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
  • sourstud

    Great work gentlemen!

  • Brian

    That's all fascinating, but I don't care about the brinkmanship, the coalition, the flu, the caucus or any over trivia. I care that any reasonable observer of the process who gave a damn about parliamentary government and constitutional democracy could clearly see that the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue was an act of pure subversion, made legal only by the equally questionable behavior of a weak Governor-General who was more interested in her reputation than in her job.

    I still want someone to answer for that, because some day, that decision will come back to bite our democracy in the ____. And for the record, I voted for the Conservatives. Foolishly, I guess, because I believed they were the sort of people who'd do exactly the opposite in a similar situation. If Harper really did think it was his job to resign, then his instincts were still better than his actions have made them seem to be – because I want to vote for people who know that some things are more important than the color of the party card of the clowns who happen to be in office that particular day.

    • Nigel Davenport

      We don't have democracy.
      For god's sake we have a parliamentary system.
      Unequal representation.
      Harper is the glue that holds this nation together in spite of liberal nabobs!

      • noob_goldberg

        nabob: (Informal) a rich, powerful, or important man

        So you're saying that there's a group of rich, powerful, important liberals who are attempting to destroy the country? Does this mean that we need a group of rich, powerful, important conservatives in order to balance this threat? A Bilderburg/Illuminati Cage Match? Or maybe Harvard Lampoon vs the Gun Club?

        • susu

          I am just amazed at the stupidity of the average Canadian. I talk to friends who are, in general, of average intelligence, but loathe Stephen Harper. I asked one the other day why….her answer..'.he has thin lips''!!!! I then asked, 'so who would
          you rather have'….and she said- 'there's no one else'……….
          Come on Canadians..we have been voted time and time again as the best place in the world to live, and right now,
          Stephen Harper is giving this wonderful country time in the sun – we are the envy of the world.

          • noob_goldberg

            Hating a person just because they have 'thin lips' is absolutely ridiculous. It's probably even worse than hating a person just because they've spent time living in another country.

  • W.B.

    He just glows with intelligence, wisdom, strategic foresight, his motives pure and clean from the beginning to the end of this wonderful article. But where do they keep destroyer Harper we see hear from almost everyday?

  • JamesHalifax

    PoliticalPundit believes:
    "He has decided to use the enormous power of the Prime Minister's office and his government to change the way Canadians think about themselves and the role of the state in the 21st Century"

    close, but not quite. Rather, Harper is trying to get Canadians to think FOR THEMSELVES, and not rely soley on the state.

    PoliticalPUndit continues to err with:
    "Harper really is an American New Right Politician, imbued with Christian values"

    Let's forego for a moment that you are completely wrong and focus on your assumption.

    Christian values. Yep…that's dangerous. Who wants to have people who believe it is wrong to:
    -steal, rape, assault, murder, lie, and cheat. Yep….keep an eye out for those Christians. They make horrible neighbors. I hate the way they come to your door and sing at Christmas. I am sickened when they go door to door collecting money for charities, or providing for the poor. All those soup kitchens they run….HOW DARE THEY!!!.

    • Nigel Davenport

      Well stated James!

    • Thwim

      So you're saying Canadians are stupid who don't think for themselves?

      Well.. good to know your point of view. However, I think what's going on here is a case of projection.

      • JamesHalifax

        Thwim asked:
        "So you're saying Canadians are stupid who don't think for themselves?"

        Actually, Thwim…..Canadians who don't think for themselves are known as Liberals, or NDP supporters.

  • JamesHalifax

    Political pundit's hilarity continues:
    "Unfortunately for Canadians the defenders and promoters of the Canadian liberal constitutional democracy road are badly divided, poorly organized, underfunded, and led by political leaders who have been defined by Harper and his gang in the PMO "

    Why yes…those Liberal saints. How wrong I have been. Just imagine, when we saw the millions of dollars the Liberal party has been stealing, wasting, or otherwise misusing……it was all about defending our Canadian values.

