MONTREAL

Only a saint or alternatively someone with a guilty conscience would continue to play dead as his former boss wreaks irreparable damage on his or her reputation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper can only pray that former chief of staff Nigel Wright falls squarely in one or the other category.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the prime minister depicted Wright as a deceptive political operator.

Harper openly contended that when his top aide cut Mike Duffy a personal cheque to covertly reimburse a Senate housing allowance on the senator’s behalf he actively engaged in a deception that duped his boss along with all Canadians.

To listen to Harper, Wright abused his trust.

As an aside, if the sight of a prime minister who says he is very angry about a dubious scheme cooked up without his knowledge by backroom operators feels like déjà vu, it is because Harper has now replicated former prime minister Paul Martin’s initial response to the sponsorship scandal.

A major difference is that Martin was not in charge when the sponsorship program went off the rails and he had not hired those who ran it.

The Duffy affair has unfolded on Harper’s watch and under his nose.

No amount of prime ministerial finger-pointing can manage to clear up some stubborn grey zones in the evolving Conservative narrative.

It remains unexplained for instance why Wright felt he had to go to the lengths that he did on Duffy’s behalf.

It has now been acknowledged by the prime minister that other Conservative associates had a part in what Harper now calls a deception. If Wright was going rogue, if the route he chose to put the Senate controversy to rest was taking the PMO far out of the ethical boundaries set by the prime minister, why did no one feel compelled to give Harper a heads-up?

Only Wright can provide more clarity to these issues. He may have plausible reasons not to break his silence but at this juncture one can only guess what they could be.

It may be that he truly is the evil mastermind behind this uncommon scheme and that until this week Harper had been covering up for him out of compassion and loyalty to a former staffer.

If that is the case the prime minister has nothing to fear from his former chief of staff. Wright should actually be grateful that Harper held off for so long before throwing his body to the sharks who are circling his office this week.

Or, in the alternative, it may be that Wright is allowing Harper to methodically destroy his reputation because he is ultimately more committed to seeing the prime minister survive this fiasco than to salvaging his own good name.

Under this scenario Harper can only thank his lucky stars to have chanced upon such a benevolent individual to act as his chief of staff. For it is now in Wright’s power — if he has a case to make for himself to clear his name — to destroy the prime minister.

Harper’s credibility has already taken a beating over the past two weeks. For the first time since he has become Conservative leader, a poll — done by Ipsos for CTV — had his party in third place in voting intentions.

Another poll, by Ekos, had the Conservatives tied with the NDP for second place — albeit with barely the support of one in four voters.

Earlier this week some Conservative strategists found solace in the fact that Ipsos also reported that three out of four Canadians want Duffy, Patrick Brazeau and Pamela Wallin off the Senate payroll.

But the proportion of those who believe that Harper is lying about his role in the affair is almost as high. And two-thirds of respondents feel that he has mismanaged the issue.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

According to Ekos, even as they have precious little time for Duffy, twice as many voters believe the discredited senator over Harper.

How many would it be if the prime minister’s word was stacked against that of a former chief of staff for whose honour he so repeatedly vouched for until this week?

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

Read more about: