Because the real extent of the effects of the global financial crisis on the Canadian economy was not revealed until late in 2008, the government was able to frame the crisis in optimistic terms for most of the year. In this, they were greatly enabled by their incumbency and Harper’s reputation as a competent economic manager. His credentials as an ‘economist by training’ and his government’s perceived competence at managing the national economy had been readily circulated by the Canadian media for a long time. These were his major electoral strengths before the economic downturn began in earnest. In contrast, during 2008, the major opposition party, the Liberal Party (which had held government for 12 years before Harper’s victory in 2006), was led by the highly unpopular Stephane Dion. A former political science academic, Dion was widely perceived as ‘a thinker rather than a doer…a pie-in-the-sky intellectual’ who was frequently unable to explain basic economic realities (McLean 2008:12). Harper recognised this weakness and frequently sought to exploit it. In fact, it was commonly accepted that Harper’s surprising decision to call an early election in September was motivated largely by his recognition of the public perception that the Liberal Party (and especially Dion) was ill equipped to lead Canada through perilous times. Michael Ignatieff, another intellectual, replaced Dion in December. Dion’s disastrous period of leadership, however, had an enduring impact on the credibility of the party and continued to compromise the public perception of the party’s economic management credentials throughout 2009.

As the findings of this study indicate, however, Harper overestimated his ability to shape public opinion and exploit the crisis to his advantage. By the time the election campaign started in September and the Wall Street collapse began in earnest, Canadians began to question his persistently rosy outlook on the state of the economy. Although Harper’s previous policies were not blamed for causing the crisis, significant portions of the commentariat as well as most ordinary Canadians did not believe that problems south of the border would not eventually affect the Canadian economy. Harper’s unwillingness to concede the severity of the crisis created an impression that he was putting his political interests ahead of his economic knowledge. This eventually raised concerns about the policy direction the government was taking to deal with the crisis.

The government’s credibility could in theory have been assisted by the fact that Flaherty’s messaging was consistent with Harper’s throughout the crisis. Harper’s dominant leadership style, however, and his tendency to speak for the government on all matters regarding the economy throughout the Conservatives’ tenure had long ago compromised the capacity of the Minister for Finance to shape public debate. Consequently, Flaherty’s pronouncements were ignored at best and, at worst, were seen as politically motivated and thus were cynically received.

It might have been helpful for Harper to emphasise the similarities between his outlook and that of Bank of Canada Governor, Mark Carney, since the latter’s apolitical office meant that the public did not question his agenda. Given Harper’s vested interest in avoiding implicating his government in the causes of the domestic manifestations of the global financial crisis, however, it is not surprising that he should want to distance himself from the Bank of Canada’s past (and for that matter, future) fiscal policy decisions. By the same token, it is reasonable to assume that if Harper were to publicly align himself with Carney, the credibility of the Governor of the Bank of Canada would be compromised in more ways than one.

Moreover (and somewhat ironically), Harper’s unwillingness to resort to explicit crisis rhetoric fed into pre-existing perceptions of him as a cold, uncaring leader who lacked sympathy for the plight of everyday Canadians. This was exacerbated as the effects of the global financial crisis on the Canadian economy became increasingly obvious. Instead of convincing voters that his government anticipated the problems long before they became apparent, Harper’s continuous resistance to introducing special measures to deal with the crisis led Canadians to question whether the government realised the gravity of the global financial crisis—and consequently, whether it was equipped to deal with the crisis appropriately and effectively.

By clinging to a positive outlook that was increasingly portrayed as overoptimistic, Harper painted himself into a corner. When he and his government were eventually forced to admit that the country was in recession, this was widely perceived as backtracking. It seemed to confirm growing fears that perhaps Harper was not the amazing economic manager Canadians had come to believe he was. It was no surprise then that the Canadian public received the 2009 budget—which projected a huge deficit—with considerable suspicion.

It is worth questioning why this erosion of credibility under the weight of the escalating economic problems failed to pose any significant political threat to the Harper Government. One of the answers lies with the weak and politically divided opposition parties, which failed to challenge the Conservatives in any meaningful way. An international observer might intercede here and note that surely the December 2008 parliamentary crisis constituted one such memorable challenge. If anything, however, the parliamentary crisis served to affirm the position of the Harper Government. National polls conducted during and after the impasse suggested that although Canadians were beginning to have more doubts about the Harper Government’s economic competence, they were even more cynical about the opposition parties’ ability to form a fungible coalition (reservations that were amplified by their very colourful public disagreements during the election period). To some extent, Canadians even seemed to blame the opposition parties for the crisis (Reuters 2008). As a matter of fact, the proposed alternative coalition government fell apart during its very first test—the 2009 budget—thus ending the parliamentary crisis.

One of the main reasons why the opposition parties failed to present a threat to the government was their unwillingness to challenge it on the very issue of economic management until well into 2009. The main opposition parties consistently echoed Harper’s optimistic outlook; they all initially downplayed the economic crisis. Even during the election campaign, as the markets went into free fall, average Canadians watched their investments begin to evaporate and the economic crisis was obviously spiralling out of Harper’s control, Dion and his opposition counterparts, Jack Layton (of NDP) and Gilles Duceppe (of Bloc Quebecois), did not question his mantra of ‘the fundamentals of the Canadian banking system remain strong’ and ‘Canada is well placed to weather the economic storm’. The budget presented another obvious opportunity for the opposition to effectively challenge the government’s credibility in addressing the global financial crisis. Indeed, it committed Canada to a $38 billion deficit just two months after Harper asserted that Canada was doing fine and would even produce a surplus in the next financial year. The opposition parties, however, spent so much time attacking one another’s stances on the budget that the infighting attracted almost as much media coverage as the budget itself.

All of this considered, it is important to conclude with a reflection on what is perhaps the most interesting finding of this study: the notable lack of media interest in the manner in which the Canadian Government was handling the domestic manifestations of the global financial crisis. The reasons for this lack of interest are very difficult to pin down, but two speculations can be offered. First, Canada is saturated with US media outlets so it is possible that Canadians’ view of the crisis was shaped more by the bombardment of alarmist crisis rhetoric and imagery beamed into their homes from south of the border than by the public pronouncements of their own leaders. Canadians might therefore have viewed the economic downturn as far too colossal for their government to halt at home, and consequently might have held low expectations of their leaders’ capacity to affect change. In this case, it would have been in the interests of Harper and Flaherty to stick with their usual bland rhetoric so as not to attract further media attention.

It is also possible that the lack of media interest in the government’s efforts to frame the crisis was a symptom of a general sense of disillusionment, cynicism and distrust of the government and the opposition among Canadians—that is, a sign of general disengagement from the political process. It might have been the case that Canadians were deeply sceptical of their government’s handling of the crisis, but sensed that things could be much worse if the squabbling opposition parties held the reins. A telltale indicator of this alternative interpretation was that voter turnout at the October 2008 election was the lowest in Canadian history (CBC News 2008). Regardless of the reasons, this notable absence of media interest and serious pushback helped keep the Conservative Government firmly in the saddle: it was exercising crisis leadership by default.