What you don’t know about Stephen Harper

His backroom battles, diplomatic scraps, betrayals and secret insecurities

by Paul Wells and John Geddes on Monday, January 31, 2011 9:00am - 237 Comments
What you don't know about Stephen Harper

Blair Gable/REUTERS

1. CRISIS POINT: The day he almost gave up power

Stephen Harper’s life and work made no sense to him if he wasn’t the prime minister of Canada. Having the title wasn’t his goal. He needed to hold on, long enough to change a country. Everything he had done in politics since 2002 was designed to unite his base and divide his enemies. Now his enemies were united. He was lost.

It was Monday afternoon, Dec. 1, 2008. On Harper’s desk sat a copy of the coalition deal Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would sign in a public ceremony a few hours later. Its demure title blackened his mood even further: “A policy accord to address the present economic crisis.” The first paragraph gave the game away: this was about a “new government.” Not his.

At times like this, other leaders have been visited by close friends or trusted confidants who helped them look past the crisis of the moment toward history. But Stephen Harper has no close friend in politics, so the three men waiting outside his door would have to do.

Jim Prentice was the chairman of the cabinet operations committee, which had been holding its weekly meeting down the hall. The job of “ops” is to put out fires, and this mess qualified. Jay Hill was Prentice’s vice-chair, rough-hewn where Prentice was smooth. He had known Harper longer than the others, since they had first sat in the Commons as Reform party rookies in 1993. James Moore was the youngest minister in cabinet, just 33, eager, intense.

Ray Novak, the guardian at the PM’s door, let them in. Haltingly, Prentice laid out the ops committee’s consensus: Harper should ask the governor general to prorogue Parliament, suspending the legislative session almost before it had begun. Only three days earlier, Harper had promised Canadians he would put his government to a confidence vote that would determine its fate. Prorogation would cancel that vote. It was for the good of the country, Prentice said. Give everyone a chance to cool down.

Harper was tempted by another path. Let them win, he said, with no great conviction. Let Stéphane Dion try to run the country, with Jack Layton calling the shots and Gilles Duceppe sitting in judgment over the whole mess. It’ll fall apart in six months. We’ll pick up the pieces in the next election. Come back stronger than ever.

James Moore cut in. Prime Minister, he said, you can’t be sure it will work that way. They’ll be so terrified of facing the voters they’ll cling to one another for a long time. They may even make this thing work. You can’t know.

The Prime Minister was unconvinced. It fell to Jay Hill to make the strongest appeal. “Prime Minister,” he said quietly, “If you give up power now, I don’t know if you can survive as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

It is hard to pick a highlight in Stephen Harper’s five years as Prime Minister, but that’s the low point right there. Harper started fighting back within hours. The coalition crisis ended so soon that already its details blur. But it indelibly marked the thinking of its near-victim. At every point since the immediate crisis ended, Harper has insisted, over the objections of Dion’s successor Michael Ignatieff, that the opposition parties will reunite if they see a chance.

Whenever the next election comes, he told Maclean’s in January 2009, “the electorate will know that if you’re not electing the Conservative government you’re going to be electing a coalition that will include the NDP and the separatists.”

“I really think he believes this,” one of his ministers says. “This is not a line.” On its face, it means the biggest confrontation of a career built on brinksmanship still lies ahead.

WATCH COYNE V. WELLS ON FIVE YEARS OF HARPER (VIDEO)

Meanwhile it is getting time to take stock. He has been Prime Minister for five years, longer than Lester Pearson. Not by accident, because in a House where the Conservatives have no natural allies, an accident is politically life-threatening. By tenacity. While he survives, he chips at the way the country is governed, avoiding grand gestures that could provide an easy target. It’s why he is determined to endure: because he needs the time. His method is not revolution, or even evolution. It’s erosion. The object of his steady attention isn’t the way Canada works, its laws and transfer dollars, not primarily, anyway. It’s the way Canadians think. That is what he wants to change. “Is this a centre-right country?” one of his closest campaign advisers asks rhetorically. “No.” Harper’s game is to change that.

