Harper Responds to the Washington Times

[Kiraly]

Washington Times Link

For the record: While, unlike the current Liberal government, I have always supported free trade, there is a deep concern in Canada about the commitment of the current U.S. administration and Congress to free trade. The United States is withholding some $5 billion in duties held from Canadian softwood lumber producers, despite the fact that a NAFTA panel has ruled that these duties are illegal.

    In a recent speech, I stated that Canada must determine "the willingness of the United States to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanism and to subordinate domestic political pressures to a shared system of rules" and that "if this is not a direction in which the United States wishes to go, then Canada will have to make other long-term choices in its economic infrastructure," including expanded trade relationships with Asian countries such as India, Japan, and China.

Click the link above to read the entire letter.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Click the link above to read the entire letter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/2005...81526-4938r.htm

Click the link above to read what Stephen Harper is replying to.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Here's what Stephen Harper is replying to:

Gift from Canada?

By Patrick Basham

December 2, 2005

Why does President Bush hope Christmas comes a little late this year? Because on Jan. 23, Canada may elect the most pro-American leader in the Western world. Free-market economist Stephen Harper, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, is pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative. Move over Tony Blair: If elected, Mr. Harper will quickly become Mr. Bush's new best friend internationally and the poster boy for his ideal foreign leader.

Both north and south of the U.S.-Canada border, this vote matters. Canadians are facing an election that may be the closest in a generation. The first opinion poll of the campaign, a new CanWest News Service/Global News survey by Ipsos Reid, finds Prime Minister Paul Martin's center-left Liberal Party tied with Harper's Conservatives at 31 percent support each. Over the cold, wintry eight-week campaign, there is everything to play for on both sides of the partisan and ideological divide.

If Martin's Liberal Party is re-elected for the fourth consecutive time, Canadian taxpayers will continue footing the bill for an expensive welfare state epitomized by its archaic government-run health-care system. Social policy experimentation on issues such as drugs and homosexual rights will continue in an incremental but decidedly progressive direction.

What will happen if Mr. Harper's Conservatives win? Most important, Canada will have its first leader in living memory who actually believes Big Government is a real problem. A Prime Minister Harper may not be able to pass all the legislation he wants, but he would push to cut taxes and spending and the regulatory burden on Canada's business sector.

The Liberals count on their overblown reputation for sound economic stewardship over the last decade to carry them across finish line in first place. In addition, a close race will undoubtedly feature much negative advertising. This pretty much guarantees the Liberals will use the nationalism card against the Conservatives. In practice, this means crude anti-American rhetoric to appeal to undecided electors of the vote-rich province of Ontario -- the same voters who decided the last election, 17 months ago, following a Liberal campaign that successfully tarred Mr. Harper as "too pro-American."

The Conservatives, meanwhile, could benefit from a growing public sense that, 12 years after the reins last changed hands, it may be time for a change. This sentiment has been reinforced by the recent judicial investigation into a corruption scandal surrounding the Liberal Party's past funding of pro-Liberal advertising agencies in Quebec.

Though the judicial report did not implicate Mr. Martin, it documented kickbacks among federal Liberal politicians, senior federal bureaucrats and advertising agency heads, thereby tarnishing the legacy of former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Mr. Martin's predecessor. The findings also have irreparably harmed the Liberals' short-term prospects in Quebec, a shake-up that has proven a boon to the separatist movement in the populous and predominantly French-speaking province.

Though still a young man in political terms, Stephen Harper may not receive a better opportunity to gain power and to steer Canada in a more conservative direction. If he and his fellow Conservatives can seize this opportunity to recast the policy debate, it will reveal a great deal about the evolving nature of Canadian political culture.

A Harper victory may prove to be the exception to the international rule -- a rare foreign event that manages to put a smile on President George W. Bush's face.

Patrick Basham is senior fellow in the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Here's what Stephen Harper is replying to:

Check this out :

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...t=0entry81490

[Biblio Bibuli]

Check this out :

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/index.p...t=0entry81490

[August1991]

The original column, 'Gift from Canada' by Patrick Basham in the Washington Times, is available here.

