One thing that emerged today was how relaxed Harper was and how much his sense of humour showed through. I knew people who worked with Harper and to a man (and woman), they all commented on his humour (especially his mimicry - apparently his Arnold Schwarzenegger is excellent). I always thought he would have been much more successful if he had allowed that side of his character to emerge more often.
Ideologically, I think Harper is probably closer to Carney than Poilievre (despite his public protestations to the contrary, such as in last year's election). But where Carney has a significant advantage is his dry sense of humour, which is one of his most endearing political qualities. I think it's something that should never be underestimated as good political quality.
“It’s good to be reminded that most people who give their lives to politics have good hearts. This might be one of the biggest secrets about what goes on here. Perhaps it shouldn’t be.” I am glad you concluded with this Paul. Needs to be said more often.
I’ll never forget him being asked about a terrorist plot to behead him and responding the only threats that really worry him are if they’re within his own caucus. 10/10 No notes
After an early hiccup, it's good to see a 90-comment thread written by people who disagree about pretty basic stuff and aren't trying to beat one another up.
People will say the same thing about Pierre Poilievre when the subsidy media propaganda machine moves on to whoever replaces him as Conservative leader.
yeah, and I'm not over it. It took many years to soften to Mulroney, and he was charming. Harper may take a few more, although I appreciate his recently more humble and mature self-reflection.
Perhaps it might jog your memory to recall that the Harper government practically had non-stop meltdowns and escalation of tension with the opposition in response to stinging criticisms of its legislation. There were a number of nasty manipulations by that government, too. I have attempted to compare its record of scandal to the Trudeau government's record of scandal here: https://stefanklietsch.substack.com/p/comparing-and-contrasting-the-scandals
I specifically addressed that under the section, "Alleged scandals associated with the Trudeau government that are arguably just policy preferences and/or sincere mistakes":
"3. The Trudeau government’s 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act has been ruled illegal by the courts. I reject this as a scandal because an executive action being deemed illegal is not the same thing as it being ignorant or corrupt. It had at least some basis in independent expertise and popular backing or pressure, even if it did not come from proper legal advice."
Is it? Is a business owner who engages in manipulative but legal advertising morally better than a person who j-walks the street when there is plainly no imminent traffic anywhere in sight?
The worst scandals in politics are often the ones that are perfectly legal.
The Liberals under PM Trudeau overreacted and used a bazooka to swat a fly. The courts rightly recognized government overreach. Let's not forget about the freezing of bank accounts with no legitimate justification and before any findings of guilt.
Canada needs more of Harper or Harper types. I was late in learning how well read he is in world history, how great his memory is, how calm he is, how articulate he is, how he has hobbies, and finds time for family. Too bad JT or Carney didn't do a short speech as powerful as Harper did when saying "that will require that in these perilous times both parties, whatever their other differences, come together against external forces that threaten our independence and against domestic policies that threaten our unity. We must preserve Canada, this country handed down to us by Providence, preserved by our ancestors and held in trust for our descendants. We must make any sacrifice necessary to preserve the unity and the independence of this blessed land.” I sense wise people outside of Canada are more aware of Harper's fine qualities as many Canadians aren't.
Keeping in mind that Trudeau's SNC Lavalin scandal received international coverage, there was negative international media attention around the Harper government's muzzling of scientists and rejection of international cooperation around climate change. Both the Harper and the Trudeau governments failed to secure seats on the UN Security Council. So I doubt that non-Canadians liked Harper more than Canadians did.
Thanks Stefan. I appreciate your mentioning these points. So much goes on in politics and so quickly in today's connected world, people like me need to keep a ledger of the pluses/minuses of leaders. I've watched some YT videos people from other parts of the world have had him on their program; their style may be more generous towards their guest or they genuinely think he did a good job. It amazes me even if I don't like a politician or businessman, how they are willing to step up to the plate. I'd crumble. However I'm now 77 so I now know what I like in a leader and don't like. We live in a such a complex hurried world now. It's not healthy.
Most of the worst legislation passed in the Trudeau years was passed with the support of the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens. The Trudeau government had its own sycophants, but these sycophants didn't usually need to raise tensions with the media and with all opposition parties.
Relaxed: that is what comes through in the portrait, and what came through almost always in real life. I liked the man; I liked his measured-ness & composure. Thank you Paul for your own reflections.
I was greatly impressed during Wafergate, when he, a Protestant, was accused of pocketing the Host at a Catholic church, and he said that that was simply an "unsubstantiated rumour". Because what other politician would have views on transubstantiation and the real presence?
I don't think we need the focusing lens of history to appreciate the fact that Stephen Harper has been one of Canada's greatest PM. I can't speak for Pre 1960's history but for me, Harper stand head and shoulders above most and certainly above any that came after him. He was in it for the right reasons which is quite a bit more than can be said for either Trudeau or Carney. History won't be kind to Trudeau and likely not to Carney either but it most definitely will be for Stephen Harper. I wish we could go back to those common sense days, alas now, we live in the days of fear mongering and virtue signalling... one can always hope. In any case, thank you for a nice piece, it's a good reminder of the way it used to be and could yet again be if Canadians start paying attention and start demanding better of our elected officials.
Harper is demonstrably an unaccomplished Prime Minister in terms of legacy impact. I cannot objectively assess how he managed issues of the day, but in terms of major legislation there seems to be little surviving policy from his era beyond the repeal of the long-gun registry, the 31-year Canada-China FIPA, and the GST cut.
I certainly can’t agree on your “unaccomplished” comment. Harper steered the country in the right direction for 10 years. Many of his policies were overturned by biased court decisions or neutered by the left leaning senate, what are you gonna do? His record may not be perfect but compared with what we’ve been dealing with over the last 10 years of inept liberal rule, he can stand proud and know he did well by the country ans its citizens.
His government put forward several atrocious bills (C-45, the "Anti-Terrorism" Act, the "Fair Elections" Act) that were repealed not by the courts nor by the Senate (which was Conservative-majority by 2010), but by the subsequent Liberal government, and the repeal of these bills was not controversial. The worst would-be damage of the Harper government largely did not occur because the government was given a short shelf-life, and because Canada undid much of his legacy to the point that the Harper policy record was quickly forgotten.
Trudeau dismantled most of Harper's achievements to pander to his base. Because he undid everything doesn't mean everything had to be undone. Trudeau didn't have a clue and, with the help of his compliant legacy media and millions of uninformed voters, did more to destroy this country and its economy than anyone before him.
If you forgot about the existence of most of the Harper legislation that the Trudeau government repealed, how does that reflect more on the Trudeau government than on the Harper government? Landmark consequential legislation would be easy to remember; ignorant legislation that no one misses is easily forgotten for a reason.
Agree to disagree on most aspects. Your boy Justin measured success by applauses and media praises but he did nothing for the country. Harper measured success by how far forward he propelled Canada; he will be remembered for his contribution and service, Trudeau will be a footnote.
During the latter half of Justin Trudeau’s tenure it was not hard to recall the good things about Stephen Harper’s time as Prime Minister.
He was diligent, whereas Trudeau seemed always more keen to play the dilletante.
Whereas Harper was serious about sovereignty and defence issues, Trudeau developed a reputation for being keen on showy, flashy diplomatic moments.
Harper wasn’t perfect, but no one is.
Mark Carney has much in common with Harper. Yes, he has established a global reputation for high-power diplomacy, and in that sense he has been more showy than Harper was.
Even so, Carney’s actions to date on the international stage have been much more than a flash in the pan. In fact, unlike either Harper or Trudeau, Carney has reminded Canadians and the world that there is more to life than political points-scoring.
Cometh the moment, cometh the man (and, someday, the women, as well).
Trudeau is and always was a fundamentally unserious person. That he should have rise to Liberal leader, let alone Prime Minister, is a discredit to too many Canadian swing voters.
By contrast, whatever my policy disagreements with Carney, he is fundamentally a serious, competent leader. In these times, we certainly could do worse.
Harper was NOT serious about defence issues. The military budget remained laughable throughout his term, and the Forces largely continued to disintegrate. The CPC and Liberals have both been godawful on the file for decades. They're also both terrible at criminal justice, though at least in different ways in that case.
I mean we didn't get any damn ships out of it til 2021. And I still haven't seen us taking full advantage of Churchill in any capacity. He said the right things, but actual execution was a lot more limited.
I am, to be fair to Harper, firmly of the view that fixing Canadian military procurement issues would take a titanic effort and he is by no means the only one to blame. But as a former staffer friend of mine commented, while he talked a good game about it whenever you suggested actually spending the money there were other priorities.
I agree that Harper’s government, like Trudeau’s, ignored (or failed to understand) the urgency of the problem.
Possibly because they, like most of our political leaders since the 1970s, focused most of their attention on domestic problems.
