Guergis, Bernier, and the PM's secrets

PAUL WELLS: What the scandals say about Harper’s management style

by Paul Wells on Friday, April 23, 2010 7:19am - 331 Comments

A lot of people actually think that’s a pretty good idea. That it handicaps the Conservatives’ opponents disproportionately because they have not developed a comparable ability to appeal to private donors is no skin off many voters’ noses. Harper’s plan would have attracted some support to the Conservatives, at no cost, if he had simply campaigned on it when he was supposed to be telling people his plans for government.
But this Prime Minister cannot help himself. If he knows something you don’t, he values that thing out of all proportion to its true worth. So he sprung his party-financing scheme on his opponents and an unsuspecting country and provoked the entire lurid coalition-prorogation psychodrama of late 2008. And he took the dime-store novellas peddled by Snowdy on Gillani’s say-so at face value, simply because he was privy.

In some ways that instinct is a product of the Conservatives’ minority status in a Parliament where every opposition party, a consistent majority of the electorate and the bulk of the press gallery sits well to the government’s political left. That’s inclement weather for a government that would like to survive for a while, and Harper has survived it by playing a particularly ruthless brand of game theory.

The easiest game to win is a game of asymmetrical information, where one player knows more about his opponents than they know about him. Harper spends a lot of time setting up that steep gradient between what he knows and what everyone else does. During the 2006 election, one Conservative staffer was assigned to stake out the coffee shop where Liberal staffers would pause from long days in their party’s campaign war room. History doesn’t record that the overheard chit-chat did the Conservatives any good, but it made the leader feel better. Today, reporters seeking comment on any story are quizzed at length about their intentions. They may or may not get a call back with any information. But the information they surrender is collated and analyzed for trends on the issues that interest the media.

Formal requests for documents are ritually stonewalled. Last week the interim information commissioner, Suzanne Legault, said the right of citizens to information about how they are governed is “at risk of being totally obliterated” by delays. Legault has been interim information commissioner for 10 months while she waits to hear whether the same government she criticizes will accept her application for the full-time job. That arrangement would seem custom-designed to keep Legault in line indefinitely, but she has decided she will keep doing her job with brio for however long she might continue to hold it. Harper’s instinct—hoard information, dole it out in as miserly a way as possible, act on insider information rather than on what’s obvious to all the world—persists.

What is left over, after all of this, is the lives of a husband and wife who used to be of great value to Harper’s party. Rahim Jaffer was a key early guarantor of the Reform party’s claim to diversity, urban appeal, and—because he speaks French—a measure of interest in the French language and the peculiar currents of Quebec politics. He was the Canadian Alliance’s deputy House leader when that shattered party was trying to recover from Stockwell Day’s disastrous leadership. There’s just nobody in Ottawa who dislikes the guy, or there wasn’t six months ago. His wife was carefully stationed in the camera shot right behind Harper for years, the better to improve perceptions of the party among women voters. She was famous in Conservative circles for being a hard boss to work for, but her own boss, Stephen Harper, would not hear a word sent against her.

Now they have been cast aside. The evidence against them started out solid enough. He really did blow over the limit at that cop stop outside Toronto. She really did hurl footwear while P.E.I. airport workers were simply trying to do the job Canada’s federal cabinet obliges them to do. The excuses on offer have been flimsy. Guergis had two miscarriages, but to suggest that should be her defence insults any number of women who held on to their dignity in the face of comparable challenges.

Perhaps all that can be said about the couple’s decline, up to a point, is that the life they signed up for can be rough on anyone’s dignity. In his autobiography, Think Big, the former Reform party leader Preston Manning devotes considerable space to “the sad but oft-proven truth that if you are suffering from a financial problem, a marital problem, or a substance abuse problem, it will only get worse, not better, if you become a member of Parliament.” Very few are the denizens of the capital who would long survive serious scrutiny of their behaviour off duty. That’s not an excuse. Perhaps it is context.

But we cannot judge Jaffer and Guergis because we literally have no idea what the former minister and her husband stand accused of doing. The Prime Minister’s love of secrecy did not stop him from hinting darkly that there were nasty allegations against them. Then he clammed up, as if all that is now happening to them were none of his problem. This started out as a story about the things Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis should be ashamed of. It’s starting to look like they’re not the only ones.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    "In his autobiography, Think Big, the former Reform party leader Preston Manning devotes considerable space to “the sad but oft-proven truth that if you are suffering from a financial problem, a marital problem, or a substance abuse problem, it will only get worse, not better, if you become a member of Parliament.”

    Paul Wells, has it ever occurred to you that it is possible for Harper to be capable of thinking big, that the smallmindedness generally speaking around him is what holds him back (all the petty-pitty-heckling ongoing, by you as well as many others) and that Harper has nothing to hide in his personal life which could be used against him.