This is Harper's reply, as it exists on the Washington Times web site (click down) . I have copied the entire reply here since I believe this is in the public domain. I have not found it elsewhere on the Internet, nor an easy link.

[To the Editor,]

Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute calls me "pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto, and socially conservative" ("Gift from Canada?" Commentary, Dec. 2). While I certainly consider myself to be a friend of the United States, I am afraid this greatly oversimplifies my positions.

For the record: While, unlike the current Liberal government, I have always supported free trade, there is a deep concern in Canada about the commitment of the current U.S. administration and Congress to free trade. The United States is withholding some $5 billion in duties held from Canadian softwood lumber producers, despite the fact that a NAFTA panel has ruled that these duties are illegal.

In a recent speech, I stated that Canada must determine "the willingness of the United States to strengthen the dispute resolution mechanism and to subordinate domestic political pressures to a shared system of rules" and that "if this is not a direction in which the United States wishes to go, then Canada will have to make other long-term choices in its economic infrastructure," including expanded trade relationships with Asian countries such as India, Japan, and China.

On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction.

While I think that the Kyoto Treaty is deeply flawed, I support developing a plan, in coordination with the United States and other countries, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing new technologies and energy conservation.

And while I have promised a free vote in Canada's parliament to reconsider the recent change of law to allow same-sex marriages in Canada, and will vote myself for a return to the traditional definition of marriage, I have said any changes must protect the existing status of same-sex couples who have been legally married. As well, a new Conservative government will not initiate or support any effort to pass legislation restricting abortion in Canada.

Despite my differences on many issues with some American conservative politicians, I look forward to a cooperative, constructive relationship with the United States as our principal trading partner and ally under a new Conservative government.

HON. STEPHEN HARPER

House of Commons

Ottawa

[August1991]

Now, with that done, I must say that Harper has written an absolutely wonderful letter to a right wing American newspaper.

I recall reading that column on the weekend and wondering if the Canadian Left would pick up on it. Harper has pre-empted them, and wisely done it. Harper's a quick study.

I am more convinced than ever that I would love to see Harper as PM. The breath of fresh air would be remarkable.

Note to Harper's speechwriters: I would have added a Mulroney flourish that Americans should be grateful to have such a civilized neighbour as Canada to their north.

[cybercoma]

I have no doubt in my mind that Harper would make a phenomenal Prime Minister.

[Riverwind]

I have no doubt in  my mind that Harper would make a phenomenal Prime Minister.

Well he's taken long enough to show it: that letter demonstrates exactly the qualities I would expect in a PM. Confident without being arrogant, principled but understanding the need to accommodate other opinions.

None of the angry man image that he been presenting for the last few months.

The conservatives need to get the message in that letter out to the public.

[Slavik44]

I will tip my hat off to Harper on that letter, if only he could get Canadian News papers to print his letters.

[newbie]

I even admit it is very diplomatic and well drafted.

[August1991]

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper appeared to distance himself from the U.S. administration Monday, pointing out that his positions on many issues differ from those of American conservatives.

Harper sent a letter to the editor of the Washington Times in response to a Dec. 2 column by Patrick Basham of the Cato Institute titled "Gift from Canada?"

CBC

Am I wrong in seeing this report as "Harper is a scary-can't trust-phony who pretends to be a nice guy?"

If Paul Martin's office had prepared a letter to an American newspaper, would the CBC (or The Toronto Star) have treated it the same way?

And why does any of this matter? Why did our PM share a rostrum with an ex-US President in the middle of a Canadian federal election campaign?

[kimmy]

rostrum

Rostrum? Did somebody say rostrum? (looks around for The Terrible Sweal)

Am I wrong in seeing this report as "Harper is a scary-can't trust-phony who pretends to be a nice guy?"

I do detect the tone you're sensing. I would say subtly so-- it is more in word choices than in the content of the piece.

