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.
Yesterday, on Dave Rutherford’s show, the Calgary radio host had Jim Patterson, CEO of Telecaster (TVB). Rutherford got right to the point which I first raised in this post: Is Jim Patterson a partisan Liberal? While Patterson admitted that he supports the Liberal Party of Canada, he denied partisanship. I outlined about $4000 in donations that came from “Jim/James D. Patterson” (or someone that shares that exact name that lives in Lakefield Ontario) over a period from 2004-2006. The data compiled included one donation made just 12 days before Canadians went to the polls in the 2006 election. This donation came at the very time that Patterson had the last word on the suitability of election advertising for the home stretch of that election campaign.
Of course, party supporters (large and small) and even high donors to political parties are able to run large private corporations and organizations, but I question how appropriate it is for Mr. Patterson to oversee the advertising process during an election when his group has admitted more than one mistake when it comes to election/advocacy advertising? Telecaster made a mistake in dumping a Canadian Renewable Fuels (CRFA) advertisement and cited an odd request that CRFA require Stephen Harper’s permission because the ad included his image. Of course, issue and advocacy advertising cannot be subject to an easy veto by a political figure who may not like the content of an ad which may hold them to account. How would election advertising work in this climate?
Telecaster admitted its error and eventually let the CRFA advocacy ads run.
However, given Telecaster’s folding to Liberal (and CBC) demands during the last election that a Conservative ad be pulled only to have the private regulatory body flip-flop and re-approve it days later is unacceptable. Free elections cannot be run in this environment.
Should a non-partisan parliamentary body be assigned to provide oversight into potential partisan abuses of Telecaster’s unique position? The free market allows competition of ideas, of product and even of partisanship. However, when an effective monopolistic cabal has editorial control over election and advocacy advertising and its suitability for viewing on every private television network, the market is not free and potential abuses are bound to arise.
Yesterday, I broke the story about how a regulatory body of Canada’s private broadcasters was apparently holding back advertising produced by the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association (CRFA).
The reason for the rejection of CRFA’s advertising? Insufficient size (and duration) of a disclaimer describing who produced the ad spots as TVB categorized the commercials as “Issues and Opinions” due to the buzzworthy nature of renewable fuels.
However, CRFA was given another bizarre reason for the rejection of one of their ads: a two second clip of Stephen Harper stumping during the previous election on a renewable fuels promise needed a “letter of attestation” from the Conservative leader in order for it to appear in the commercial. In other words, CRFA needed Harper’s permission to use Harper’s image even though the use of such an image was from a public event and without media restriction. The clip was used by CRFA to remind Canadians of the promise made by the Conservatives during the previous election on renewable fuels.
CRFA cried foul and rightly argued that such a stipulation for advertising would mean that public figures that debate and write legislation for the public could have an automatic veto over any commercial that they don’t like that featured their image. It should be noted that the issue of ownership of the video content was never in dispute, but rather that the subject of the video (Harper) had not signed off on it’s use.
This got me thinking. Surely there are other examples of commercials produced using the images of elected officials. Election advertising and especially attack ads come to mind.
During the closing days of the previous election, I doubt that Stephen Harper signed off on the blurry, war drum fade-in of his image while Liberals warned of “soldiers with guns. In our cities. We’re not making this up”. Why would he give his permission for such a spot? Further, if TVB is responsible for editorial control over commercials that air on private broadcasters, why on Earth did a spot showing women hunched over cowering while a voice-over falsely accused Harper of being an ideologue that would prevent a woman from her right to choose get approved, while Corn Cob Bob got canned for using an innocuous clip of Stephen Harper (for about two seconds on less than 5% of the screen).
The TVB apparently greenlighted obviously slanderous ad copy while rejecting a happy-go-lucky ad about renewable fuels.
During the last days of the 2006 election, after the Liberals made those war drum spots (we’re not making this up), the Conservatives responded with their own ad with clips of Liberals saying the soldier ad was a “bad idea” etc and a clip of Paul Martin admitting that he approved the ads. The Liberals were quick to condemn the ad in a press release dated January 15th, 2006:
Conservatives Called on to Withdraw TV Spots January 15, 2006
The Conservative Party of Canada has produced new television ads which the Liberal Party of Canada believes are in violation of Canada’s Copyright laws.
The Liberal Party of Canada calls on the Conservative Party to withdraw these ads.
Here’s the ad:
The Liberals lobbied to have the ad pulled because they claimed that the Conservatives violated CBC copyright by using a clip of Paul Martin admitting that he approved the controversial Liberal attack ads. A CP story from January 16th, 2006 gives us some more perspective:
OTTAWA (CP) — A new Conservative TV ad is reminding voters some of Paul Martin’s own candidates disapproved of a controversial Liberal attack which some say implied a Tory government would send tanks into the streets.
The Conservative ad recycles quotes from prominent Liberals including John McCallum, former defence minister, who last week called his party’s ad a mistake.
The 30-second Liberal spot was based on a campaign promise by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to station 500-member battalions of Canadian Forces personnel in major cities for deployment in emergencies.
The Liberal ad outraged military personnel, who said it implies the Tories were advocating some form of martial law.
It was quickly yanked from the Liberal party’s English website, but a French version aired on television in Quebec.
Martin has said he gave an initial go-ahead, then changed his mind and pulled the ad, which McCallum and Keith Martin, a former Reform party MP and now a Liberal incumbent, later criticized.
The Liberals called on the Conservatives to withdraw the ad in a statement Sunday, saying they believe it violates copyright laws by using CBC footage which they did not have permission to use.
But the Conservatives said all their ads were approved by the party’s legal counsel and Telecaster, the Canadian advertising authority. They added they haven’t received any complaints about the ad from the CBC.
Telecaster (TVB) initially approved the ad for distribution, however, the Liberals complained and the ad was subsequently pulled.
TVB’s greenlight of controversial Liberal ads, the rejection of CRFA’s ads which favourably portray Harper’s environmental policy, along with the pulling of the previously approved Conservative response ad during the past election after Liberals complained raises a few red flags.
As with other elements of our democracy, the approval of private advertising of election ads (and non-election advocacy ads) should be accomplished on a level playing field. Why should one party (whether Conservative or Liberal) have an advantage over the other when trying to get advertising approved for consumption by the public on private networks? Of course, private networks are free to do business with whomever they choose, but would it be a scandal if the umbrella group that is is in charge of editorial content control for these networks controlled for preferred partisanship rather than what they are supposed to control for? (hate speech, indecency, promotion of unlawful acts)
According to the Television Bureau of Canada’s website, the president of the organization is a man named Jim Patterson. In this document we find out that Jim Patterson also goes by the name James and that his middle initial is D.
I decided to search the Elections Canada donations database for donations from people named Jim/James D. Patterson. The following results describe one individual who, according to Elections Canada, lives in Lakefield Ontario with the postal code K0L 2H0.
Lloyd, Diane / Liberal Party of Canada / Peterborough
Jan. 11, 2006
Individuals / Part 2a
250.00
Is this the same Jim/James D. Patterson that is the head of the Television Bureau of Canada, the private regulatory body that has editorial control over “Issues and Opinion” advertising?
If so, should a partisan be in charge of approving ads during a time sensitive period (such as an election) where parties depend on television advertising for their most critical rapid responses? Also, would it be appropriate for a partisan to have an advanced look at a competing party’s ads?