    Silly me. I thought they were just being crooks.

    Thanks for setting me straight PoliticalPUndit. Just tell me where I send the cheque to continue to receive such outstanding synopsis' of our Canadian Politics.

    ( o) ( O) <—eyes glazing

  • Out There

    For me, the biggest concern about the Harper government is the combination of the following:

    - His apparent unwillingness or inability to consult or collaborate before making a decision. (This may be understandable, given the options available to him in Cabinet – but I don't think he is willing to consult with outside experts either.)

    - His inflexibility: once he makes a decision, he considers it an act of weakness to change his mind. Harper, like the Pope, must be perceived as infallible.

    I think the real reason why we're going to have those fighter jets, or get rid of the mandatory long-form census, despite enormous opposition, is because Harper made up his mind to have the jets and not have the census, and no one around him can persuade him otherwise.

    I've never met the man, but he must be a formidable presence indeed. No one in his party seems to be willing to ever question or disagree with him at any time.

    • Blue

      As jon has pointed out above the irony is that Harper did consult with others and took the advice of others when he did not resign and hope the coalition would self-destruct. So he changed his mind and did what he thought was best for the country—- Very patriotic of him to keep the coalition away from power.

    • Nigel Davenport

      Consult with outside experts?
      Give us a break.
      There are no left wing experts.
      Only nabobs!

    • JamesHalifax

      Out There wrote:
      "I've never met the man, but he must be a formidable presence indeed"

      Actually, I've met him twice. If by formidable presence you mean tall….then yes, he has a formidable presence.

      Otherwise, he's surprisingly soft spoken when you speak with him one on one. Hardly the tyrant the media makes him out to be.

  • captcold

    a tale of a political party fighting for itself, and its' entitlements.

    Fighting against democracy, against the Westminster system, against focusing on sound public policy and the common weal.

    Party loyalists and sycophants giving each other reach arounds, staring at the mailbox for the next government cheque to come.

    Politics as usual in Canadia.

    Librano or Con, it's still the same song.

  • DerekPearce

    Who's Lowell Green? I think that says that a lot right there. It'll be interesting to see what path the census story takes when it jumps back to life once they actually start arriving in the mail.

    • DerekPearce

      CBC listeners and talk radio listeners truly live in separate countries. The only time I get in arguments about this stuff is drunk at my local karaoke greasy spoon with my (also drunk) fellow patrons who are talk radio listeners. In my regular work and social life (and this is unhealthy to a degree I know), I never come across people who are CPC devotees. Bad on my part I know, and bad on their part. Andrew Sullivan had a long sequence of posts on this under "Epistemic Closure," and this closure seems to be almost as prevalent in Canada as the US. Now I can't wait for replies trashing Sullivan from both left and right, which will bloody well prove the point.

  • Nigel Davenport

    liberalism is an evil entity that has and will continue to destroy this once great nation of ours.
    It must be squeezed like a piece of rotten fruit to prevent the odiferous political correctness from spreading.
    Leftism is fast becoming a thing of the past. Globalism has and will adapt fiscal responsibility once and for all.
    Both Canada and our neighbours to the south need federal elections to rectify the continued appeasement to the left.
    Fiscal / Social responsibility must rule to ensure effective governance.
    Neo liberalism = conservatism…….why can't the so called and self anointed liberal intelligentsia link the two ideological titles. Blue liberals will be jumping ship in the next election. The left will see Mr. Harpers government propel itself to a majority.
    How can this happen you ask?
    The left wing media has been called up on the carpet. It's still spinning its wheels over the B.S. propagated over global warming issues (hello Dr. David Suzuki – please reference Lorie Goldstein for all pertinent rebuttal information).
    The left wing medias agenda now has a look of desperation. Canadians are fast becoming aware of its self serving intent and complete lack of credibility in reporting news as opposed to making news. They've become so self absorbed they want editorial licence now to "invent" news!
    Mr. Harper……you do a great job and we the Canadian public are very proud of the way you represent Canada.
    Please continue the course.