That made them, for the most part, content to wait the weather out (on the foreign and defence policy front) instead of “making their own weather” (in other words, they mostly sought to satisfy elites in the business world, technocrats in Ottawa, and constituents in their respective ridings, rather than pushing public opinion in a direction conducive to our long term strategic imperatives).
What was extraordinary about Mark Carney’s speech was that he had the courage to “make some weather”.
We’ll see whether all the bleating from the likes of Goldy Hyder and others will force him to change tack.
"The military's a disintegrating joke" IS a domestic problem, is the bit that bugs me. It's a national institution, and is relevant for control of our territorial waters if for nothing else. If for no other reason than it is a longstanding and prominent government program, it should be in decent shape. I am very disappointed the Conservatives don't/didn't seem to see it that way, for all that I am sadly unsurprised that the Liberals don't.
I am assuming you are asking why we need a PM from a third party. IMO, having a PM from a progressive party would advance legislation to help improve our society for everyone, but especially for people who, thru the lottery of birth, have less opportunity to have a less precarious life. I don't see that the current situation, where there are only two parties with a chance to win power.
One thing that emerged today was how relaxed Harper was and how much his sense of humour showed through. I knew people who worked with Harper and to a man (and woman), they all commented on his humour (especially his mimicry - apparently his Arnold Schwarzenegger is excellent). I always thought he would have been much more successful if he had allowed that side of his character to emerge more often.
Ideologically, I think Harper is probably closer to Carney than Poilievre (despite his public protestations to the contrary, such as in last year's election). But where Carney has a significant advantage is his dry sense of humour, which is one of his most endearing political qualities. I think it's something that should never be underestimated as good political quality.
“It’s good to be reminded that most people who give their lives to politics have good hearts. This might be one of the biggest secrets about what goes on here. Perhaps it shouldn’t be.” I am glad you concluded with this Paul. Needs to be said more often.
I’ll never forget him being asked about a terrorist plot to behead him and responding the only threats that really worry him are if they’re within his own caucus. 10/10 No notes
After an early hiccup, it's good to see a 90-comment thread written by people who disagree about pretty basic stuff and aren't trying to beat one another up.
Fantastic piece of writing. I hated this guy. I know I had good reason, but in the current political moment it’s hard to remember why. Time indeed.
Congratulations on your honesty. Which also contains a profound truth about what is, and is not, important about events.
People will say the same thing about Pierre Poilievre when the subsidy media propaganda machine moves on to whoever replaces him as Conservative leader.
yeah, and I'm not over it. It took many years to soften to Mulroney, and he was charming. Harper may take a few more, although I appreciate his recently more humble and mature self-reflection.
Perhaps it might jog your memory to recall that the Harper government practically had non-stop meltdowns and escalation of tension with the opposition in response to stinging criticisms of its legislation. There were a number of nasty manipulations by that government, too. I have attempted to compare its record of scandal to the Trudeau government's record of scandal here: https://stefanklietsch.substack.com/p/comparing-and-contrasting-the-scandals
After a detailed read of this article, one question remained prominent in mind:
How did the Liberal Government manage to end the Trucker Demonstrations?
The event is not on Trudeau's list.
I specifically addressed that under the section, "Alleged scandals associated with the Trudeau government that are arguably just policy preferences and/or sincere mistakes":
"3. The Trudeau government’s 2022 invocation of the Emergencies Act has been ruled illegal by the courts. I reject this as a scandal because an executive action being deemed illegal is not the same thing as it being ignorant or corrupt. It had at least some basis in independent expertise and popular backing or pressure, even if it did not come from proper legal advice."
No, doing something illegal is worse.
Is it? Is a business owner who engages in manipulative but legal advertising morally better than a person who j-walks the street when there is plainly no imminent traffic anywhere in sight?
The worst scandals in politics are often the ones that are perfectly legal.
The Liberals under PM Trudeau overreacted and used a bazooka to swat a fly. The courts rightly recognized government overreach. Let's not forget about the freezing of bank accounts with no legitimate justification and before any findings of guilt.
The longer since he has been prime minister, the worse things have gotten. Time for Canada to stop digging its grave.
Yes but you could also say that about Paul Martin, possibly about Chretien, and for that matter probably about Pearson and Diefenbaker.
