Harper Interview Sets the Record Straight

August1991 · October 8, 2006

Harper had a fascinating interview in Calgary with a journalist of the Sun chain and answered smartly made questions.

On Liberals:

"The Liberals don't have anything to attack the government on so they have to make stuff up," says Harper, looking relaxed in a downtown hotel suite.
He's referring to the attacks interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham made in the House of Commons against Reid, whom Graham accused of making inflammatory comments about Muslims.

The next day, Graham was forced to apologize -- he was quoting another person with a similar name. A big oops.

On defence of religion legislation:

"It's completely false and just speculation," says Harper, who is spending Thanksgiving here with family and friends.
"There is no such proposal. The government is very committed to bringing forward a free vote on the marriage issue, probably this fall, and all this speculation about what we might do afterward is just speculation.

"There have been no cabinet discussions or anything on this."

On the why of the same-sex marriage legislation:

"Because we made a commitment on it and we're going to fulfill our commitment," says Harper. "We're pretty proud so far of doing what we said we were going to do."

On complaints that the Tories' accountability act will make access to information more difficult:

"That is completely false," retorts Harper.
"That's coming out of the information commissioner's office and there's no substance to it. It's completely without foundation," he says, blaming the disagreement on "an extreme view in the information commissioner's office that things like journalistic sources should not be protected.

"The bottom line is, this act opens up information, it puts a range of Crown corporations and foundations under Access to Information for the first time in history."

On journalists:

Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is now looking into an incident in which government officials reportedly disclosed to the PMO the name of a journalist who had made a request under the Access to Information Act.
Harper says flatly that he doesn't know the names of journalists making such requests, "and I'm not sure why it would matter anyway. I mean, why would I care?"

Well, some people would say it's so you can punish the journalists who ask?

"I punish them all anyway," he quips, then breaks into a long and sustained laugh at the expense of his own thorny relationship with the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

"Look, I don't assume any of them are friends and I assume they'll ask for information -- that's what access is for," he adds.

[How many commissioners do we have in Ottawa? Trudeau created these positions to have a "counterweight" to government power. But then he (and Chretien in particular) just named Liberal hacks. The Tories now face an army of partisan civil servants will official sounding names.]

On recent cuts in "illiteracy" programmes:

"The issue isn't for or against, the issue is about spending money to get results. This government is spending more than $80 million on adult literacy in the next year."
At that, Harper refers to a recent Winnipeg Sun column that pointed out the groups that had funding cuts don't actually help teach people to read, they just do advocacy work. Those are the kinds of programs Harper says his government cut: Ineffective ones.

On Afghanistan:

"I believe in this mission very intensely," he says, leaning forward in his chair.
He points out that before the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001, only 700,000 children were in school -- all of them boys.

"Today, more than 7 million children are in school and one-third of them are girls," he says proudly.

[i know that Harper frequently links social change and our Afghan mission but IMV, that's an unwise link. We are not in Afghanistan to change the world. We're there to make the world safe for democracy.]

On the job of PM:

"The biggest surprise of being prime minister is how much of my time is taken up with foreign affairs. It's enormous. Everything we do now is global, it's just the nature of the world."
Harper not only enjoys being a player in that world, he's been impressive and effective too. That makes him the bogeyman of Liberal nightmares -- because he's the real deal.

Foreign Affairs are federal jurisdiction but if Harper were smart, he'd ignore the sychophancy of a G-8 summit or the power of the PMO switchboard and concentrate on what ordinary Canadians want.

I was astounded by his speech in Calgary in which he said that the deaths of Canadian soldier in Afghanistan made Canada a "player". These soldiers did not die so that the Prime Minister of Canada can command attention at an international meeting. The stakes are higher than one man's ego.

jdobbin · October 8, 2006

On Afghanistan:
"I believe in this mission very intensely," he says, leaning forward in his chair.
He points out that before the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001, only 700,000 children were in school -- all of them boys.

"Today, more than 7 million children are in school and one-third of them are girls," he says proudly.

[i know that Harper frequently links social change and our Afghan mission but IMV, that's an unwise link. We are not in Afghanistan to change the world. We're there to make the world safe for democracy.]

I was astounded by his speech in Calgary in which he said that the deaths of Canadian soldier in Afghanistan made Canada a "player". These soldiers did not die so that the Prime Minister of Canada can command attention at an international meeting. The stakes are higher than one man's ego.

There are 200,000 fewer children going to school this year than last in Afghanistan.

Troop levels are higher now than they were in 2001 by a long shot and casualty rates have multiplied for civilians and for NATO and other forces in the country.

The recent spike in support for the war came with a deadline in most people's minds. 2010 is it. Support, however, could crumble for the government if there is very little to show in Afghanistan for security and reconstruction.

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

The recent spike in support for the war came with a deadline in most people's minds. 2010 is it. Support, however, could crumble for the government if there has very little to show in Afghanistan for security and reconstruction.

Really?

How do you know what was in the mind of most respondents to the poll?

I take your silence on the other issues means you support Harper on all non-Afghanistan issues. :lol:

jdobbin · October 8, 2006

"Indeed, the Ipsos Reid poll suggests Canadians' support for the war has an expiry date.

Fifty-one per cent of respondents believe the troops should exit Afghanistan in 2009, when Canada's military commitment ends, regardless of the level of success achieved."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...ca3&k=77709

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

Hmmm, 49% of Canadians *don't* think we should exit in 2009.