New interviews with Conservative caucus members and current and former Harper advisers give fresh insight into Stephen Harper’s method. This winter, with no crisis looming, Harper’s circle has been more relaxed and frank than at some earlier moments. They feel freer to reminisce about the boss’s temperament and method, and to speculate on his goals. But sooner or later, even now, any discussion about how Harper manages to keep winning turns to the moment he almost lost it all.

The food in Lima was treacherous. Of 8,000 delegates at the APEC summit in Peru, Nov. 22 and 23, 2008, more than 100 developed upset stomachs or worse. The Peruvian government put out a news release blaming the weather in Lima, “characterized at this time of year by midday heat, but cool breezes in the mornings and afternoons,” for “upset stomachs” among “unprepared diners.”

Stephen Harper was one of the victims. The APEC food knocked him off his feet. After he landed back in Ottawa it mutated into a sullen and thuggish flu. His mood was foul and his body weak for days before Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled his fall economic update.

That moment came on Thursday, Nov. 27. The stakes were high. The election had ended as a debate about how to handle the looming recession. Harper had won by promising to avoid recession and deficit. Already those promises were fading, at least in the memory of the man who had made them. Before the ceviche cut him down in Peru, Harper had told Asia-Pacific heads of government that a jumbo dose of fiscal stimulus would be needed in many countries. But Flaherty’s fall update didn’t mention anything of the sort. What it did propose was an end to the $1.95-per-vote taxpayer-paid subsidy for political parties.

The idea, sources say now, came from the Conservative caucus, not from the top. Government MPs were not pleased to beat the Liberals, NDP or Bloc in their ridings, only to see voters bankroll the losing candidates’ future comeback attempts, whether they wanted to or not. The Conservatives figured the opposition parties might yelp at the end of those subsidies, but they wouldn’t bite. Conservatives got more votes than other parties, after all. They’d lose more free money.

Almost as soon as news of the vote-subsidy cut leaked on Wednesday night, though, it became clear the opposition parties meant to do more than yelp. “This means war,” the quote-o-matic NDP MP Pat Martin said.

Thursday, Flaherty tabled his statement in the Commons, making the threat real. All three opposition leaders spoke against it.

Friday, Dion’s Liberals announced they would table a no-confidence motion at the first opportunity. Friday afternoon, Harper walked downstairs to a scrum mike in the Centre Block foyer and announced he was postponing all votes in the Commons for a  week. Plainly, he was buying time. Plainly, he had no better idea yet. Saturday, Transport Minister John Baird showed up at the CBC building on Queen Street in Ottawa to announce the government would not go ahead with the vote-subsidy cut.

RELATED: Andrew Coyne argues that the Conservatives’ drive to stay in power imperils the state of politics itself

No matter. In hotels across the capital, negotiating teams organized a coalition government, led by Dion, seconded by Layton, with a pledge of confidence-vote support from Duceppe. The negotiators showed up at the annual Press Gallery dinner on Saturday night flushed with excitement. In the cold outside the Museum of Civilization, Doug Finley, Harper’s dour Scottish campaign manager, stood cradling a scotch and taking a smoke break. One reporter suggested Harper’s options came down to “fight” or “contrite.”

“Oh, we won’t be contrite,” Finley said.

But the boss had no fight in him as late as Monday, Dec. 1. He just looked deflated in question period. It wasn’t until nearly 5 p.m. that he saw his shot. The coalition partners gathered in Parliament’s Railway Committee Room to sign their astonishing manifesto. Gilles Duceppe was one of the three, seated and treated as an equal.

“There are moments when this government talks to the country, to our supporters and our networks,” one member of Harper’s government said much later. “This wasn’t that. This was the country talking to us. Immediately after the press conference it was a kind of electric shock. Every phone line, every email, every blog, every radio commentary lit up like Vegas on jackpot day.”

“There had been a bit of a sense of defeat,” Chris Froggatt, a former ministerial chief of staff, said, “and then when that happened it was just a sense that we were handed an opportunity. It was like a gift to us.”

Yet later that evening, as Tories gathered for their annual Christmas party at Ottawa’s Westin Hotel, many of the rank and file were still in a coalition funk. In fact, one Conservative official says Harper himself seemed unsure what tone to take in addressing the crowd. It was his wife, Laureen, in a quiet moment in a kitchen off the main hall, with only a few other staffers in the room, who told him the faithful expected him to show leadership. So he needed to rally his own spirits. Harper ignored a prepared text and delivered a rousing attack calling the coalition a separatist-led attack on democracy. “It sounded like a come-from-behind speech by a coach in a basketball movie,” one partygoer said.

The next day Harper just about ate Dion in question period. “Mr. Speaker, the highest principle of Canadian democracy is that if one wants to be prime minister, one gets one’s mandate from the Canadian people, and not from Quebec separatists.” In the gallery above, Harper’s staff cheered and pumped their fists until Hill security guards shushed them.

As always, Harper’s instincts were bolstered with as much polling as his staff could hurry to gather. “We reached out to Tories who were in the market-research community who were already in the field and asked them to add questions about the coalition,” one staffer said. “Whatever they were originally polling on. It could have been about corn syrup.”

What they found was a high level of concern about what Dion and the others were up to. Duceppe’s presence was the biggest source of concern, followed by the prospect of Dion as prime minister. The presence of New Democrats in the federal cabinet fell a distant third on the list of hot buttons.

Conservatives started hitting those buttons with every tool at hand. “The whole gamut,” the staffer said. “Paid advertising, grassroots mobilization, events, a media blitz.”

Perhaps the campaign’s biggest target was the involvement of the Bloc. Never mind that the party would have no members in the government; its support for the Liberals and NDP, and Duceppe’s presence at the announcement, was enough for the Harper crew. “This was so hot among NDP-Reform switchers in Western Canada,” one of them said. Some Conservatives, including some who spoke on cable-TV political shows for the party, were very worried that all this talk about a “coalition with the separatists” would hurt the Conservatives in Quebec, where the Bloc’s legitimacy is unquestioned. Harper’s campaign team was well aware of the danger.

They ignored it. “Everyone knew that the use of the word ‘separatist’ was inflammatory,” one of them said. “But that was a problem for another day. We had to save the government.”

In the end they did. On Wednesday night the party leaders broadcast statements to the nation, making the case for keeping or rejecting the coalition. Dion’s video was delivered late and out of focus. The fight went right out of the Liberals. On Thursday, Harper paid a long visit to Rideau Hall and Parliament was prorogued. Four days later, Dion announced his resignation as Liberal leader.

The attempted coalition was gone. But not forgotten. Conservatives marvelled at the spike in support for their party at the height of the crisis, with well over 40 per cent saying they would vote for the besieged party. Thousands backed that sentiment with cash. “We’d never raised so much money,” the senior campaign official said. “It was a banner month for fundraising.”

Within a month, Harper was telling interviewers the coalition crisis would be replayed if Conservatives don’t win a majority at the next election. He has not swayed from that message. In some ways, it’s an odd message: if the choice is Conservative majority or all-but-Conservative coalition, then how will the Conservatives be able to govern with a minority like the one they have now? A member of Harper’s government simply shrugged when that question was put to him.

What’s clear is that Harper hasn’t forgotten the day his enemies almost took his job from him. He cannot believe they won’t try again. Until then he governs as he believes he has governed for every day he has had this job: under siege.

Next page: TAKING ON OTTAWA

Bookmark and Share
  • mike

    To witness what he has gone through and still manage to lead the country, Steve deserves his majority. He is currently the only one that displays leadership abilities. None of the others even come close. And that's what it should be about…who is the right person for the job regardless of party affiliation. And right now hs is that person. If he doesn't perform vote him out 4 years from now and hopefully by then Iggy will be replaced. A win win situation for all. And who knows maybe he'll do such a great job he'll get voted in for a second majority.

    • noob_goldberg

      If PM Harper was the leader you're building him up to be, he wouldn't have a problem securing a majority.

      It can't be a communications/image issue, as no one spends more on image and publicity than the CPC.

    • Kathryn_C

      Sorry but if we were electing a president then we would vote for the leader. That's not how it works in this country.
      Respect has to be earned and a majority mandate is the same way; Harper simply has not earned it and will not get it.