Canada needs more of Harper or Harper types. I was late in learning how well read he is in world history, how great his memory is, how calm he is, how articulate he is, how he has hobbies, and finds time for family. Too bad JT or Carney didn't do a short speech as powerful as Harper did when saying "that will require that in these perilous times both parties, whatever their other differences, come together against external forces that threaten our independence and against domestic policies that threaten our unity. We must preserve Canada, this country handed down to us by Providence, preserved by our ancestors and held in trust for our descendants. We must make any sacrifice necessary to preserve the unity and the independence of this blessed land.” I sense wise people outside of Canada are more aware of Harper's fine qualities as many Canadians aren't.
Keeping in mind that Trudeau's SNC Lavalin scandal received international coverage, there was negative international media attention around the Harper government's muzzling of scientists and rejection of international cooperation around climate change. Both the Harper and the Trudeau governments failed to secure seats on the UN Security Council. So I doubt that non-Canadians liked Harper more than Canadians did.
Thanks Stefan. I appreciate your mentioning these points. So much goes on in politics and so quickly in today's connected world, people like me need to keep a ledger of the pluses/minuses of leaders. I've watched some YT videos people from other parts of the world have had him on their program; their style may be more generous towards their guest or they genuinely think he did a good job. It amazes me even if I don't like a politician or businessman, how they are willing to step up to the plate. I'd crumble. However I'm now 77 so I now know what I like in a leader and don't like. We live in a such a complex hurried world now. It's not healthy.
Harper is a decent person who emerged from the blood sport of politics as a gentleman rather than the demon he was cast as during his tenure.
He was swept out of office by the wave of Neo-progressivism that engulfed both Canada and the US - the flow of which we remain immersed in.
Him surrounding himself by idiots and attack dogs makes me rather question that characterization of him.
If it'd been Harper and a cabinet of his clones, I suspect I would actually remember the Harper years quite fondly. Not what we got.
You preferred the progressive lapdogs that populated the Trudeau regime?
Most of the worst legislation passed in the Trudeau years was passed with the support of the NDP, the Bloc, and the Greens. The Trudeau government had its own sycophants, but these sycophants didn't usually need to raise tensions with the media and with all opposition parties.
Barely, but yes. They yapped quieter.
Relaxed: that is what comes through in the portrait, and what came through almost always in real life. I liked the man; I liked his measured-ness & composure. Thank you Paul for your own reflections.
A decent man, smart too, and a good PM.
He was very indecent in his treatment of the parliamentary opposition, unfortunately.
Go away.
I was greatly impressed during Wafergate, when he, a Protestant, was accused of pocketing the Host at a Catholic church, and he said that that was simply an "unsubstantiated rumour". Because what other politician would have views on transubstantiation and the real presence?
So Beautiful that Priminister Harper was Honoured today, and in this way.
Vive le Canada
Thank you, Paul for this and for the books.
I don't think we need the focusing lens of history to appreciate the fact that Stephen Harper has been one of Canada's greatest PM. I can't speak for Pre 1960's history but for me, Harper stand head and shoulders above most and certainly above any that came after him. He was in it for the right reasons which is quite a bit more than can be said for either Trudeau or Carney. History won't be kind to Trudeau and likely not to Carney either but it most definitely will be for Stephen Harper. I wish we could go back to those common sense days, alas now, we live in the days of fear mongering and virtue signalling... one can always hope. In any case, thank you for a nice piece, it's a good reminder of the way it used to be and could yet again be if Canadians start paying attention and start demanding better of our elected officials.
Harper is demonstrably an unaccomplished Prime Minister in terms of legacy impact. I cannot objectively assess how he managed issues of the day, but in terms of major legislation there seems to be little surviving policy from his era beyond the repeal of the long-gun registry, the 31-year Canada-China FIPA, and the GST cut.
Not every government needs to have a legislative legacy, but he really has little to show for the toxic partisanship and manipulations that he brought to parliamentary politics, as I have detailed at length in this blog: https://stefanklietsch.substack.com/p/comparing-and-contrasting-the-scandals
I certainly can’t agree on your “unaccomplished” comment. Harper steered the country in the right direction for 10 years. Many of his policies were overturned by biased court decisions or neutered by the left leaning senate, what are you gonna do? His record may not be perfect but compared with what we’ve been dealing with over the last 10 years of inept liberal rule, he can stand proud and know he did well by the country ans its citizens.