    • PoliticalPundit

      What world do you live in? Without basic procedure liberalism and democratic institutions that flow from it you would never be able to vote for the party of your choice.
      Harper and his populist majoritarian democrats from Western Canada understood this fact very well. They exploited Canada'a rather warped and unrepresentative democratic system to achieve power with just over a third of the votes and a rather sick participation rate that worked to his and his party's advantage.
      When I discuss procedural liberalism I am not referring to Canada's national Liberal Party!
      I am referring to our constitutional democracy and Canada's Constitution that has at its core procedural liberal democracy and the rule of law! Political Parties and regimes on the far right and on the far left usually descend into autocratic regimes in order to maintain themselves in power. This is why they usually undermine true procedural liberal institutions.
      Witness what is going on in the Arab world. Citizens are demanding basic political liberalism and democratic institutions.

      • Claudia Lemire

        He has a right to his opinion, just like you do!

        • noob_goldberg

          Nigel's confusion of "Liberalism" and "Leftism" is not an opinion, it's an error.

        • PoliticalPundit

          Of course he has a right to his own opinion! I was not saying otherwise.
          There is a vast difference though between having a reasoned and well-founded opinion and merely being opinionated!
          Too many posters confuse both of these terms, that is emotional outbursts, revealing an opinionated, closed mind rather than a thinking persons mind.
          This state of affairs is really depressing.
          A dynamic democracy and democratic institutions rely upon citizens being properly educated and informed. They must be able to over reasoned and substantiated opinions in order to advance the public discourse.

          • Claudia Lemire

            You know most of the posters here are off, too much to say with little substance, is not worth wasting your time with them most of the time they really don't get it, you want to engage in a healthy debate, not someone who has to have the last word making things up and talking nonsense!

          • PoliticalPundit

            You are absolutely right.

            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.

          • JamesHalifax

            Political pundit observed:
            "I guess it is foolish to think that one can educated these loud-mouth louts"

            Translation: Politicalpundit's pride is offended when people don't take him seriously.

            Sorry PP….If you took the time to climb down from the soap box, you may realize that your opinion is only one of many, and not necessarily the correct one.

            You are blinded by (and to) your own hubris.

            But keep trying…..it's kinda funny in a way.

          • JamesHalifax

            PP goes on:
            "This ongoing ideological division between the extreme right and the extreme left reminds "

            Sorry PP….but those on the extreme left and extreme right don't have a voice in Canada. All of our Federal parties are fairly tame in comparison to truly extreme parties.

            PP's hyperbole continues:
            "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"

            That's right PP……if we keep Harper as PM…it's all gonna happen again.

            Admit it PP…..you're a Greenie right?

      • Nigel Davenport

        The Arab world is being dominated by Marxists and the Moslem Brotherhood!
        You secular progressives are destroying western civilization by your acts of cowardice, political correctness and self professed levels of entitlement.
        The third of votes garnered was still more than the leftists idiots who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag!
        Are you referring to the rule of law that espouses "Justice must be seen to be done"?
        Talk about a crappy cop out.
        Justice Must Be Done…..period! Leave it to liberal democracy to chicken out on getting tough on crime.
        Islam is not demanding liberalism…..it is demanding Sharia Law.
        Egypt is NOT demanding liberalism. The mob rule of anarchists will be demanding Marxism and supporting the Moslem Brotherhood.
        liberalism is cowardice
        liberalism is evil
        liberalism without conservative balance is the end of western civilization altogether

        • noob_goldberg

          Balance is a rare commodity in this world. Indeed, there is a large population of unbalanced individuals.

          Thankfully, you're a beacon of light showing us the way.

        • JrC

          I'll tell you what will be the end of western civilization altogether: A Western superpower with nothing besides its own self interests taken into consideration (of which many of those interests are quite lame – guns, basketball, country music. Lame!). Mr. Davenport, please don't align yourself with a major screw up that doesn't give a sh*t about you or anyone else. And don't blame an ideology like "Marxism", Nige. Blame actual activity done by an actual country.