Phrases such as "Harper says" and "Harper appeared to" carry a connotation of suspicion. One tends to use "says" as a qualifier, and "appeared to" when one is unconvinced as to whether the appearance is genuine:

OJ says he was nowhere near the area when Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered.

OJ appeared to express shock at the tragedy.

There's also the quotes around Harper's "great disappointment". While it's technically accurate to use quotes around it since it's the exact phrase Harper used in his letter, the way the quote was inserted made it look like "scare quotes"-- the practice of using quotation marks around terms the author is skeptical of, or to indicate terminology which the author considers dubious. When one reads "scare quotes", one tends to imagine the author speaking the phrase with a sneering scarcasm.

OJ says he will continue his "search for the real killer."

As I'm involved in editing fiction for a number of authors-- none published yet and in writing fiction of my own-- not published yet either --I've learned to pay a lot of attention to word choice and connotations and subtext... and I have a feeling that the writer of this pieces is someone who is trying to do an objective piece, but on a personal level she doesn't trust believe Harper in the least.

And why does any of this matter?  Why did our PM share a rostrum with an ex-US President in the middle of a Canadian federal election campaign?

Canadians don't hate American presidents. Canadians just hate this one. And his dad. ...and the cowboy. And that guy with the tapes. But Canadians loved the chubby guy that got with the fat skank.

PMPM was no doubt thrilled to hang out with Bill Clinton. Frank McKenna was no doubt happy to help out his friends by getting scolded by the current US administration. All of it seems to have been terribly well timed, from a Liberals point of view.

-k

[shoop]

Brilliant quite brilliant.

I have a friend who was a White House intern after Monica, but before the shit hit the fan. One of her fellow interns was a knockout. One event Billy walked in and looked her up, down and up again.

The knockout was never in the same room with Billy again!

Canadians don't hate American presidents.  Canadians just hate this one. And his dad. ...and the cowboy. And that guy with the tapes.  But Canadians loved the chubby guy that got with the fat skank.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PocketRocket]

Ah well, back to the main topic; Harper seems to be catching on a bit.

This letter was well-penned and articulate.

He says his piece like a statesman, without any whining, wingeing (been a while since we've seen that word) or finger-pointing, while at the same time still getting across his point about no WMD's and faulty intelligence (is there any other kind??).

I also heard him say something on CBC radio the other day that sounded intelligent and well-reasoned. And just when I thought he was hopeless.

Hell, if he keeps this up I may have to vote for him.

[HistoryBuff44]

I hope more people find their way to reading that article. I think its an unfair image that has been painted of Harper. I have been reading threads posted by people on the G&M. Some people write things and I cant help but wonder where they are getting these opinions from.

I very much liked the reply that Harper sent and i like his plans; so far he has my vote.

[Black Dog]

Am I wrong in seeing this report as "Harper is a scary-can't trust-phony who pretends to be a nice guy?"

Yes. This article was basically a reprint of Harper's letter.

Phrases such as "Harper says" and "Harper appeared to" carry a connotation of suspicion.

The phrase "Harper says" doesn't appear in the article. As for "appeared to" a quick search of the phrase on the CBC website turned up 4 uses in regard to Harper and 5 for Paul Martin.

There's also the quotes around Harper's "great disappointment". While it's technically accurate to use quotes around it since it's the exact phrase Harper used in his letter, the way the quote was inserted made it look like "scare quotes"--

I disagree. In the context of the paragraph, the quotes are correct. The direct attribution of the like "great dissapointment" gives the statement more heft than it would without the quotes, where it would look like simple editorializing on the part of the author: remember, people reading this article might not necessarily see the original letter.

I've learned to pay a lot of attention to word choice and connotations and subtext... and I have a feeling that the writer of this pieces is someone who is trying to do an objective piece, but on a personal level she doesn't trust believe Harper in the least.

Meh. I think people are so convinced of the meme that the CBC has it in for Harper that the CBC could print an article on why Harper would make the best Prime Minister ever, and Conservative supporters would still rail at it.

