Is Helena Guergis Ready To Cross The Floor

[Liberalman]

Is Helena Guergis Ready To Cross The Floor

After the roasting of Helena’s husband Jaffer by his formal Conservative buddies she must be wondering if the Conservative experience is for her.

From the time the Conservatives took power it was an all out war on women from cutting the court challenge funding to not updating the women to get equal wages for equal value in the federal government.

There was the public ridicule of a well respected woman Conservative MP for giving a grant to the Toronto Gay Pride festival and the list goes on.

The Conservative party is turning out to be the old boys club where they give women the chance to be cabinet ministers only as window dressing to appeal to the women voters but they don’t say anything because the muzzle is tight.

If Helena Guergis does decide to cross the floor this month and join up with the Liberal party the rest of the women Conservative MPs should follow her and come to a party where they can be equals.

 

[FiveParadox]

There is absolutely no doubt that Her Majesty’s Government for Canada has demonstrated a stunning lack of respect for women. The contempt that the Government has shown for Status of Women Canada and programs in support thereof has been shocking throughout these several past legislative sessions. However, The Honourable Helena Guergis P.C., M.P. (Simcoe—Grey), has no place joining Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition unless, and until, all appropriate authorities have determined that there was no wrongdoing on the former minister’s part.

 

[Machjo]

Why should she need to cross the floor? Can she not stand as an independent MP? Consider how André Arthur, MP for the riding of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, has managed to stand on his own in Parliament without support from any party. An MP truly worth voting for can hold his own.

 

[FiveParadox]

Keep in mind, of course, that independent members of the House of Commons receive no time during question period, and cannot participate in House of Commons standing committees. Without a party banner, independent members are effectively powerless other than their participation in weekly recorded divisions.

 

[Machjo]

Keep in mind, of course, that independent members of the House of Commons receive no time during question period, and cannot participate in House of Commons standing committees. Without a party banner, independent members are effectively powerless other than their participation in weekly recorded divisions.

And that needs to change. Should his riding not be entitled to an equal voice in Parliament as any other? It's not the voters who must comply with party rules, but rather Parliament that must comply with the wishes of the voters.

 

[FiveParadox]

And that needs to change. Should his riding not be entitled to an equal voice in Parliament as any other? It's not the voters who must comply with party rules, but rather Parliament that must comply with the wishes of the voters.

Standing committees should also nonetheless reflect the proportion of the political parties voted to Parliament, yes?

 

[Machjo]

Standing committees should also nonetheless reflect the proportion of the political parties voted to Parliament, yes?

Seeing that we don't vote for parties, they really ought not to have any legal recognition whatsoever. Could they not arrange for some other means of ensuring all MPs have an equal chance, or are parties afraid to lose the power they have over their membership in Parliament?

 

[Liberalman]

Why should she need to cross the floor? Can she not stand as an independent MP? Consider how André Arthur, MP for the riding of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, has managed to stand on his own in Parliament without support from any party. An MP truly worth voting for can hold his own.

By crossing the floor she can be part of a larger group where she can accomplish a lot more than just being an independent and she would have a better seat to be more visible because her new seat is up near the rafters.

We have to remember that it was Stephen Harper that threw her out of the Conservative party after she resigned her cabinet position.

If it's a male MP then he would have to give up his position and he would have to settle for a backbencher position until the investigation was over.

When Conservative Belinda Stronach crossed the floor she became a Liberal critic and she was front and centre and got to ask the questions and the Conservatives never bothered her because she knew where all the skeletons were in Harper's party

Until the Conservative party can treat their women MPs with dignity and respect instead like a piece of furniture they are all wasting their time in that party.

I went to Helena Guergis government web site and she is identified as an Independent Conservative member http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/ProfileMP.aspx?Key=128818&Language=E

Again after her husband's treatment by the Conservative members at his testimony hearings she now knows that her former party is a joke.

 

[TenPenny]

Sure, she should cross the floor. She's just exactly the kind of MP the Liberals need and love.

 

[Slim Chance]

We have to remember that it was Stephen Harper that threw her out of the Conservative party after she resigned her cabinet position.

She resigned her position for a reason. That reason compelled Harper to get the RCMP involved - the RCMP investigate criminal matters.

Guergis knows full well that this "reason" was significant enough that it will hurt her political career.

Again after her husband's treatment by the Conservative members at his testimony hearings she now knows that her former party is a joke.

Perhaps you ought to keep up with the local news in your area.... Every party took a run at Jaffer and the common belief is that he abused his former position as well as his wife's current position.

 

[Liberalman]

She resigned her position for a reason. That reason compelled Harper to get the RCMP involved - the RCMP investigate criminal matters

Like I said if it was a male MP the giving up the cabinet position would have been enough until the investigation was over but because she's a woman Harper decided to throw her out of the party.

Perhaps you ought to keep up with the local news in your area

I was watching it on TV and my point is that his Conservative buddies were there with the rest picking the meat off Jaffer's bones.