    • DerekPearce

      I'm letting my ghouly drooly fangs drip with evil reptilian kitten-eating glee as I read your post.

    • libby21

      You poor soul. The emerging economies of Brazil and India, and the strenght of the Chinese economy is primarily due to investment in education and health care. Countries with a rich poor split are precarious, hunger and poverty ,witness Egypt, make uncertainty certain..

  • Dan Cummings

    A good read and much better than anything previously written about the last 5 years, and about Harper, but inevitably, I have a quibble.

    You write: "Harper’s government has refused to renew the Vancouver Agreement, which made the federal government a partner with British Columbia and Vancouver city hall in developing the city’s downtown core. The Harper team argues that is none of Ottawa’s business. (How can that position be squared with the Harper government’s continuing court fight to shut down Vancouver’s InSite safe-injection drug facility—which means appealing a lower-court ruling that said InSite is none of Ottawa’s business? It can’t. Consistency is for monks.)"
    This isn't inconsistent. How Vancouver look s and grows and feels is for the people who live there; no central planning, nanny-state, big government, know-it-all oversight required. But how Canadians are expected to abide the laws of the land and how they are treated by agents and agencies of any government does have standards. This is both a moral and legal imperative, and has as much to do with acts of governing and government being constitutional as with sustaining a respect for the constancy and consistency of citizenship imperatives.
    The best government governs least, but we have a developed nanny state culture and media which and who still expect the government's heavy hand to be ever-involved except when their personal peccadillo is involved. And that's fine until that peccadillo, or addiction, threatens the social fabric (i.e. the rest of us and our futures).

    One other quibb: it certainly was worth underlining that Harper has had a mine-filled 5 years to traverse, inheriting a hot war and an environment of international terrorism, economic bubbles and meltdown, and a list of terrible natural disasters (both domestically in floods and storms, but also in world tsunamis, earthquakes and hurricanes), but also a world in turmoil and war, all of which were a much bigger challenge than what Pearson faced in the 1960s. Yes, Pearson brought in Medicare, but that was supported by the NDP and by Diefenbaker (who had put his friend in charge of the Royal Commission which led to it).

    • DerekPearce

      All cities require central planning, or you end up with Rio or Calcutta.

  • JamesHalifax

    Political Pundit:

    The Conservative Party of today, would actually be classified as a "Classic Liberal" Party.

    The NDP are a socialist party (nothing really democratic about them. Which…we would see if they ever fluked their way into power)

    Liberal Party of Canada: Nothing Liberal about them. They are quite unprincipled, and their sole reason for existence is to be in power. That is why the Liberal Party can steal ideas from the Left and the RIght……they have no ideas of their own. they just go with what they think will work.

    • noob_goldberg

      You know, JamesHalifax, you can use the "Reply" button under a specific post to respond to that post. It makes it much easier to follow your conversation than to have randomly-spread responses in the main page.

      Just sayin'.

      • Thwim

        You're assuming he's actually writing to have a discussion.
        I suspect he's a troll, hence why he puts his comments at the top level, so that they can get more attention.

        • JamesHalifax

          Thwim surmised:
          " I suspect he's a troll"

          If by Troll, you mean someone who isn't a LIberal or NDP supporter……..I guess you would be correct.

    • PoliticalPundit

      Again, I am not arguing about the existing parties. They are all over the political map, so-to-speak.
      Centrist parties usually float to the right or left depending on the circumstances.
      Right-wing and left-wing parties do the same.
      See A. Coyne's strong argument about Harper having become far too opportunistic and power hungry to be considered a Coyne Conservative. Funny indeed.
      It has been a very, very, very long time since the NDP and its predecessor the CCF were socialist parties. Indeed, the founders of the NDP in 1960-61 ran away from any and all forms of socialism and what members were in the party left!!
      It is time to go back to basics and refrain from a distorted discourse.