[normanchateau]

Harper's letter is good. No question about it. Nevertheless, the Washington Times is correct in describing Harper as a social conservative. He is a social conservative. It takes a social conservative to favour permanent criminal records and potential jail sentences for possession of a few grams of marijuana. It's a position shared by Stephen Harper and George Bush. It's a position opposed by the NDP, BQ, Liberals and 69% of the Canadian population.

Of course there is other evidence as well that Harper is a social conservative. Canadians tend not to elect social conservatives. The last three Conservative PMs, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell were socially liberal. No matter how many letters to the editor Stephen Harper writes, there's no escaping his social conservatism. There's no way that Quebec these days will ever vote for a social conservative and Quebec seats are essential for a federal party to have a stable majority. I predict that the next CPC leader will not be a social conservative.

[shoop]

How often had you heard him before the time on CBC Radio? He is an intelligent, well-reasoned man. The more people listen to him, instead of what other people say about him, the more they like him.

I also heard him say something on CBC radio the other day that sounded  intelligent and well-reasoned. And just when I thought he was hopeless.

Hell, if he keeps this up I may have to vote for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Guest eureka]

Did anyone actually read the letter? It saya just what the Americans want to hear. Harper supported the "removal" of Saddam but he will not send troops. Harper wants to address climate change through new technologies and energy conservation.

That means, that he would have joined the "coalition" to attack Iraq but he won't send troops now that Canadians will not elect him if he wants to do that.

That means that he is deeply in the pockets of the energy industries and will do nothing to ameliorate the looming climatic disaster. Who knows that new technologies will be devaloped - they certainly will not in the time span that they will be needed. Conservation is a joke considering the magnitude of the problem.

The Kyoto part of his letter must have been vetted by Cheney.

[kimmy]

The phrase "Harper says" doesn't appear in the article.

It's the headline of the article!

As for "appeared to" a quick search of the phrase on the CBC website turned up 4 uses in regard to Harper and 5 for Paul Martin.

Interesting. Did you use a computerized search method, or was it strictly by hand?

There's also the quotes around Harper's "great disappointment". While it's technically accurate to use quotes around it since it's the exact phrase Harper used in his letter, the way the quote was inserted made it look like "scare quotes"--

I disagree. In the context of the paragraph, the quotes are correct. The direct attribution of the like "great dissapointment" gives the statement more heft than it would without the quotes, where it would look like simple editorializing on the part of the author: remember, people reading this article might not necessarily see the original letter.

The article does indeed provide an editorial summary of Harper's letter, right from the start:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper appeared to distance himself from the U.S. administration Monday, pointing out that his positions on many issues differ from those of American conservatives.

The article quotes liberally from the article to which Harper was responding, including using the

"pro-free trade, pro-Iraq war, anti-Kyoto and socially conservative"

line twice... but contains only an editorial summary of Harper's response to it, quoting only "great disappointment" from Harper's response.

Meh. I think people are so convinced of the meme that the CBC has it in for Harper that the  CBC could print an article on why Harper would make the best Prime Minister ever, and Conservative supporters would still rail at it.

Well, when the CBC puts Harperstein on their news page, they're not exactly doing much to avoid the perception, are they.

If the CBC endorsed Harper as the prime minister, how would his supporters react? Well, probably shock, confusion, maybe even suspicion... check the calendar to see if it was April 1, wonder if they've crossed the dimensional threshold to Earth-2 (is that the one where Lex Luthor is the only hero on earth, and has to fend off the evil schemes of Superman, Wonderwoman, and Batman all by himself? Or was that Earth-Prime? Anyway, whichever it is, that would be the only place where you'd find CBC endorsing Harper.) How Conservative supporters would react if the CBC endorsed Harper is a purely hypothetical question, since it's not like it would ever happen.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the CBC has an editorial bias. They've given us lots to wonder at over the past year or so. We've seen at least a couple instances where they got on stories unfavorable to the federal Liberals far behind other english language media outfits. While other media outlets were reporting on Harper's "special prosecutor" announcement, CBC was focused on whether the announcement indicated a rift between Harper and Mackay. We've seen them in the recent past play up the staff turnover at the CPC communications group. Not that any of this-- or even all of it-- proves bias, but do you think the question itself is unfair?