Maybe the Conservatives did this because of their Reform roots keeping visible minorities in the back room.

Jaffer came without legal representation because he thought his Conservative buddies would help him tell his side of the story but the Conservatives pounced on him like vultures and yes the rest of the opposition did the same thing and it was expected of them to do so.

Canada is all about protecting people's rights like visible minorities and women's rights.

Our government we elected does not seem to get that aspect of it and the Conservatives just want to be good American in a Canadian way of life.

 

[Machjo]

Standing committees should also nonetheless reflect the proportion of the political parties voted to Parliament, yes?

No, it should reflect the proportion of MPs in the House.

 

[wulfie68]

Like I said if it was a male MP the giving up the cabinet position would have been enough until the investigation was over but because she's a woman Harper decided to throw her out of the party.

Proof please? And no the memoirs of Belinda " I Wanna Be The Boss" Stronach aren't any more than hearsay at best...

I'm thinking this has more to do with the fact that it is the 2nd time in a couple months that Ms Guergis brought bad press to the gov't through her conduct... or perhaps you feel her blow up in an airport in the Maritimes a couple months ago was acceptable behaviour for our parliamentarians...

I was watching it on TV and my point is that his Conservative buddies were there with the rest picking the meat off Jaffer's bones.

Maybe the Conservatives did this because of their Reform roots keeping visible minorities in the back room.

Or just maybe it was because Jaffer broke some laws and would be a convicted felon except for the fact hs got lucky in the way the cops screwed the pooch in their handling of his case.

Jaffer came without legal representation because he thought his Conservative buddies would help him tell his side of the story but the Conservatives pounced on him like vultures and yes the rest of the opposition did the same thing and it was expected of them to do so.

Politics is a nasty game and the Conservatives wanted distance between themselves and Jaffer. This is still irrelevant in the larger scheme of what his wife should do politically: the Liberals took their shots at both of them as well...

Canada is all about protecting people's rights like visible minorities and women's rights.

Our government we elected does not seem to get that aspect of it and the Conservatives just want to be good American in a Canadian way of life.

Not just women's rights or visible minority's rights but everyones. And please tell me how the Conservative approach is so much more "American" (whatever that is supposed to mean) than the Liberals under "My Ships Aren't Canadian" Martin or Porkbarrel King Chretien...

 

[Machjo]

And what is this about this or that being so 'American'? Are we talking American in the Martin Luther King Jr. sense of the word, or the George Bush sense of the word, or some other sense of the word? Americans have not been assimilated into some kind of Borg-like collective yet as far as I know.

 

[FiveParadox]

Re: 86-ing Political Parties in Canada

Machjo, our Westminster system of governance would function questionably at best without the use of legally-recognised political parties. For one, how would we ever know who forms the Government of the day? Would everyone except for the ministry be the Opposition? How could someone be a prime minister if there is no ‘largest party’ in the House of Commons? Jurisdictions without political parties are rare, and those that do exist do not function in a way that a legislature should; the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut comes to mind.

 

[eh1eh]

If she crosses the floor then she is a turncoat and not to be trusted with anything.
I would postulate that is true of any member of government, but crossing the floor just publicly announces their disloyalty. If their political views changed that fast then maybe they don't have the faculties to be a member????
To all the turncoat floor crossovers, I spit on you.:angry3: You should consider your moral and ethical stance before you commit to a political doctrine.

Sorry M. Five but this is what the politicos do to themselves. :canada:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Sure, she should cross the floor. She's just exactly the kind of MP the Liberals need and love.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

 

[FiveParadox]

Election to public office does not suddenly suspend someone’s freedom of association. Let us remember that our vote, as much as the political party may weigh in our decision-making, is for a single and individual member of the House of Commons. It is the responsibility of every registered voter to know who they are voting for; it shouldn’t come as a surprise if someone who you voted for is on the left-hand-side of the Conservative Party, and then suddenly decides after a tumultuous session in the legislature to cross to the Liberal Party (then on the right-hand-side of that group). The member hasn’t changed at all in crossing the floor of the Commons; only the coloured bar under their name changes.

 

[eh1eh]

Election to public office does not suddenly suspend someone’s freedom of association. Let us remember that our vote, as much as the political party may weigh in our decision-making, is for a single and individual member of the House of Commons. It is the responsibility of every registered voter to know who they are voting for; it shouldn’t come as a surprise if someone who you voted for is on the left-hand-side of the Conservative Party, and then suddenly decides after a tumultuous session in the legislature to cross to the Liberal Party (then on the right-hand-side of that group). The member hasn’t changed at all in crossing the floor of the Commons; only the coloured bar under their name changes.

Yes. A political rationalization.
While I respect and admire your acumen in this realm, I have to err on the side of BS with that one.

 

[FiveParadox]

But it would have sounded like such a good answer during question period! :lol: