*Harper Endorses Pierre. Cartoon by: Matt Vardy*

Stephen Harper's recent endorsement of Pierre Poilievre has reignited debates about the future of Canadian conservatism. Harper, whose decade-long tenure polarized the nation, now backs a leader who blends his ideological DNA with Trumpian populism¹. As Poilievre vies for power against Prime Minister Mark Carney—a former Harper ally turned Liberal leader—the stakes feel eerily familiar. Let's unpack the key threads shaping this pivotal moment, particularly the inconsistencies that should give conservative voters pause.

Harper's Legacy: The “Control-Freak-in-Chief”

Harper's governance was defined by centralized control and incremental policy shifts. He avoided radical social changes but weaponized cultural wedge issues like the 2015 niqab ban, which critics called xenophobic². His government slashed funding for programs supporting women, Indigenous communities and marginalized groups, including a 20% cut to Status of Women Canada and the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, which helped fund equity-seeking legal battles³.

Harper's disdain for transparency reached its peak when he became the first PM found in contempt of Parliament for withholding fiscal data⁴. His "freakish parsimony with information" and strong-arm tactics in Parliament earned him the label of "control-freak-in-chief." As CBC News noted, "Where else is a government scientist forbidden to discuss the weather?"⁵

Even Harper's conservative biographer John Ibbitson acknowledged that "no prime minister in history and no political party have been loathed as intensely as Stephen Harper and the Conservative party."⁵ This wasn't mere partisan rhetoric—it reflected Harper's persistent clashes with independent institutions. On Senate reform, prostitution, sentencing, safe injection sites, the niqab, Omar Khadr, and even Supreme Court appointments, the courts repeatedly said "No" to Harper's overreach⁵.

The Stop Harper Movement: A Grassroots Uprising

The "Stop Harper" movement wasn't just partisan politics—it was a genuine grassroots uprising against democratic erosion. Canadians across the political spectrum became alarmed by Harper's omnibus bills, which buried major policy changes in massive legislation to circumvent parliamentary debate. Starting in 2010, Harper passed eleven such bills, prompting even the conservative-leaning Globe and Mail to condemn them as "an abuse of process and shown contempt for Parliament by subverting its role."⁶

Harper's prorogation of Parliament four times—shutting it down for a total of 181 days—further demonstrated his willingness to suspend democratic processes when politically convenient⁶. The 2015 election saw this simmering discontent transform into what political scientists have termed "social movement electoralism"—a phenomenon where millions of typically disengaged citizens mobilized specifically to remove Harper from office⁷.

This wasn't merely strategic voting. The 2015 election witnessed an unprecedented increase in voter turnout, with nearly 3 million additional Canadians casting ballots compared to 2011⁷. This surge wasn't evenly distributed—it disproportionately benefited the Liberals as the most viable vehicle to defeat Harper. As one academic study concluded, the election represented "a social movement of people who usually don't vote in federal elections, but who turned out en masse to defeat the Conservatives."⁷

Harper's Endorsement: Blessing a More Extreme Version of Himself

At an Edmonton rally on April 7, 2025, Harper made his endorsement of Poilievre official and unequivocal. "I am the only person who can say that both of the men running to be prime minister once worked for me," Harper told the enthusiastic crowd. "And in that regard, my choice, without hesitation, without equivocation, without a shadow of a doubt, is Pierre Poilievre."⁸

Harper's speech focused heavily on Poilievre's experience, arguing that his "elected accountable political experience" and "capacity for growth" over two decades made him better qualified than Carney, despite the latter's impressive résumé. "That is the single most important characteristic a prime minister needs," Harper emphasized⁹. He also attempted to shield Poilievre from criticism regarding Trump, claiming that "the bulk of the problems that afflict our country" were created by "three Liberal terms," not by Trump¹.

The former PM's endorsement wasn't surprising—Harper had previously backed Poilievre in the 2022 Conservative leadership race—but the timing and forcefulness revealed the high stakes of the current campaign. "I have known him a quarter of a century," Harper noted. "He worked hard, he fought and he learned."⁹

Poilievre, Harper's protégé, has taken his mentor's tactics to new extremes. Known as Parliament's "pit bull," he's built a brand on viral soundbites, attacking "gatekeepers" like the Bank of Canada and CBC. His legislative record, however, is thin. His lone housing bill, which proposed tying federal funding to municipal construction targets, was voted down in 2024. More controversially, he's vowed to revive unconstitutional mandatory minimum sentences by invoking the notwithstanding clause—a move legal experts warn would destabilize Canada's justice system¹⁰.

Unlike many populist leaders, Poilievre combines his fiery rhetoric with a solid grasp of policy details. This combination of populist messaging and policy knowledge makes him a formidable political operator. Since becoming Conservative leader in 2022, he has campaigned on a classic Conservative platform of lower taxes, smaller government and personal liberties¹¹. Yet his approach is more populist than previous Conservative leaders, with a strong emphasis on "Canada First" rhetoric and positioning himself as an alternative to what he terms "authoritarian" Liberal governance¹¹.

For his part, Poilievre embraced Harper's endorsement enthusiastically, calling him a "much-appreciated mentor" and promising that a Poilievre-led government would "follow Harper's footsteps." He praised Harper as "solid, competent, honest, decent, down to earth"⁹—a commitment that should concern anyone familiar with Harper's controversial legacy.

The Edmonton rally showcased the passing of the torch from one Conservative leader to another who has adopted and intensified many of Harper's most controversial tactics. While Harper had a contentious relationship with much of Canada's media and was no fan of the CBC, Poilievre has pushed this strategy further¹¹. He has barred reporters from his campaign plane (breaking from tradition) and not allowed some CBC reporters to ask questions on the campaign trail¹¹. This approach has led to physical confrontations between Conservative staffers and journalists¹¹, signaling a more aggressive stance toward media than even Harper maintained.

As political strategist Zain Velji noted, Poilievre's combative style once seemed like an asset when Canadians wanted "the prick" in contrast to Trudeau, but "the culture and the mood has changed so quickly and what was once an asset is now a liability."¹¹ This shift is evident in polling that shows the Conservatives have lost significant support since late January¹¹, suggesting that Harper's blessing may not be enough to overcome Poilievre's increasingly problematic image.

And It's Not Just Harper's Endorsement Raising Red Flags

While Harper's endorsement carries significant weight within Conservative circles, Poilievre's campaign has attracted support from a troubling array of controversial figures across the far-right media ecosystem. These endorsements reveal a concerning pattern of alignment with populist and often extreme viewpoints.

Jordan Peterson, the controversial Canadian psychologist, uploaded a 100-minute interview with Poilievre in January 2025 that has garnered over 5.5 million views. During this extensive conversation—possibly Poilievre's most in-depth interview to date—the Conservative leader accused Justin Trudeau of being an authoritarian, claimed "wokeism" was responsible for hate crimes and railed against immigration¹². Both men lamented the erosion of "traditional values" and the loss of "masculinity" in Canada, appealing directly to Peterson's predominantly young male audience¹².

Joe Rogan, whose podcast reaches millions of listeners, has also endorsed Poilievre, telling his audience to "get your [act] together, come back to what you used to be, that Pierre Poly guy, however you say his name, that guy makes sense"¹³. This endorsement mirrors Rogan's influential three-hour interview with Donald Trump last October, which beamed the candidate directly to millions of young male voters¹². This is the same Joe Rogan who, upon learning about a UFC event taking place in Montreal, said he'd "rather go to Russia than to Canada". On the topic of Canadian sovereignty and becoming the 51st state, he threatened "I think we take Canada and then go right into Mexico".

Even more troubling is the endorsement from Alex Jones, the far-right American conspiracy theorist who has been ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in damages to families of Sandy Hook victims for falsely claiming the school shooting was a hoax. Jones called Poilievre "totally anti-New World Order" in a glowing endorsement¹⁴. While Poilievre's office issued a brief statement saying "We do not follow the individual you mention or listen to what he says," they notably did not reject the endorsement outright¹⁴.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has also created headaches for Poilievre's campaign after telling Breitbart News that she had spoken with Trump administration officials about how best to get Poilievre elected. "On balance, the perspective that Pierre would bring would be very much in sync with, I think, with the new direction in America," Smith said, suggesting a pause on talk of tariffs from the Trump camp because it's helping Prime Minister Mark Carney's Liberals¹⁵. Smith's comments gave the appearance of inviting foreign interference in Canada's election, prompting political scientist Keith Brownsey to call her actions "reprehensible" and suggest she should resign¹⁵.

These endorsements aren't happening in isolation. They're part of Poilievre's deliberate shift toward what Maclean's describes as "the very online, right-wing information ecosystem"¹². His campaign has increasingly embraced the language of the far right, with Poilievre himself making "woke" a pillar of his political rhetoric. Parliamentary records show his use of the term surged from just two mentions in 2019 to 33 instances in 2023 alone¹⁶.