      • Nigel Davenport

        Mr. Pundit

        The fowl rank of your ill informed discourse has lead to my departure.
        It's all socialism.
        You can cut it, as well as your verbal bile…..with a knife.

      • JamesHalifax

        Political Pundit wrote:
        "It has been a very, very, very long time since the NDP and its predecessor the CCF were socialist parties"

        I'm sorry PP….I must have misunderstood Jack Layton and other members of his party when they identify themselves as a socialist party.

        My bad.

  • Brian

    And I don't accept that answer, because it omits the even larger context – namely, that we're a parliamentary democracy, not an executive democracy. So everything you've said about the political situation, while interesting, is still superseded by the Constitution, the law and the basic principles of our democracy. Harper did get more seats in '08 than in '06. But so what? That's not constitutionally relevant. Period. As Mr. Harper well knows, his right to govern constitutionally depends on the confidence of the House as elected, not on whether he was able to squeeze more votes out in between sessions and sittings. It works that way for a reason, and that reason is more important than the Bloc, Dion, the recent election or any other temporary factor.

    I know the attack ads all said "Dion," and I know Canadian voters are lazy enough that they vote by party and PM and not by MP. But our system still operates as though they're not going to be lazy. And if Mr. Harper wants to change that, then he should change that with the public's express consent instead of simply operating as though it's a presidential system – not least because that's what he promised thinking conservative voters he'd do on countless occasions before he was safely cosy in the big fluffy chair. Notably, I showed up to vote for him grudgingly in '08, since I was rather upset at how casually he made the fixed election law look like a joke at our expense. Are you detecting a pattern yet?

    • Rick21

      Nearly all pro-coalition folks rely on some variation of Brian's words "I know Canadian voters are lazy…". To them voters should have their decision made for them. The coalition may have been constitutionally correct, but your "lazy" voters thought it stunk to high heaven. The Conservatives polling numbers at the time jumped to over 40% support and some polls showed over 50%. Your beloved coalition, after Harper called a time-out, only lasted four days then Dionne resigned. Harper did the right thing to call his time-out (prorogue).

      One more "Lazy" voter

      • noob_goldberg

        The participants in that debacle earned their political fall-out, no question.

        While there certainly was a great deal of indignation during the entire episode, especially from the Conservative side, I think the polling numbers reflected sheer shock and confusion from voters than anything else. Voters were concerned–rightfully so–that a coalition would be unable to effectively govern and that the country would have suffered. Had the coalition survived for a year I'm pretty sure we would have seen a reversal, as people became more comfortable with the idea.

        But we'll never know for sure.

        If Harper had managed to prorogue government without all the "separatist" table-banging it would have been a windfall for him. As it stands, he basically destroyed his ability to gain a majority government.

        • keith c

          "shock and confusion" .. ludicrous. come on. There is a visceral revulsion in English Canada against the bloc. Outside the country's most elitist Toronto and Ottawa elements, average NDP and Liberal voters hate Quebec separatists more than they do Harper, and always will. History could have been very different if Dion crew had been un-stupid enough to hide Duceppe in a closet and downplay his role.

        • Rick

          There is that same disrespect of the voter. Noob states "I think the polling numbers reflected sheer shock and confusion from voters".

          Wrong! The voters were outraged, and rightfully so, that the Liberals worst defeat in history led them to band with separatists to wrest back to leadership power after repeatedly denying the possibility in an election campaign 6 weeks earlier.

          It was a stupid and disgusting ploy by Dionne and his fellow rogues.

          The next election will prove I am right. Voter turnout will increase and Harper will sail to a clear majority.

      • Brian

        "Pro-coalition."

        "Your beloved coalition."

        Maybe you missed the part where I said I voted for the Conservatives months just weeks before the crisis began? Or maybe, like the PMO, you don't actually care what voters say if it doesn't fit into the tidy partisan box you've already drawn around the issue?

        I'm not pro-coalition, nor was I. I was pro-parliament and pro-constitution. I was also under the mistaken delusion that the party I'd voted for also supported those things, not least because its leader said so on countless prior occasions.