His government put forward several atrocious bills (C-45, the "Anti-Terrorism" Act, the "Fair Elections" Act) that were repealed not by the courts nor by the Senate (which was Conservative-majority by 2010), but by the subsequent Liberal government, and the repeal of these bills was not controversial. The worst would-be damage of the Harper government largely did not occur because the government was given a short shelf-life, and because Canada undid much of his legacy to the point that the Harper policy record was quickly forgotten.
Trudeau dismantled most of Harper's achievements to pander to his base. Because he undid everything doesn't mean everything had to be undone. Trudeau didn't have a clue and, with the help of his compliant legacy media and millions of uninformed voters, did more to destroy this country and its economy than anyone before him.
If you forgot about the existence of most of the Harper legislation that the Trudeau government repealed, how does that reflect more on the Trudeau government than on the Harper government? Landmark consequential legislation would be easy to remember; ignorant legislation that no one misses is easily forgotten for a reason.
Agree to disagree on most aspects. Your boy Justin measured success by applauses and media praises but he did nothing for the country. Harper measured success by how far forward he propelled Canada; he will be remembered for his contribution and service, Trudeau will be a footnote.
During the latter half of Justin Trudeau’s tenure it was not hard to recall the good things about Stephen Harper’s time as Prime Minister.
He was diligent, whereas Trudeau seemed always more keen to play the dilletante.
Whereas Harper was serious about sovereignty and defence issues, Trudeau developed a reputation for being keen on showy, flashy diplomatic moments.
Harper wasn’t perfect, but no one is.
Mark Carney has much in common with Harper. Yes, he has established a global reputation for high-power diplomacy, and in that sense he has been more showy than Harper was.
Even so, Carney’s actions to date on the international stage have been much more than a flash in the pan. In fact, unlike either Harper or Trudeau, Carney has reminded Canadians and the world that there is more to life than political points-scoring.
Cometh the moment, cometh the man (and, someday, the women, as well).
Trudeau is and always was a fundamentally unserious person. That he should have rise to Liberal leader, let alone Prime Minister, is a discredit to too many Canadian swing voters.
By contrast, whatever my policy disagreements with Carney, he is fundamentally a serious, competent leader. In these times, we certainly could do worse.
Lewis just say it. You are to kind. He was more a clown than a Priminister.
No shame in saying that.
Harper was NOT serious about defence issues. The military budget remained laughable throughout his term, and the Forces largely continued to disintegrate. The CPC and Liberals have both been godawful on the file for decades. They're also both terrible at criminal justice, though at least in different ways in that case.
I do think that the Conservatives should have done more.
However, surely the Harper government’s decision to initiate the Canadian ship-building program counts for something?
I mean we didn't get any damn ships out of it til 2021. And I still haven't seen us taking full advantage of Churchill in any capacity. He said the right things, but actual execution was a lot more limited.
I am, to be fair to Harper, firmly of the view that fixing Canadian military procurement issues would take a titanic effort and he is by no means the only one to blame. But as a former staffer friend of mine commented, while he talked a good game about it whenever you suggested actually spending the money there were other priorities.
I agree that Harper’s government, like Trudeau’s, ignored (or failed to understand) the urgency of the problem.
Possibly because they, like most of our political leaders since the 1970s, focused most of their attention on domestic problems.
That made them, for the most part, content to wait the weather out (on the foreign and defence policy front) instead of “making their own weather” (in other words, they mostly sought to satisfy elites in the business world, technocrats in Ottawa, and constituents in their respective ridings, rather than pushing public opinion in a direction conducive to our long term strategic imperatives).
What was extraordinary about Mark Carney’s speech was that he had the courage to “make some weather”.
We’ll see whether all the bleating from the likes of Goldy Hyder and others will force him to change tack.
I hope not.
"The military's a disintegrating joke" IS a domestic problem, is the bit that bugs me. It's a national institution, and is relevant for control of our territorial waters if for nothing else. If for no other reason than it is a longstanding and prominent government program, it should be in decent shape. I am very disappointed the Conservatives don't/didn't seem to see it that way, for all that I am sadly unsurprised that the Liberals don't.
Even if you never voted for him, you could never doubt his love for the country, and that he would do what he believed was the best for the country.
Glad for his service.
My only quibble with his statement today.....we need a PM from a third party, not just two.
That possibility has to exist at least.
Why?
I am assuming you are asking why we need a PM from a third party. IMO, having a PM from a progressive party would advance legislation to help improve our society for everyone, but especially for people who, thru the lottery of birth, have less opportunity to have a less precarious life. I don't see that the current situation, where there are only two parties with a chance to win power.
Define Progressive?