This pattern of endorsements and rhetoric mirrors Trump's own base of support, with polling showing that 40 percent of Canadian Conservative Party supporters preferred Trump while only 32 percent preferred Biden¹³. As Foreign Policy magazine notes, Poilievre "draws support from the podcast 'manosphere,' with endorsements from commentators such as Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. Even Elon Musk, the tech billionaire-turned-Trump advisor, has voiced his enthusiasm for Poilievre"¹³. This endorsement is particularly concerning given Musk's recent activities: repeatedly supporting Germany's far-right AfD party (which has been labeled a "suspected extremist organization" by German intelligence services¹⁷), telling Germans they have "too much focus on past guilt" regarding the Nazi era just days before Holocaust Remembrance Day¹⁸, and sharing then deleting conspiracy theories on his platform X, including a post absolving Hitler, Stalin and Mao of responsibility for millions of deaths¹⁹. Musk's pattern of election interference across multiple countries has prompted NDP MP Charlie Angus to call for an investigation into his activities in Canada, warning that Musk has the power to "easily impact our electoral integrity" through algorithm manipulation and amplification of certain political messages²⁰. His close relationship with Trump—having donated over $250 million to his campaign and later serving in the White House with his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)¹⁸—raises serious questions about foreign influence in Canadian politics.

The irony is that while Poilievre rails against "global elites," his campaign recently celebrated endorsements from over 30 influential business executives featured in nationwide newspaper ads²¹. These endorsements from current and former business leaders like Fairfax Financial's Prem Watsa, Canaccord Genuity's CEO Dan Daviau and former Scotiabank president Brian Porter came just weeks after Poilievre condemned "global elites" who utilize offshore tax havens²¹.

Political scientist Lori Turnbull observed that "the business community might view his rhetoric as mere political maneuvering aimed at garnering votes," adding that "if Poilievre ascends to the role of prime minister, it's improbable that he will initiate policies detrimental to the business sector"²¹. This suggests that Poilievre's populist posturing may be just that—posturing—while his actual governance would likely favour the very elites he claims to oppose.

The Conservative Flip-Flop: Principles or Opportunism?

The Conservative movement under Poilievre has shown remarkable flexibility in its positions—not from thoughtful evolution but apparent political expediency. Consider his stance on abortion: while now claiming to be "pro-choice," the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has consistently rated him as anti-choice and Campaign Life Coalition notes he "abandoned his past pro-life beliefs" when he decided the label was "no longer useful."²²

Similarly, Poilievre voted against the national affordable daycare initiative, dental care plan and pharmacare coverage. Yet the moment the election campaign began, he promised Canadians that none would lose these benefits under his government—a stunning reversal that suggests political calculation rather than principle²³.

This pattern of convenient evolution on major issues should concern voters across the political spectrum. When a leader's positions shift with the political winds rather than through genuine reflection and growth, how can we trust their commitments on any issue?

Harper vs. Carney: The Ultimate Conservative Contradiction

Harper's endorsement of Poilievre over Mark Carney adds layers of irony and reveals the partisan nature of Conservative "principles." Carney, Harper's handpicked Bank of Canada governor during the 2008 crisis, was once praised as a "valued partner"²⁴. In 2012, Harper even tried to recruit Carney to join his cabinet as finance minister²⁵—a fact Harper doesn't deny²⁴.

When Carney left to lead the Bank of England, Harper lauded him for being "a valued partner as the government has worked to steer Canada away from the worst impacts of the global economic recession" and noted that "Canada remains an example to the world with its strong banks, effective regulatory environment and sound economic policy."²⁵ Similarly, then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty called Carney a "visionary leader, an economic partner and a friend," adding that "over the past few years we have faced some unprecedented economic challenges and we surmounted them."²⁴

Yet now, with Carney leading the Liberals, Harper has executed a breathtaking reversal. In a fundraising letter, he accused Carney of taking "undue credit" for Canada's economic performance during the crisis and claimed Carney "had little or nothing to do with" Canada's successful navigation of the financial crisis²⁴. This prompted Chisholm Pothier, who served as late Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's deputy chief of staff, to condemn the attempt to erase Carney's "big role" during the 2008 financial crisis for "partisan reasons" as "beyond disgraceful."²⁴

The Résumé vs. Loyalty Paradox

*Graphic showing some “Lost Liberal Decade” facts (click to enlarge)*

This hypocrisy becomes even more glaring when we consider the Conservatives' main campaign narrative. Just days into the 2025 campaign, they've centred their messaging around a single phrase: "the lost decade"²⁶—referring to the Liberal years from 2015-2025 as a period of economic stagnation²⁷. Conservative strategists have made this their defining attack line against the Liberals.