        • jonatwitan

          "mistaken delusion"…*giggle*

        • Rick

          Brian, I missed that you said you voted Conservative. You really sound like a Liberal to me when you consider voters "lazy".

          It is the coalition who "don't actually care what voters say", not me and not the PM. Nothing PM Harper did went against parliament or the constitution. What Dionne did was also not illegal and almost worked, but the electorate was horrified to learn their vote was respected so little by the coalition. When Harper stood up in Parliament and rejected the coalition, he had the voters on his side. I expect the voters will remember this at the next election also.

  • TimesArrow

    Experts in the field were outraged. They pointed out, for instance, that “international humanitarian law” is a specific subset of international law with its own jurisprudence, so that eliminating references to it amounted to calling a hammer a saw because “hammer” sounded too Liberal. To say the least, the Harper government was unsympathetic to such arguments.

    “I’ve told my people that this is the policy that we carry out,” Lawrence Cannon, the foreign minister, said when the vocabulary story appeared. “And if anybody is not happy with these policies that we’re carrying out, well, all they have to do is go and run in the next election and get themselves elected and support a policy that is different from ours.”

    Honestly messrs Wells and Geddes, do we really need any more comfirmation that Minister Cannon, while to all appearances being a nice man, is almost certainly also a blithering idiot?

  • http://www.scribetranslation.com/ Translation

    Intresting read! Good work.

  • Christina Archer

    Stephen Harper is crafty, and out to have power for the sake of itself. He seems to enjoy power for the sake of power.

  • TimesArrow

    Good stuff gentlemen. This reads quite a bit like Harperland – minus some of Martin's more lurid passages on Harper's avowed intent to destroy the Liberal Party; wonder if you guys shared sources?Would this also constitute a bit of push back on a certain editor who recently hung the sobriquet : "killer of consequential politcs in this country", around the neck of SH?Still,lots of ammunition for Said editor in here too!

  • TimesArrow

    " When he had it, Maxime Bernier amazed another European foreign minister with the depth of his ignorance on major bilateral files. “Many, many people trying to hold him up,” an ambassador from that country said later, referring to Bernier’s staff. “It was a disaster.”

    Best funny in the piece; made doubly so by the number of con supporter who have hopes Bernier will one day replace Harper. He's your Dion guys. Both are strongly princpled adherents of their respective ideologies, but the key is both are/were political incompetents.

    • Kaplan

      Really, you can't compare Bernier and Dion. Bernier is an immature, ideologically confused and duplicitous incompetent. Dion was no Mackenzie King or even a Bob Rae (now there's a thought) but I'd fear for Canada's stability if Bernier was ever handed the Intergovernmental Affairs portfolio. Dion, I would argue, was a patriot who skillfully, and tirelessly, defended, constantly, the Canadian idea against the separatists. Listening a few years ago to the Conservative propaganda about Dion leading a coalition of separatists was thoroughly disgusting.

      • TimesArrow

        Dion did do good work on the separatist file [ particularly those open letter debates with Bouchard, which he is widely thought to have won] but he was always under Chretiens watchful eye and supervision. A good 2nd banana – yes!
        Now, If you were to ask me who was the more accomplished of the two – well that would be different. Totally agree about his treatment by the Harper cons – disgusting – but he still had no political judgement.

  • JDot

    Great read..

  • M_A_D_world

    A well written glimpse through a window into thoughts of our Prime Minister.
    The point that stands out to mind is that his best work is when someone he trusts gives him a genuine critique of his thoughts. ( His time before becoming the Canadian Alliance leader shows this as well.) This applies to almost anyone but it sorely underscores the void in the PMO of functioning sound board.
    Harper's goal maybe in fact to rework the underling vision of government in Canada. However in the meantime, Canada needs it's government to govern.