-k

[Black Dog]

It's the headline of the article!

So it is. Be that is it may, it's a pretty standard useage.

Interesting. Did you use a computerized search method, or was it strictly by hand?

CBC's search function.

I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the CBC has an editorial bias. They've given us lots to wonder at over the past year or so. We've seen at least a couple instances where they got on stories unfavorable to the federal Liberals far behind other english language media outfits. While other media outlets were reporting on Harper's "special prosecutor" announcement, CBC was focused on whether the announcement indicated a rift between Harper and Mackay. We've seen them in the recent past play up the staff turnover at the CPC communications group. Not that any of this-- or even all of it-- proves bias, but do you think the question itself is unfair?

No, I don't think the question is unfair. But I do think the perception of the anti-Harper CBC causes people to seek out bias where none may lie. I think the CBC article is a pretty fair summary of Harper's response.

[normanchateau]

Why would the CBC have a pro-Martin bias? As Minister of Finance, he slashed hundreds of millions from the CBC budget causing numerous people to be fired.

His cuts to CBC were even larger than those proposed by Preston Manning. At the time of those cuts, only the NDP stood up for the CBC.

[kimmy]

It's the headline of the article!

So it is. Be that is it may, it's a pretty standard useage.

Indeed. But can you blame me for wondering if somebody other than Harper might have gotten less suspicious-sounding headline?

Scrolling down the page, we find

Liberal apologizes for saying Harper day-care bucks may buy beer, popcorn

...suppose for a moment that it said "Liberal says he is sorry for beer and popcorn blunder"

Let's pause to consider the difference between the headline the CBC uses, and the one I just created. First off, the CBC's headline is more assertive of the apology's authenticity, while the one I made up is more skeptical that he's actually. Secondly, the headline I made up uses the word "blunder", which even Scott Reid acknowledges it was. The CBC headline is far less judgmental of that.

I think you could argue that either the CBC headline or the one I wrote would be equally accurate, but I think the difference in tone is apparent. I don't think it's far afield to wonder if the CBC gives the Liberals more headlines of the former type, and the Conservatives more headlines of the latter. Perhaps I'll do an informal survey on the topic at some point. In this instance, the CBC headline is

Harper says he has 'many differences' with U.S. conservatives

...which has, well, first off the "says", secondly the semi-"scare quotes", and thirdly the mention of US conservatives-- which neither Harper nor the column by Basham brought into it-- is a reminder to the reader of what Harper wishes to avoid being associated with. (one could almost picture it being extended to read "Harper says he has 'many differences' with U.S. conservatives ...but does he really?") The headline is accurate, but in tone it's a lot more like my fictional headline than the one the CBC gave the popcorn thing.

Is it fair to wonder whether Martin might have got a headline more like "Martin emphasizes differences with US administration"?

No, I don't think the question is unfair. But I do think the perception of the anti-Harper CBC causes people to seek out bias where none may lie. I think the CBC article is a pretty fair summary of Harper's response.

Arguably. As I said earlier, I think the content is fair but I'm skeptical of the tone. Have CPC supporters become so skeptical of the CBC's reportage of the Conservatives that they read too much into things? Entirely possible. It's quite likely that one could go through the CBC website and find articles about the Liberals and find them to have a negative tone for the same reasons I sense this one to be negative. It's very possible.

But in my view the CBC has all but invited such skepticism upon themselves through their track record.

-k

[Biblio Bibuli]

I recall reading that column on the weekend and wondering if the Canadian Left would pick up on it.  Harper has pre-empted them, and wisely done it.  Harper's a quick study.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I kindly provided the article here (straight off the presses).... Black Dog replied with:

"That article reads like a piece from the Liberal campaign office."

But now that Harper himself has brought attention to it, I think BD might have been wrong.

Harper WANTS us all to see that Washington Times article.

Why?