Stephen Joseph Harper served as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada from 2006 to 2015, making him one of the most consequential leaders in modern Canadian political history. As the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Harper reshaped Canadian politics by uniting the right, implementing a fiscally conservative agenda, asserting Canadian sovereignty on the global stage, and overseeing the country through the 2008 global financial crisis.
Stephen Harper was born on April 30, 1959, in Toronto, Ontario, to Margaret Johnston and Joseph Harris Harper, an accountant with Imperial Oil. He grew up in the suburb of Leaside before moving to Etobicoke, where he attended Richview Collegiate Institute.
After graduating high school, Harper moved to Edmonton, Alberta, to work in the oil and gas sector. This move to Alberta would profoundly shape his political ideology and identity. He later returned to school, earning a Bachelor of Arts in Economics from the University of Calgary, followed by a Master’s degree in Economics in 1991. Harper’s academic background in economics heavily influenced his approach to governance.
Harper’s political career began in the late 1980s. He became an advisor to Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party of Canada, a Western populist party created to address frustrations with federal neglect of Western interests.
In 1988, Harper ran unsuccessfully in Calgary West but returned in 1993 and won the seat as a Reform Party Member of Parliament. Disillusioned with internal party politics, Harper left Parliament in 1997 and became vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, a conservative advocacy group focused on limited government and taxpayer rights.
By the early 2000s, the political right in Canada was fractured between the Canadian Alliance (successor to the Reform Party) and the Progressive Conservative Party. Harper returned to elected politics in 2002, winning the leadership of the Canadian Alliance following Stockwell Day’s resignation.
Harper worked closely with Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay to merge the two parties. This union formed the modern Conservative Party of Canada in 2003. Harper was elected the party’s first leader in 2004.
After a minority Liberal government under Prime Minister Paul Martin fell to a non-confidence vote, Harper led the Conservative Party to victory in the 2006 federal election. He was sworn in as Prime Minister on February 6, 2006, by Governor General Michaëlle Jean. Harper became the first Conservative Prime Minister since Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney.
Harper’s first term focused on restoring public trust in government after the Liberal Party’s sponsorship scandal. His government passed the Federal Accountability Act, introduced child care tax credits, and reduced the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from 7% to 5%.
Harper emphasized law-and-order policies, with new legislation increasing penalties for violent crimes and targeting repeat offenders. In foreign policy, he strengthened Canada’s alliance with the United States and supported Canadian troops deployed in Afghanistan, especially in Kandahar Province.
In the 2008 federal election, Harper led the Conservatives to another minority government. During his second term, Canada faced the global financial crisis. Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty implemented a fiscal stimulus plan that included infrastructure projects, support for the automotive sector, and tax relief measures.
Canada emerged from the crisis with one of the strongest economies among G7 nations. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD praised Canada’s banking system and fiscal prudence. In 2010, Harper hosted the G8 and G20 summits in Huntsville and Toronto, respectively, promoting global fiscal restraint.
Harper’s foreign policy was marked by moral clarity. He supported Israel unconditionally, opposed anti-Semitic rhetoric at international forums, and condemned Iran’s nuclear ambitions under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Harper also made a bold decision not to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka due to human rights abuses.
Harper achieved a majority government in the 2011 federal election, defeating Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff and New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, who became Leader of the Official Opposition.
Freed from the constraints of a minority, Harper advanced a bold legislative agenda. His government passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, and eliminated the long-gun registry.
In energy, Harper promoted Canada’s oil sands, pipeline expansion, and energy exports, including backing the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway projects. His support for the resource sector made him a strong advocate for Alberta’s economy.
In the 2015 federal election, the Conservatives were defeated by Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party.
Harper resigned as Conservative leader on election night and stepped away from public life in 2016. He was succeeded first by interim leader Rona Ambrose and later by Andrew Scheer.
After politics, Harper launched Harper & Associates, a global consulting firm. He also became Chairman of the International Democrat Union, an alliance of center-right political parties around the world.
In 2018, he published the book Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption, warning conservatives against populist overreach and advocating for principled, market-based policies.
Harper has served on corporate boards, including Colliers International, and occasionally advises conservative leaders in Canada and abroad. He has kept a relatively low public profile but remains influential in conservative political circles.
Even after his departure, Harper remains a towering figure in Canadian politics. His decade-long prime ministership left a clear imprint on Canadian institutions, foreign policy, and party dynamics, influencing both his successors and political opponents.
Ottawa is abuzz with cabinet speculation this week as the summer starts to wind down and there’s no election in sight. Between elections, I’m told, the parliamentary press gallery’s second favourite fix is speculating how the front bench of the government will change. Since the days are hot, and while filing stories about the arctic might cool some off it is still viewed as playing into the man’s hands, and since there are only so many grumble pieces that can be written, cabinet speculation will have to do.
I’ve been chatting with a few friends and sources about the topic and here’s what I’ve deciphered with a high level of confidence.
Ottawa staffers can breathe a bit of relief (just a bit though) because while Carol Skelton is retiring from politics, no other cabinet minister will be shuffled out of cabinet. There will be promotions and demotions within the cabinet structure, but no current cabinet minister will find themselves without a chauffeured car next week. Thus, contrary to some reports, Oda will remain in cabinet.
On the flipside, no back-bencher is to be promoted to cabinet this time around.
Therefore, besides Skelton, the cabinet will neither grow nor shrink.
The shuffle within cabinet itself will be substantial enough that it’ll make a few headlines. I previously speculated (but didn’t write) that a shuffle could be quite surgical and we’d see a trading of two or three portfolios without making other waves, but now I’m hearing that there will be more than a few ministers with new titles. The government might say that such a switch affords new experience to already very capable ministers. Most of us might acknowledge this while recognizing that some fine tuning is due.