    Could it be possible that Harper is loyal to others (cabinet ministers for intance) untill he has enough prove that THEY have let him down in real terms? I mean, coming unglued in front of airport security guards is not something to be let down by, now is it? Really,

    • Julie

      Wll said.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    And so, it is becoming clearer day by day, that indeed this seems to be true:

    How do you think a PM could function effectively if more and more people offering opinions act like Holly Stick, to name just one of the emtpy headers in our midst

    But there are many, many empty headers about who care for nothing but to throw empty rethoric at the PM no matter what he does.

    Now imagine trying to govern under such circumstances. It's probably impossible.

  • Dan Deilgat

    Finally I thought! An article that identifies the similarities between the Bernier case and the Guergis/Jaffer lynching, but, no, not one hint at the ties to the Hells Angels.

    In the Guergis/Jaffer case Jaffer's client was a money launderer for the Bikers while in the Bernier case, well, let's just say that bernier was in bed with the Hells Angels angel…

    Nevertheless yet another publication that doesn't have the marble- at either extremities, to state the obvious.

  • Elizabeth

    What happened to politicians who wanted to do the work appointed them? To be honest, hard working and most of to have a ear of what the Canadian public need for our future stability. I am tired of hearing of the number of politicians who have their personal interest number one, and their job number two! When is this going to change?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    I'll go ask monsieur Parizeau how much permission he gave for his hospitalization to be widely announced. Save some irony for me, I hear it's delicious around here…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

      It is rather obvious that Guergis agreed to let the piece run. Do you honestly think that her sister would spill the beans without approval? Duh….

      • sake1pm

        Very amusing and hits all the fringe 'right' spots, Wells! Although, I must confess, that as Canadians we should all be happy to experiment with a macho-misanthrope PM for a change! All that touchy feely stuff is for B men!*

        I don't think our very own Taliban-on-the-Hill Party will be reading this with relish, but wanna bet the delusional little Bonaparte who can't get his percentage up to the elusive "Majority" level of prestige and thus rule supreme and dictatorially over our beloved (ex)democratic Parliament….has read each and every word of yours, Paul, and has already hired a private dick at a discount?

        You betcha!

        P.S. Watch out for Snowdy (you have his pic, right?) hiding out somewhere close to your car. I've heard that they've got a great Alliance going between them. They apparently share the same "me first" philosophy, deregulatory zeal and IQ! Except that Snowdy only got himself in the hole for $13 mil, while Stevie Wonder inherited our $13 billion and dug us into a $55 billion hole!

        *Harper's Parliamentary Committee professional fillibusterer Tom Lukiewski as General Manager for the Sask. Reformers eloquently and conservatively said in 1991:
        *There's A's and there's B's. The A's are guys like me, the B's are homosexual FAGGOTS WITH DIRT UNDER THEIR FINGERNAILS that TRANSMIT DISEASES"!

        Let's hope our Great Leader belongs to the As, eh?

      • calvin

        Great article. Harper's paranoia is a central personality trait, both good and bad. Many journalists have documented it, those rotten scum information seekers.

  • Dot

    Yeah, that's the same. Good analogy.

  • bfairey

    Its "gotcha" again, come on inkless you can do better than that.

  • James Wolfe

    This is not news. This soap opera, this daily dose of sleaze, brain dead nonsense from CTV, CBC, the mainstream media, and its also a big part of the reason people are tuning you clowns out. You are no different then the comedy show that goes on daily on Parliament hill. Spin, lies, corruption, blame, scandals…what a joke this country has become. Like the politicians the media is as much to blame for the socialist cesspool this country has become. Yes it has left Quebec and is spreading across the country. The only difference between the CBC and CTV now is that one sucks 1 billion dollars a year out of the taxpayer’s pockets. CBC, CTV, Liberal, Tory, same old story. Both have destroyed our economy and our proud English speaking, UEL history, all a disgrace to the country. What a mess.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    Holly, should I also join Facebook and the onion something crowd, because if you think it'll help, I'll do it, anything to get rid of Harper, we must be saved, keep playing with me, Holly, I'm having so much fun, you are so dedicated to the cause, and I want to be dedicated too, it must feel so good, and. like,….ok, no more use of "nuance", I promise

    • Holly Stick

      Well if you can't use the word intelligently, then I would rather you did not use it; I mean "Paul Wells and others are also playing a nuanced game"? What the aitch does that mean? Does it mean anything? If you really are in university, you need to learn to express yourself clearly.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

        I didn't know I was in university, but I might go if you think it will help me for coming to understand big words like "nuance" and maybe Holly I will learn all about what the word "aitch" means, because I really don't know what that could mean. Does it mean anything? I get it, I get it, you are making fun of me! You are slipping in words that don't exist and you're trying confuse me, naugthy, naughty Holly. Do university professors sometimes confuse their students, 'cause that would be handy to know, just in case.