Yet this creates a stunning paradox: Conservatives are asking Canadians to reject Carney despite his economic credentials because of his Liberal affiliation, while simultaneously expecting voters to forget that they themselves once celebrated those same credentials. If Canadians should dismiss Carney's résumé due to partisan allegiance, why shouldn't they also dismiss Harper's sudden reversal on Carney's abilities as naked partisanship?

I find this contradiction particularly revealing. It suggests that for Conservative leadership, partisan advantage trumps intellectual honesty. They want us to believe that Carney's economic expertise suddenly vanished the moment he joined the Liberals, while expecting us to forget their previous praise for that same expertise. This "rules for thee but not for me" approach undermines their credibility on the very issue—economic competence—they've made central to their campaign.

This pattern of convenient amnesia extends beyond Carney. When politically useful, Conservatives trumpet their commitment to fiscal responsibility, yet Poilievre now promises to maintain Liberal social programs he previously voted against. They claim to stand for consistent principles, yet those principles seem remarkably fluid when electoral advantage is at stake.

Warning Signs for 2025: Déjà Vu or New Dangers?

A Poilievre government risks replaying Harper's worst tendencies while introducing fresh threats:

Institutional Erosion: Poilievre's pledge to fire Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem and defund the CBC mirrors Harper's clashes with watchdogs but with sharper edges²⁸. Harper's government was given an "F" on accountability and democratic reform by Democracy Watch, which noted that only 29 of the Federal Accountability Act's 60 promised reforms were implemented (with seven later rolled back)⁶.
Social Division: Poilievre's alignment with anti-"woke" rhetoric risks emboldening social conservatives¹⁰, while his tough talk on immigration echoes Harper's divisive approach to cultural issues.
Economic Uncertainty: Despite claiming to champion fiscal responsibility, Poilievre has promised to maintain popular Liberal social programs he previously voted against²³, raising questions about his economic credibility.

I worry about what these tendencies might mean for our country. Harper's approach to governance left lasting damage to our democratic institutions and Poilievre seems poised to accelerate rather than repair that damage. His willingness to invoke the notwithstanding clause to override court decisions he disagrees with suggests a leader who views constitutional limits as inconvenient obstacles rather than essential safeguards.

Moreover, his rhetoric around "gatekeepers" and elites echoes populist movements worldwide that have undermined democratic norms and institutions. When combined with his associations with far-right figures and groups, this creates a concerning picture of a potential Poilievre government.

A Referendum on Respect for Democracy

The 2025 election isn't just about policy differences—it's about whether Canadians want leadership that respects democratic institutions and processes. Under Harper, Canada saw unprecedented attacks on parliamentary traditions, with journalist Michael Harris noting, "There is something very Stalinesque about Harper... My bottom line on this guy is, he hates democracy. He doesn't care about truth and cares only about the perception of what benefits him."⁶

Poilievre's blend of Harper-style discipline and populist fury appeals to voters craving disruption, but his ties to far-right elements, sparse policy wins and inconsistent positions raise red flags²⁹. His admiration for Harper's governing style suggests he would likely continue—or even intensify—the same approach that led to the "Stop Harper" movement: omnibus bills, prorogation when convenient, attacks on independent institutions and centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office.

Meanwhile, Carney's economic credentials—the very ones Harper once praised—offer a counter-narrative of stability and competence. The irony is palpable: Harper now dismisses the very qualities in Carney that he once celebrated, revealing that partisan loyalty trumps consistent principles.

As the ghosts of "Stop Harper" linger, I find myself wondering if we're headed for a repeat of history. Will Canadians once again need to mobilize against a leader who shows disdain for our democratic institutions? Or will we choose a path that respects our traditions of governance and the diverse communities that make up our nation?

The answer to these questions will shape Canada for years to come. As voters, we must look beyond campaign promises and partisan talking points to examine the consistent patterns in our leaders' behaviour. In Poilievre, those patterns suggest a leader who, like his mentor Harper, may place political advantage above democratic principles and consistent values.

(Sources)

Harper's Blessing: Why the Former PM's Endorsement of Poilievre Should Alarm Canadians