National Newsmaker of 2008Stephen Harper

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 28/12/2008 (6283 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

On one day, he might be stoic, iron-willed, patient and methodical.

The next, he will be petulant, ideological, ruthless and rampantly ambitious.

Canadians can be forgiven for not knowing exactly which version of Stephen Harper will show up at any given time. Over the past 12 months, the change in Harper’s tone and style, the gulf between what he says and what he has done, have stoked emotion among political scholars and bystanders alike.

Dr. Jekyll, meet Prime Minister Hyde.

With each about-face, change in tone and alteration of style, Harper has proved himself to be not only the Free Press newsmaker of the year in Canada, but perhaps one of the most intriguing figures ever to grace the Canadian political stage. He is the good cop and the bad cop all rolled up into one fascinating figure.

Some observers will dismiss the allegation that Harper is possessed by two conflicting political entities, but the evidence of a split personality is mounting.

Following a federal election that denied his Conservative party a majority, Harper sounded like a man who had accepted his fate with grace. Having risked quite a bit by calling the election, and then engaged  in typical angry campaign rhetoric, he finished the campaign by promising to make the new Parliament work.

The patient and methodical prime minister continued to hold the upper hand through the November 10 first ministers’ conference on the economy. Manitoba Premier Gary Doer said it was one the best first ministers’ summits he had ever attended. Even Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, Harper’s harshest critic and sworn enemy on some files, expressed astonishment at Harper’s warm and co-operative tone. “It’s very, very important that we show the Canadian people … the solidarity and unity that has come out of that room,” Williams said after the summit.

That spirit carried over into the Throne Speech of November 19, in which the government sounded a clear signal it would work with, and not against, the parties that made up the majority of the seats in the House of Commons. “In these uncertain economic times, it is more important than ever that our spirit of solidarity prevails and reaches beyond our borders, so that Canada represents not only a hope of renewal, but also a promise for the future,” the speech stated.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s economic statement in the House of Commons on November 27. Harper and his Conservative government soundly rejected the advice they had been given by the premiers, economic think-tanks and fiscal forecasters and delivered a mini-budget that cut spending — exactly what they had been told not to do — and prescribed punitive measures for their principal enemies: the federal civil service and the opposition parties.

The decision to use the mini-budget to crush the civil service and financially cripple the opposition parties, as history will record, backfired in magnificent fashion. It prompted the opposition to seek an agreement to govern as a coalition, and forced Harper to ask for, and receive, a prorogation of Parliament.

The man who lamented the abominable alliance between socialists and separatists had once again found his kinder and gentler tone. Standing outside Rideau Hall just after asking for, and  receiving, a historic prorogation of Parliament, Harper was all warm and fuzzy hugs. “I believe Canadians across this country have as their main priority the economy. The opposition criticism is that we have to focus on the economy immediately and today’s decision will give us an opportunity … to focus on the economy and to work together.”

Since that near-death experience, Harper appears to have returned to the spirit of the kinder and gentler prime minister who’s ready to broker a consensus action plan on the economy. The only question remaining is, can anyone trust him to reside in this half of Harper’s complex personality? Or, as some fear, will the vindictive Harper take over in time to snatch conflict from the jaws of consensus.

Harper’s inconsistency may turn out to be his downfall as witnessed by events of this past week. Harper was soundly criticized during the election campaign, and through to the ill-advised economic statement, for refusing to acknowledge the gravity of the economic crisis.

Harper steadfastly insisted on seeing Canada’s economic glass as half full, as evidenced by his now-infamous comment about how the subprime meltdown was an excellent opportunity to buy into the stock market at fire-sale prices. And for the most part, he was vilified for not showing empathy for the tens of thousands of Canadians losing their jobs.

Then, on December 15, Harper did another about-face and acknowledged the economic crisis was now far worse than he anticipated. “The truth is, I’ve never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future,” Harper told a Halifax television station. “I’m very worried about the Canadian economy.” He even mused aloud about whether a depression was possible, and in so doing became the first leader of a developed country to mention the “D-word.”

Harper pretty much did exactly what everyone wanted him to do, which was to acknowledge that Canada is facing a crisis, and that it’s going to be a rough ride on a go-forward basis. Perhaps Harper thought his admission in Halifax would make him seem more in touch with Canadians. Unfortunately, the reaction was the exact opposite.

Harper was resoundingly criticized by the media chattering class for defeatist language. The blogosphere advised Harper to voluntarily gag himself from this point on, lest he trigger more panic among the populace.

Tories no doubt feel that they cannot win on this issue. The reaction to Harper’s acknowledgement was fundamentally unfair, but it’s a reflection of the attitude of the media, the opposition and large tracts of the public toward a man who has been consistently inconsistent.

There is hope, however. Harper was in Winnipeg just before Christmas for a sod-turning event at the site of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights. Harper’s support for this project was likely one of his best moments as a prime minister. Contributing not only capital funds, but also an operating allowance each year, Harper helped establish the first national museum ever built outside the National Capital Region, and the first national museum built in more than 40 years.

Supporting the CMHR required vision and innovation to pry the money loose from a jealous federal bureaucracy. That prime minister seems to stand in stark contrast to the prime minister who sought to exploit a financially exhausted opposition and punish his political opponents at a time when the country’s economy needed his attention.

Fortunately, Harper seems to have acknowledged he has a problem. The future holds great promise.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

That was then, this is now

On the state of the economy:

"The fact of the matter is independent analysts, including the International Monetary Fund, say that Canada is not going to go into recession with the current world environment and its current set of domestic policies. We’re the one country that’s going to continue to show some growth." (October 2008)

"The most recent private-sector forecasts suggest the strong possibility of a technical recession the end of this year, the beginning of next. (November 2008)

"The truth is, I’ve never seen such uncertainty in terms of looking forward to the future… I’m very worried about the Canadian economy." (December 16, 2008)

On the role of the opposition:

"First of all, I can’t forget my first responsibility — which is to be the Leader of the Opposition and that’s to provide an alternative government." (September 2004) 

"We’ll support the government on issues if it’s essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians." (September 2004) 

"This is a pivotal moment in our history. The opposition does not have the democratic right to impose a coalition with the separatists they promised voters would never happen." (December 2008)

On the right of the opposition to topple a minority parliament:

"If you want to be a government in a minority Parliament, you have to work with other people… And I think the real problem that we’re facing already is that the government doesn’t accept that it got a minority." (CBC interview, September 2004)

"As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority. Your attention to this matter is appreciated." (Letter to the Governor General signed by all opposition leaders including Stephen Harper, September 2004)

"The opposition has every right to defeat the government but Stéphane Dion does not have the right to take power without an election." (Statement outside the House of Commons, November 2008)

"The opposition criticism is that we have to focus on the economy immediately. Today’s decision will give us an opportunity… to focus on the economy and to work together." (Statement outside Rideau Hall after being granted a prorogation of Parliament.)

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca