and I hate it under Harper. But I hate the secretiveness and the obsessive message control in the Harper government as much or more. There was plenty to hate about Chretien, but he’s not in power now. The only way the Liberals are connected to this Couillard scandal is in demented conspiracy theories. Which we call, for brevity’s sake I assume, “speculation” on this blog.
And don’t forget the “BODY” language. That should play a factor in this one also. I think DOSANJH would agree?
Eggleton was re-elected again in the 2000 election, but ran into trouble two years later when it was revealed that he gave a government contract to his ex-girlfriend Maggie Maier a $36,500 contract to write a report on post-traumatic stress disorder and environmental illness among Canadian soldiers. The deal was discovered by the Ottawa Citizen. It was one of a series of minor scandals affecting Liberal ministers at the time. On May 26, 2002, Eggleton was dismissed from Cabinet as due to the revelations. Another misstep in January 2002, when Mr. Eggleton as Defence Minister omitted to tell his Liberal colleagues that Canadian Forces in Afghanistan had detained persons and transferred them to the United States (who ultimately put them in Guantanamo Bay) led to questions about his competence in the House, and a widely reported rebuke from the PM. His career never recovered from this error.
As a backbencher, he became critical of Chrétien, and expressed his support for Paul Martin. Despite this, he was not returned to cabinet when Martin became Prime Minister in December 2003. On May 13, 2004, Eggleton announced he would not be a candidate in the 2004 federal election making way for the nomination of Ken Dryden as the Liberal candidate in York Centre. He was appointed to the Senate by Paul Martin on March 24, 2005.
“But I hate the secretiveness and the obsessive message control in the Harper government as much or more. ”
And yet; EVERY SINGLE TIME the Tories do say something; it is sliced; diced and made into a negative story. Do you not realize how the liberal media in this country want Harper to fail; how they resent the fact that he is PM; how they are going to do EVERYTHING they can to bring him down.
While I wish it could be another way; given the current climate of partisan politics; message control is the ONLY way.
It’s called “controlling the message” if the Conservatives do it, whereas it’s called “cabinet solidarity” when the Liberals do it.
Same thing, different nomenclature and perspective. One is viewed by the MSM as malignant, the other benign.
And if one listens to the NDP, the voices may change, but the song remains the same. Is that considered sinister by the MSM?
Here’s a scoop!
http://fakestephenharper.blogspot.com/2008/06/stephen-harper-caught-with-biker-chick.html
Here’s a scoop!
http://fakestephenharper.blogspot.com/2008/06/stephen-harper-caught-with-biker-chick.html
P.S. I don’t know if I hit the wrong key … I may have posted it twice … sorry.
Yep, the double standard is everywhere it seems. That’s what makes this country great isn’t it?
I do believe that the Liberals were hoping that their targetting of Bernier would make him look bad. Quite the opposite is happening if you pay close attention. Bernier is looking more and more like he was set-up by his gal-pal, and more questions are being raised about her than about Bernier.
Has anyone here never known of anyone used in a relationship? In high school we had labels for folks like that.
This is nothing different, except that the gal pal has been known to allegedly sleep her way to get herself connected and further her agenda.
How’s that different from the Liberal agenda again?
Remind me Gayle.
I don’t pretend to know about any particular party’s agenda, but I still maintain that the Bloc, in particular MP Serge Ménard, who was Public Security Minister at the height of the biker wars, could possibly have been aware at least of Ms. Couillard’s connections with the bikers.
IF that is the case, why did he not warn Mr. Bernier at the time, when he saw reports of Ms. Couillard accompanying Mr. Bernier to his swearing-in ceremony?
Also, apparently there were already rumours about Ms. Couillard’s past among some gossipy Ottawa people before the story broke. Why did they not raise an alarm then?
If her connections are relevant now, it was just as relevant then.
That is perhaps why some people may be speculating that Mr. Bernier was set up.
Gabby, what you’re suggesting is that opposition party members and journalists ignored or suppressed a story *just in case* it turned into a much bigger story later.
Sorry, but I can’t imagine on what planet this might happen.
Frankly, Joanne, I don’t know why you even read Gayle’s comments, let alone respond. Just way too polite, I think you are.
She makes about as much sense as Joe Green …
“Sorry, but I can’t imagine on what planet this might happen.”
Here’s a hint:
the planet E . . . H
the country whose name begins with C and ends with A, eh?
Gabby, I’m afraid you’re going to have to do better than that.
What issue do you know of that was actively or consciously suppressed by both opposition members and journalists in the hopes that it would be a bigger story later?
Because if you can’t think of one, you’re applying special pleading here, which is a no-no to those of use who are not logically-challenged.
And if you’re applying special pleading, it would probably be worth your while — from a personal growth perspective — to think about what compels you to do that in the defense of a guy like Bernier.
Any one want to speculate on why Julie Couillard, who had a lot to say for the french language TV program, NOW, won’t appear to be questioned on any of her comments by the CPC or the opposition for that matter?
Is this just another case of drop the smears and RUN? No accountability?
Looks like the bigger story later fell on it’s a$$.