  • SunshineCoaster

    Paul Wells has written a very interesting article. This week we are witnessing the state of Egypt imploding after 30 years of abuse by a corrupt dictator. Paul's article is littered with examples of how similar Stephen Harper is to Hosni Mubarak. Examples: Arrogant one man rule with debate or criticism fobidden. Intimidation and absolute control of cabinet members. Adhering to the idea that a small cabal of elite politicians know better than legislatures or voters. Breaking electoral laws. Dismissing legislatures that dare to oppose. Abusing independent officials such as judges, comissioners. Abandoning principles and flip flopping on policies simply to stay in power. Total lack of substantive policy legislation (Andrew Coyne) in favour of initiatives that are symbolic to supporters (Coyne and Wells). Extreme focus on manipulating and in some cases manufacturing the message and information, to the extent that black is presented as white. Extreme secrecy and refusal to provide unedited documents to the public or legislators. Slashing ptograms to the poor in favour of tax cuts and subsidies to corporations and friends. Muzzling of bureaucrats and diplomats. ____Protest anyone?

    • JamesHalifax

      Sunshine Coaster wrote:
      "Paul's article is littered with examples of how similar Stephen Harper is to Hosni Mubarak. Examples: Arrogant one man rule with debate or criticism fobidden."

      I don't think Paul would agree that he's comparing Harper to Mubarak, but hey….if you let your imagination run wild enough……I'm sure you could squeeze in a hitler comparison soon enough.

      • Orson Bean

        Agreed. This is like Godwin Lite. Yeesh.

      • hlnkprchk

        I AGREE. THE COMPARISON IS MORE THAN SELF-EVIDENT.
        THE ARTICLE IS A SLIMY PUFF PIECE AND DISQUIETING

  • Red

    Speaking of food banks, this Con Serve a Nobody Party, Con Artists, think it's ok to have a Veterans Food Bank in Harper's riding of Calgary. Shame.

  • libby21

    Well he is still a creep to me. Canadians will be foolish to give another term to this man and his band of incompetents. Internationally embarrassing, nationally divisive and I believe not entirely balanced. Canada has already changed and it is not the respected compassionate country it was once and nor is it the fiscally responsible one that he inherited. He is spendthrift, ridiculously so and his continuous compaigning with attack ads only serves to define his leadership and that is a very destructive one. I am getting old, but too bad for my children, the country they grow up in will not be so nice with these kind of people at the helm.

    • Healthcare Insider

      l.ibby21 – I think there are a few unfair statements in your entry. You say that Mr. Harper is "a creep" who has in someway changed Canada from being the "compassionate country it once was". Yet if I am not mistaken, in 2006 Mr. Harper stopped his official airplane in Cyprus to pick up Canadian citizens who were fleeing war-torn Lebanon. If anything, he was a role-model for compassion. With regard to the fiscally responsible situation he inherited…things did not go off the rails until the entire world was immersed in a global recession. Who exactly do you think would have done any better under the circumstances?

  • Red

    So it turns out Harper's whistleblower watchdog was appointed to do exactly the opposite of what the position required. Squelch whistleblowers before the problem became an embarrassment for the Harper Gov't.

    There is no limit to the schemes of the Harper Gov't and nothing Harper wouldn't do to get closer to his coveted majority.

    MPs call disgraced integrity watchdog on carpet
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mps-…

  • PoliticalPundit

    You are absolutely right Claudia Lemire.

    I guess it is foolish to think that one can educated these loud-mouth louts. But reason and logic, not emotion and revenge, have to prevail or we will all be the losers.

    This ongoing ideological division between the extreme right and the extreme left reminds me of the same development that took place throughout all of Europe in the 1920s and 1920s.

    Anyone who was a political liberal or a moderate social democrat was shouted down and considered a public enemy by the emerging socialist and fascist regimes. Liberal governments were smashed and liberal minded intellectuals and journalists had to flee.

    We all know how this played out – a World War in which millions were slaughtered, 6 million Jews sent to the gas chambers, the destruction of all of western Europe, and the emergence of the Cold War that lasted until 1990.

    The restoration of political democracies and moderate social democratic governments gave the world five decades of relative peace. This stage has now come to an end.