Specifically, Maxime Bernier may be shuffled out of Industry (not entirely sure about this) but I can say with certainty that he will not be shuffled into defence or finance.
Security minister Stockwell Day will stay in his current portfolio as most Hill people (including press) have found him to be very capable in his current role.
John Baird is also staying in environment.
I can also say with a certain degree of confidence that there will be a throne speech this fall and that the government is not likely to be shocking the country’s system with a brand new set of priorities as there is a lot of the current agenda that still needs attention.
The Prime Minister’s website is now featuring kitten adoption profiles. We get it… not scary, ok?
Dollar rises above $0.965US, the highest since February 1977.
Jason Cherniak will not defend what he has not read, nor condemn it, but that won’t stop him from giving an opinion, thankfully.
Steve Janke is tracking Stephane Dion’s gaffe on Chinese-Canadian political history
Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition accuses Her Majesty’s Government and Defense Minister of propagandizing a military conflict. “Propaganda” is not exactly a reserved word as people have thrown it around at their political opponents on a variety of topics. However to juxtapose “propaganda” with our government on military/war related matters? If you had heard that an opposition party in a foreign country had accused their government of military propaganda, what would you think? Let’s be more responsible shall we?
Probably not the best of photo-ops for Republican Mitt Romney. Again, an obvious problem of juxtaposition concerning the question of loyalties. Whether it’s Canadian Liberals accusing the government of military propaganda, or a Republican candidate for president posing with a sign that suggests that Democrat opponents are as undesirable as Osama bin Laden, we ought to raise the level of debate so that we don’t blur the lines between the opponents who are working for a better country (but in a different party) and enemies that would destroy it.
The CBC wrapped up their Facebook initiative on Canada Day. The Great Canadian Wish certainly provided some unintended consequences, yet it teaches us some truths about social media and its participants.
As an aside, the next time an NDPer boasts that Tommy Douglas is The Greatest Canadian based on the shaky authority of a CBC populist initiative, show them this:
Poor CBC! The only wish that would have made them cringe harder would have been if “Privatize the CBC” had beaten out the rest.
The fate of the CBC isn’t as much of a divisive issue as that of abortion to be sure and that’s where we draw our first conclusion on why the public broadcaster got the results that it did.
Polarizing issues will drive people to mobilize. Frankly, it’s been an effective tool used by the Liberals during the latest rounds of electoral combat. Going nuclear on the Conservative Party meant referencing abortion during the last desperate days of the writ period.
Secondly, anti-abortion activists mobilized quickly and early. They also had the advantage of not representing the status quo; if abortions were illegal, you can bet that the pro-choice wish would have had more traction as it would have indicated a desire for change. The very concept of change is more mobilizing because it is natural to take the status quo for granted. Indeed, the issue of abortion is a real and emotional one for people on both sides of the debate.
CBC also touched on a particular rationale for the presence of the the highly contentious issue: forum. Since the topic of abortion has been one that hasn’t been polled or discussed in any real public sense for years (CBC illustrates this in its report above using Environics as an example), advocates against the practice felt that the Facebook group represented a “back-door” of sorts to bring it front-row-centre on a highly visible stage, the CBC. Are more Canadians on Facebook pro-life rather than pro-choice?
Not necessarily.
Since reproductive choice / access to abortion is the norm in this country, the pro-choice advocates have had the advantage (and in this contest, the disadvantage) of arguing from a comfortable, mainstream position. The most significant motivating factor for pro-choice advocates only came into action when it became apparent that their pro-life foes might actually pull off an upset. The pro-lifers were primarily motivated by the issue, while the pro-choicers were too comforted and slowed by the mainstream acceptance of their position, and were only motivated when that position came under threat. Where the pro-lifers sought to act on the issue, the pro-choicers found their strength in reacting. Since acting comes before reacting, acting had a head-start.
There are parallels, of course, to real life politicking that we can draw from the Facebook/CBC wish initiative. As, I’ve mentioned, emotional issues mobilize support and have been used by parties to get out the vote. The Liberal line was “we may have had some ethics problems in Quebec, but have you heard what the Conservatives want to do to your rights?” Since abortion isn’t actually an issue on the Conservative radar, Conservatives have difficulty appealing to emotion. “Rights” are compelling issues and the Conservatives would be wise to determine where they can successfully leverage their strengths in that domain (Rights for Afghani women and children is compelling). Status quo versus change is also a significant factor as the desire for latter can be a stronger motivator than protecting the former (for Conservatives and Canadians, economic freedom is a compelling right, however, it is the relative status quo). People take the status quo for granted and may only become motivated when a real threat is perceived. Often, these issues may come too late during an election for the reacting party.
Certainly, the CBC experiment had some unintended consequences (I’m sure that they’re thanking their lucky stars that they didn’t commit to making this an 8-part mini-series starring George Strombolopolous), however, I feel that it highlighted some very interesting characteristics of human nature, politics, and evolving social media networks. I wonder if other experiments that test human nature can be conceived and then realized on Facebook?
As an addendum, as a Conservative partisan I was somewhat worried that the prominence of abortion as an issue would have instigated a renewed negative focus on the Conservative Party regarding the topic. Kudos to the CBC for including the clip of Stephen Harper in this report on the CBC/Facebook wish:
UPDATE: Looks like the comments section has erupted into a pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. Consider that the post is actually about human behaviour as it relates to the motivating factors on social networks as a potential snapshot of the real-life world of political mobilization.