        But when I'm finished with university (I will go, I will go, it seems so much worth it) I will be able to use all them big words and then I'll be able to express myself. clearly. Clearly.
        Holly, you won't believe how happy I am now that I've found someone to look up to, Holly.

        • Holly Stick

          Oh, yawn…..

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

            Bored already?

            Here I am, willing to learn all there is to learn about being wrong about being right.!

            I was under the impression that the Harper-bashing could go on indefinitely. That's why I was so willing to join the likes of you: to finally find infinity through emptyness (or through big words, such as evil and/or nuance, etc.).

            Now what's left to occupy the mind?

  • Holly Stick

    Ah, I see. When you said you had attended only one semester, I assumed that you were a current student who just started this year, and as such you were clearly in need of advice.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      "you said you had attended only one semester"

      Yeah, well, Holly, that's why it's important to read what people write. We have assumptions in overload, I don't think we need much more of that.

      However, you were very correct in assuming that I needed advice. I still do:

      Let it be resolved: " What then is reason?"

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Open_Democracy Open_Democracy

    When you look back in recent history, Canadians really loved Pierre Trudeau at least in the early years. He was a dynamic figure that engaged the Canadian public and made us proud to be Canadian. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the later years, but he was the Obama of the late 1960's.

    Stephen Harper never has been a figure that Canadians are enthralled with. I can't explain why but it's undeniable. Perhaps it's because we don't identify with him and he doesn't identify with us. Maybe that explains the 59% turnout of eligible voters in 2008.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • Orson Bean

      A bit of reality therapy here — yes, Trudeaumania happened. In 1968. Four years later, Trudeau couldn't even get a majority government. That was back in the day when there was no Bloc, no Greens, nobody other than the Dippers, Tories and Liberals. And Trudeau couldn't even muster a majority. And any slight inroads that he had made west of Ontario in 1968 were absolutely wiped out by 1972. Never, ever to return. Trudeau was fabulously popular in Central Canada, and among certain left of centre elites elsewhere. Period.

  • Tony

    How bout the same 'need to know' coverage for flakes like George Smitherman and his "gay party" drug problem. What sort of company was he keeping.

    How bout Svend Robertson and his funny little story.

    Oh, I forgot they are "progressive," and are dealing with the pressures of being "progressive"

    • Tony

      I remember Svend's little tale. I was so much in love with my partner I had to steal a $5000 ring – but I am left-wing and gay boo-hoo-hoo.- forgive me .

      "That's alright Svend, we understand how much love your partner, it is perfectly understandable to want to steal a big ring from a flea market; you have a mental health issue(not to be confused with any conservative shortcomings) – what can we do to support you?"

      or, how about the collective Quebec Wing of the Liberal Party:

      Uhhhhh, where is that $100 million you stole from us?

      You just understand French Culture, and the price of doing business in La Belle Province.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM Claudia Lemire

    FVerhoeven, I was trying to reply to Holly…

    I hope you are having a good day!!

  • http://www.freewebs.com/frgadupont roberta dupont

    Paul, this arcticle is nothing but BS. It contains few facts because you don,t know the facts. The journalists are more dangerous to the country than Stephen Harper. There should be no articles written that are filled with stricktly opinions , innuendos, assumptions from someone striving to be clever. You criticize Harper but go look at yourself in the mirror. Is it no wonder Harper doesn't trust the media. Go write for the Inquirer.

    • Holly Stick

      "…There should be no articles written that are filled with stricktly opinions , innuendos, assumptions…"

      I guess you don't read the National Post?

      • Richard

        While not condoning the actions of Jaffer or Guergis, I feel the way the PM dealt with the Guergis issue shows a serious lapse in judgement.
        As leader of the Conservative party, his job is to show leadership to party members and the nation, and support both in order to accomplish what is necessary.
        To state, publicly, that his MInister has his full support, and then to cast that Minister out of the party, and report her actions to the RCMP the next day, while basing that decision on dubious information, has me wondering how he can command loyalty from any party member. I know I couldn't work for someone who treated people that way.

  • HMMR

    Harper is only as good as his opposition is bad. If the loyal opposition had any teeth or policies maybe there would be a horse race for the top job. In the mean time all we get to watch is a couple of nags fighting over a soggy bag of oats.

  • Guest

    Brilliant. the most insightful thing I've read on the Guergis/Jaffer thing, but more importantly on the Prime Minister's "management style". Fascinating, if disturbing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

    I think Paul Wells, and others, are not inclined, have never been inclined, to see Harper in any other light than "shady".

    It could be said that it is your shortcoming not being able to understand big thinkiing which leads you to condemn Harper outright but it would be your shortcoming, not his.

  • Julie

    Amen!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SamDavies SamDavies

    How sweet. You've got yourself a groupie.
    PS – re: your comment – What a TWIST!

From Macleans