Voters ought to pay attention to Duffy trial

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/08/2015 (3688 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

In Winnipeg, two things are certain to happen on Thursday.

First, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper will make a campaign appearance here, the first of the federal leaders to visit our fair province.

And second, Harper will maintain that neither he nor anyone in his office did anything wrong when Nigel Wright, former chief of staff to the prime minister, paid $90,000 out of his own pocket to contain a growing scandal over expense claims made by Conservative Sen. Mike Duffy.

In denying wrongdoing, Harper will be relying on the fact this story is complex verging on arcane, and thus difficult for voters to digest. And that the questions of who knew what and when will discourage voters from forming much of an opinion about what transpired between Wright, Harper’s senior-most political staffer at the time, and the much disparaged Duffy.

Voters would be well advised to take an interest in the story. At its core, this tale provides a deep insight into the inner workings of the highest political office in the land. An insight that was laid bare on Wednesday when Wright, now out of politics, testified for the Crown at Duffy’s fraud trial.

In the first of what is expected to be several days of testimony from Wright, we learned that he and other top aides were deeply involved in trying to contain the fallout from revelations that Duffy had improperly claimed expense money. Wright said he believed his job was to “manage issues to protect the reputation of the government.” This is an important declaration.

Much of the speculation about the Duffy trial has focused on whether Harper knew that Wright was using his own money to pay back Duffy’s improper expense claims. And, of course, when the prime minister knew it.

After Wright’s testimony, we can now see a larger, perhaps even more damaging story taking shape.

In his testimony, Wright has enunciated, in remarkably frank language, the great dilemma faced by staff to the prime minister: in the commission of their duties, are they serving their political masters, or the citizens of Canada?

For Wright, and others in the Prime Minister’s Office involved in the Duffy expense scandal, the answer was clear: his job was all about serving political masters.

Wright noted that in general, the PMO seeks “to manage issues to protect the reputation of the government.” And in general, that makes sense. However, when the issue to be managed is unethical or illegal activity by one of the government’s own, the mandate of PMO staff becomes a little less clear.

Thanks to Wright’s testimony, and several volumes of emails that were released in court, we learned that a good many people within the PMO were working on the Duffy file, possessed by a need to protect the Conservative government. Why, you may ask, was the Duffy expense scandal so important to the reputation of the Conservative government?

Duffy was not just a member of the Conservative caucus; he was a star and a stalwart of party fundraising events and rallies. If Duffy’s brand was damaged by the expense scandal, the Conservative Party would likely suffer the same fate.

That explains why such a large cast of important Conservatives – from Tory Sen. David Tkachuk, who chaired a senate committee reviewing expense claims, to Sen. Irving Gerstein, chair of Conservative Fund, to numerous staff within the PMO and Senate – were all working to contain the scandal. Again, Wright’s emails were proof positive that this was a political concern of the highest order.

This theory holds all the way through to Wright’s decision to personally provide the $90,000 necessary to repay the improper expenses. Wright testified that after negotiating with Duffy for certain concessions – an apology, admission that he was wrong in claiming the expenses, an agreement that no further audits would be conducted – he felt personally obligated to help Duffy cover the expenses.

Winnipeg Free Press | Newsletter

Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Tuesdays

A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world.

Sign up for Dan Lett | Not for Attribution

Sign Up

I agree to the Terms and Conditions, Cookie and Privacy Policies, and CASL agreement.

Wright has continued to assert that although Harper knew that Duffy was going to pay back the money, he did not know the money did not come from Duffy. There are many Tories who believe that is the end of the matter. However, that’s hardly the only issue here.

Wright testified that he did nothing wrong by helping Duffy, and was only motivated to save the taxpayer the burden of the senator’s excesses. If that was the case, then why was Harper kept in the dark?

If voters lose interest in the “what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it” question, they could start asking much more troubling questions about Harper and the PMO. In particular, whether the PMO’s mandate – to protect the reputation of the government – extends to hushing up details of indiscretions by a member of that government.

For now, we know that Harper will be in Winnipeg on Thursday, and he will continue to portray the Duffy trial as a matter of little consequence. We do not know if voters will take the time to dig into the story and make up their own minds about what went on.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.