  • http://www.unseatHarper.ca Nadine Lumley

    from Cheryl MacIntyre ‎- Now I know facts and reality are pretty scary things for con/reformers but some times it has to be done.
    $14 billion surplus – gone
    $3 billion slush fund that was supposed to help… them get the stimulus out the door quicker (which it didnt) – gone
    And that money wasnt included in the stimulus package.
    $1 billion in self advertising – more than every government in our history added together.
    $1 billion for the fiasco that was the g-20 (just security)
    $1 billion for the G8 / G20 meetings
    $30 million to get rid of the long form census, yeah its those nasty facts again.
    $ millions to relocate Camp Mirage
    $ billions in corporate welfare -
    $56 billion dollar deficit.

    Nuff said though I could go on I wont bother because then we would start counting the never ending scandals of this government.

    • Red

      Oh Nadine, don't stop now, it's hightime we give these conbots a run for their money. The truth shall win over all. Again, a great post by Nadine. I want to add something inwhich is very disturbing and maybe this magazine may want to do a follow up on the Veterans Food Bank in Calgary. How can this Conservative Government think this is ok?

      • noob_goldberg

        I can't be the only one convinced that Nadine and 'Red' are the same person.

  • Orson Bean

    . . . and this has exactly what to do with Wells' and Geddes' column?

  • WestNewf

    Liberal press now in full attack mode hey. lying scum!

    • Inkless

      If this is full attack mode, I'm overpaid.

      • TimesArrow

        Maybe he means you teaming up with Geddes – that's a liberal twofer.[ in his mind anyway] If you could have got Aaron to contribute as well it probably would have pushed some folks off the deep end.

      • Thwim

        Must.. resist.. easy.. jab..

        :)

  • Nigel Davenport

    Well stated sir!

  • chet

    Something approximating balance,

    has the leftists who inhabit this site seething with anger, that their daily fill of total anti-Harper partisan pablum was not fed to them.

    Their hunger continues.

    I suggest a trip over to Wherry's, for at least an appy, if not the main course.

    • TimesArrow

      There's easily as much anger from those who hate any kind of criticism of Harper here. The question also arises: what are you doing here? Providing balance…i think not!

      • chet

        I'm not a "journalist" or political "analyst' holding myself as some impartial arbiter of issues.

        Though, given the raving anti Harper crowd that hangs out at Macleans blog, I'd say my two cents doesn't come close to balancing out the other comments. Indeed on most threads, I'm like an invader threateing the comment nest, with the leftists swarming me like wasps with the first "incorrect" comment.

        Tolerance. I don't think it means what the progressive left thinks it means.

        • TimesArrow

          "Though, given the raving anti Harper crowd that hangs out at Macleans blog, I'd say my two cents doesn't come close to balancing out the other comments. Indeed on most threads, I'm like an invader threateing the comment nest, with the leftists swarming me like wasps with the first "incorrect" comment."

          Maybe you take yourself far too seriously. Conceit is also a sin don't you know.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Krug…

          This strike a chord Chet…i'd guess not.

          • chet

            You're right.

            My right to post here isn't questioned ("what are you doing here") nor am I personally attacted (you''re "conceipt[ed]") by comment policing leftists (TimesArrow).

            What ever was I thinking?

  • TimesArrow

    "As early as the summer of 2007, insiders say, Bank of Canada officials were conveying a sense of deep, growing unease in their regular briefings to the Prime Minister’s Office. Harper was fully briefed on trouble in the U.S. subprime mortgage markets. Reporters and the opposition remained oblivious. “It was amazing: a huge s–tstorm could hit the markets and not affect the political class in Ottawa,” marvels one Conservative strategist "

    What is also amazing is given how well briefed Harper was how he could utter statements [ around or during the election??] to the effect: "if we were going to have a recession we would have already have had one" – and then using the D word shortly after. To top it off we got that surreal FU form Flaherty promising no deficit and small surpluses?But which future were they seeing given we are now told they were much better briefed than the opposition? Did they also know about the US housing crisis before they instituted 40 year mortgages here? I'm throughly confused – something doesn't add up here – that is apart from JF's math. .

From Macleans