    The same scenario as was played out in Europe in the 1920 to 1945 era is now developing but on a much larger global canvas. The Muslim Middle Eastern and Far Eastern societies and states are now in utter turmoil. They are all in the midst of, or on the verge of, major civil wars. Their governments and elites are telling their citizens that the Judeo-Christian Western countries and their citizens are to blame for all Arab and Muslim problems.

    It is not very difficult to predict where all this will take us and how it will all end.

  • http://www.lestudio1.com Bernard Bujold

    Great article!
    I always said that Stephen Harper is a "political nerd" but an intelligent one.
    I discovered early who is Stephen Harper by reading William Johnson book on Harper. http://www.amazon.ca/Stephen-Harper-Future-Willia…
    I would predict a majority government…
    Bernard Bujold – Montreal

  • Justin Case

    Rae as much announced the coalition coup attempt on election night. Dion was inveigled to hang around for another kick at the can. The back channels were working between the NDP and Bloc: All of these things happened under the direction of Chretien.

    Harper flushed out the coup on his own terms by giving the opposition parties an opportunity they couldn't resist: the subsidy to political parties. They took the bait. Harper knew the public would not stand for Dion as PM so soon after being so soundly rejected.

    Stomach bug, indeed. Harper had played out this scenario long before the election had even taken place. Catch up, Paul!

    • TimesArrow

      Harper must be one fine actor then – that was a beaten man sitting in Parliament until his misses put some backbone in him. Try reading the article with both your eyes and mind open this time.

    • Holly Stick

      And then he flew off to his secret fcortress at the north pole. tripped over some kryptonite, and drowned as a result of global warming.

  • JamesHalifax

    Holly….

    Big ball of burning Hydrogen…..

    honest.

    • Holly Stick

      You are confessing to being a big gasball? OK.

  • Fraternizer

    Short version: he has to sit down to pee.

  • delford t louis

    what would be accomplished if one reads this tripe but to give this boreo a bigger puffier self?…he might just explode his head will be so inflated!

  • Judge Roy Bean

    In the (fine?) tradition of CNN in their relationship with Sarah Palin I am beginning to think you folks are so obsessed with Harper you are now stalking him. Seek help–before it is too late.

  • Mike Higgins

    I recall looking forward to every issue of Macleans, as a kid, not Time and the other US magazines my parents subscribed to, but Macleans. It meant familiarity, Canadian news, a Canadian perspective, in-depth stories about interesting, newsworthy Canadians. Those days are SO gone now. It's sad, with every thoughtful, unbiased column or article (there are some, yes) there seems to be 10 in there that aren't (or worse, or another 10 simply irrelevant or redundant stories about Palin or some other US celebrity, or a rehashing of US hard-right knee-jerk conservative propo-dogma.) This piece is exemplifies this to an extent, but an even more graphic example is a picture from one of Harper's staged, self-promoting public appearances used for the cover of the magazine's photo special. In the year of the Vancouver Olympics yet!! Incredible. I can't remember, or even imagine, the most biased and irresponsible left-of-centre paper or magazine promoting a politician they favour in such an obviously partisan way. The Toronto Sun in their campaign to elect Rob Ford couldn't have done better. I'm beyond angry with what's going on in this country lately. Are there any conservatives left that don't get all their ideas from watching US TV?

    • Holly Stick

      No – they all got smeared to death by Harper's Young Jurks.

  • http://twitter.com/kdrcampbell @kdrcampbell

    The most tantalizing tidbit Wells and Geddes dangle in front of us is that the Flaherty-Harper relationship was `sorely tested' during the 2008 budget/stimulus thing. They don't give any more details.. what a teaser for the next book ..

  • JamesHalifax

    Russel Barth fantasized:
    “little known fact: harper is a punishment-fetishist. True story. he yanks it to videos of people being bound and abused and oppressed. The videos of the G20 in Toronto gives him the most bliss.”

    Mark Holland….is that you?

  • Jake2

    Steve Mubarak will not rest until Canada becomes the 52nd State of the Union proudly displaying its Maple Leaf In Stripes reight beside Puerto Rico's!

    Lament for a Nation as Diefenbaker, Pearson, Trudeau, Tommy, Lewis, Stanfield are turning in their graves wondering "What's happened to Canada?"

