- Harper : 'Jaffer-Gate' ('Jaffer-Gate'??? - hey, you hear it first here, folks, I think)

Posted: 4/26/2010 10:23:22 AM The Globe and Mail
After apparent contradictions, MPs want to grill Rahim Jaffer again, Gloria Galloway, Apr. 25, 2010 6:32PM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/after-apparent-contradictions-mps-want-to-grill-rahim-jaffer-again/article1546263/ tab: 13

The big thing with the Guergis-Jaffer affair is that the indications are that there is a lot more to it than has been brought to light. And, it may even go to the Prime Minister and senior Ministers like John Baird and Jim Prentice. Given how Harper came to power, his viscous personal attacks on Liberals, his self righteous and extremely dishonest promises of transparency, openness, eliminating corruption, etc. This issue is very important to wake Canadians up to just exactly what Harper and his Con's stand for and the damage they are doing to our way of life.

What Harper knew about the Guergis' and Jaffer's activities, if there was anything to know, and when is a very serious question.

Harper's general approach of stonewalling, secrecy, obscuration, obstruction, denial, co-ordinated viscous attack of anyone who might dare to stand up to him makes him susceptible of suspicious of cover-up.

Ignatieff is right (morally) when he says that if Harper insists in conducting the government of Canada in such a fashion then he must expect to attract suspicion. In other words, there is really only one reason a person carrying on in such a fashion, they have something to hide. So, when they are accused of hiding something it does not lie in their moth to complain.

When one looks at Harper's position right from the time Jaffer was arrested and Guergis had that meltdown in Charlottetown until now, one can wonder if there is a lot more that Harper knew right from the start.

Harper defended Guergis adamantly until all of a sudden right after the Star Investigative Report about Jaffer and insinuations of influence peddling. To say he took a 180 degree reversal is an understatement. Also, it makes little rational sense, to me anyway, on the face of it that Guergis would resign from her Ministerial Post and Harper kick her out of the Caucus.

There is something missing in this puzzle that might be made more palatable if one were to assume that Harper knew something, or things, of a disturbing nature not merely from when thing started to go wrong for Jaffer but before.

When one considers the very tight rein Harper has held, right from the start, on his Caucus and especially his Ministers and the very centralized control (it is typical in the Harperiavellian style of running the Administration and the Con Party to employ the use of 'spies' or 'ears-and-eyes' to keep a watch on what is going on and it would not be surprising if that were also the case, but not matter what people would surely be tripping over each other to inform Harper and get in his good books - that's just how these things work in such context, and Harper's style makes it easy to believe he makes full use of such methods), it hard to imagine that if Geurgis and Jaffer were transgressing that Harper would not learn about it and quickly. This is especially for something like the letter Guergis allegedly sent to the local council. What is the likelihood that this letter didn't get back to the higher echelons of the Con party and thus Harper.

Harper had considerable motive in keeping anything he might so learn secret. This is not simply for the embarrassment to his administration, which would be enough in itself. But, Guergis holds a key and strategic seat (Simcoe-Gray) in rural Ontario which she took from the Liberals in 2004 as the result of a Liberal scandal. Rural Ontario and the 905 area represent the key to a Con majority, especially since they have pretty much written-off Quebec. This is the heart of "Tim Horton Country" and they are very sensitive to scandal in their government, as everyone should be

Another interesting thing is Jaffer losing his seat in Edmonton in the '08 election (before his charges in Sep.'09) which he had held in '97. Anyone wonder why a Con of such long standing and integration in the Con Party could lose his seat in the heartland of the Cons, other than the NDP having a very good and qualified candidate. If I were part of the Liberal Brain Trust I'd be looking into that, big time.

17 Apr.'10 Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html