    Having lost our respectability and credibility on the World Stage and having conspicuously lost the coveted UN Security Council seat–first time in 60 years!–Steve Mubabar is slowly, sneakily and despicably changing our priorities and brings us closer to Rush Limbaugh's level of political appreciation.

    The theatre of the absurd now resides in Ottawa. God save us!

  • mary

    Agreed 100% Jake!

    STEVE MUBARAK and his NEO-CON BROTHERHOOD WILL DISMANTLE CANADA–if we let them. Steve would make Dubya blush with envy…
    Now we know what happens to kids growing up without traveling outside the country, never acquiring an educated imagination, working in a mail room of an oil company, adoring robotics and being deprived of Day Care and people interaciton…they becomePMs…..

  • JrC

    Great article! Nice to really get some nitty gritty details of the current & recent history of Canadian leadership. Even if it was a bit too pro-Harper, I think it was still balanced enough that I as a non-conservative didn't feel coerced.
    As a side point, I was very happy to not have had to instead skip another of the thousands of columns (local or not) explaining US leadership. I don't care! They are far too over-explained. Much less about them, please! Much more about other foreign countries, please! Much more about Canada, double please!

  • Frdmfghtr

    Re comment:
    'For me it crystallizes around one sentence: "This business of changing the culture of the country obsesses the group around Harper."
    A PM is there to do the bidding of the people, he is not there to 'change the culture of the country'. He has no mandate for that. Moreover you can't change the culture of a country by force, by fiat, by 'shock and awe'…..people will just resist that, sometimes vehemently. and It becomes a very emotional thing. '
    Exactly. Who does Harper think he is – an agent of "God"? ….. oh yes, he does think that. He forgets he is a servant of the people, not us serving him. In all his time on the public stage in this country, Harper and his sycophants have shown nothing but contempt for Canadians, and he doesn't even try very hard to veil it.

  • gottabesaid

    I'm left wondering if folks commenting on this board actually read the story, or my reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. It wasn't a stinging rebuke of the Conservatives, but it wasn't a ringing endorsement, either. Wells and Geddes documented well Harper's autocratic and controlling tendencies, and the piece certainly didn't come off as flattering. (Just look at all the unnamed sources who wouldn't talk on the record for this story. Doesn't that give anybody the willies?). Regardless, it certainly shone light on Harper's agenda, one that will never make it into an election platform: he wants to fundamentally change the way the federal government, and how the country, works. Now, some folks here will think this is a great idea, and others will think it's horrible. Either way, it's not being talked about and debated 'on the street' or in the media. A story like this gets people talking.

  • jonatwitan

    Much folks no read good!

  • YYZ

    Nice piece – I was fascinated by the foregin policy section in particular.

    Question: I am concerned with the way the sources are presented in the first page. You more or less quote Prentice, Hill and Moore. It's not clear if you interviewed all three and are quoting directly, interviewed one of the three and are quoting/paraphrasing everyone via a single source, quoting someone else who was present or quoting someone who wasn't present at all.

    I'm uncomfortable with this because having that background information speaks to both credibility and accuracy. Could you give more information?

    But otherwise a very good piece.

  • Red

    Nice find gottabesaid!
    (Just look at all the unnamed sources who wouldn't talk on the record for this story. Doesn't that give anybody the willies?).
    =^..^= Need I say no more.

  • captcold

    a story like this doesn't get people talking, it gets them yelling.

    its a tale of drama and histrionics. and at its' core is a political party wanting to hold on dearly to the patonage, appointments, and limo drivers they have.

    Just like Martin and the Libranos before them.

  • Jim Rocket

    This is the part I find most revealing: “What are the symbols people talk about when they talk about Canada? Health care. The Charter. Peacekeeping. The United Nations. The CBC. Almost every single example was a Liberal achievement or a Liberal policy."

    I had NO idea anyone thought like this. This isn't the work of wise people who have an alternate vision of improving our nation in the future, it is the work of kooks! Notice how they don't talk of improving any of these things they just denigrate or advocate the ending them. This is NOT conservative thought it is petty, small-mindedness. These people don't need political power they need professional help!

From Macleans