But support for the mission will crumble?

sharkman · October 8, 2006

An interesting interview, covering many issues. He should do this a little more often IMV.

gerryhatrick · October 8, 2006

Hmmm, 49% of Canadians *don't* think we should exit in 2009.
But support for the mission will crumble?

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.

Harper even used the occasion of a red Friday support the troops demonstration to do it, for gawdsake.

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.
Harper even used the occasion of a red Friday support the troops demonstration to do it, for gawdsake.

Could you provide a little support to actually prove the govermnet acted dishonestly?

gerryhatrick · October 8, 2006

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.
Harper even used the occasion of a red Friday support the troops demonstration to do it, for gawdsake.

Could you provide a little support to actually prove the govermnet acted dishonestly?

There is a topic on the PM dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops. I'll bump it for you.

It details the example referenced above (what he said at the red Friday demonstration) as well as two other examples.

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

There is a topic on the PM dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops. I'll bump it for you.
It details the example referenced above (what he said at the red Friday demonstration) as well as two other examples.

Youd could just provide the link. :rolleyes:

That is if you had one.

jdobbin · October 8, 2006

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.
Harper even used the occasion of a red Friday support the troops demonstration to do it, for gawdsake.

I think Karzai's visit helped bring support for the mission. The population of Canada is split on how long to stay. The tour is over in 2009. If the war continues and Canada and no progess is made, there will likely be less support for continuing.

Some people say that setting any type of deadline for the mission helps terrorism or encourages insurgency. However, if the misssion continues two years with little or no progress, the government should be allowed another two or more years? And two years after that? Two beyond that? I don't think any Canadian would be anxious to support a fight that isn't showing the least bit of progress towards resolution.

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

I think Karzai's visit helped bring support for the mission. The population of Canada is split on how long to stay. The tour is over in 2009. If the war continues and Canada and no progess is made, there will likely be less support for continuing.
Some people say that setting any type of deadline for the mission helps terrorism or encourages insurgency. However, if the misssion continues two years with little or no progress, the government should be allowed another two or more years? And two years after that? Two beyond that? I don't think any Canadian would be anxious to support a fight that isn't showing the least bit of progress towards resolution.

Say what you will, but the change in public opinion is good news for the Conservatives and their re-election chances.

There will definitely be another election before the current tour of duty is over.

But with the public warming up to the mission it appears that much more likely the Conservatives will win the next election.

jdobbin · October 8, 2006

British and Canadian military and defence leaders urge NATO to pull weight or risk Afghans turning on NATO.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/08/afghanistan.html

Support for the mission could also wane fast if NATO keeps Canada out on the frontline and spring starts with Afghans turning against the mission.

The British commander called it the "tipping point."

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

British and Canadian military and defence leaders urge NATO to pull weight or risk Afghans turning on NATO.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/08/afghanistan.html

Support for the mission could also wane fast if NATO keeps Canada out on the frontline and spring starts with Afghans turning against the mission.

The British commander called it the "tipping point."

Again, another example of how support for the mission *could* wane.

But how the mission has been gaining support in recently. All that much more support for the Conservatives to win the next election ... an Iggy to win the leadership for that matter.

jdobbin · October 8, 2006

Britain's latest poll shows Brits want out of the Afghan war by the end of the year.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/...ent_5176960.htm

Ricki Bobbi · October 8, 2006

Britain's latest poll shows Brits want out of the Afghan war by the end of the year.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-10/...ent_5176960.htm

Great.

Why is this post in a Canadian politics forum?

betsy · October 8, 2006

Thanks for sharing that August! It made my day.

Btw, Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!

killjoy · October 9, 2006

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.

That would be so much more compelling if "Canadains" in this case didn't about to a total of you.

.

Ricki Bobbi · October 9, 2006

That would be so much more compelling if "Canadains" in this case didn't about to a total of you.

You've got to understand that the poster you are responding to sees himself as the supreme aribter of how real Canadians should act politically and judge things.

Canadians are now supporting the mission. The *only* way for that to happen is some sort of unethical behaviour by Prime Minister Harper and his Government. :rolleyes:

Hicksey · October 9, 2006

That would be so much more compelling if "Canadains" in this case didn't about to a total of you.

You've got to understand that the poster you are responding to sees himself as the supreme aribter of how real Canadians should act politically and judge things.

Canadians are now supporting the mission. The *only* way for that to happen is some sort of unethical behaviour by Prime Minister Harper and his Government.

Some people just don't tire and love to believe that anything that doesn't happen in harmony with their view of the world must be the result of a vast right wing conspiracy to make it so.

The rest of us live in the real world.

Ricki Bobbi · October 9, 2006

Some people just don't tire and love to believe that anything that doesn't happen in harmony with their view of the world must be the result of a vast right wing conspiracy to make it so.
The rest of us live in the real world.

Yeah. Ignoring those people, I have a question.

What has caused the change? Could it be Iggy bring the clear front-runner in the Liberal leadership race? A positive benefit of a general belief that Harper is doing a good job? The overall ineffectiveness of the opposition parties? That the Canadian people do actually support the mission?

Hicksey · October 9, 2006

Some people just don't tire and love to believe that anything that doesn't happen in harmony with their view of the world must be the result of a vast right wing conspiracy to make it so.
The rest of us live in the real world.

Yeah. Ignoring those people, I have a question.

What has caused the change? Could it be Iggy bring the clear front-runner in the Liberal leadership race? A positive benefit of a general belief that Harper is doing a good job? The overall ineffectiveness of the opposition parties? That the Canadian people do actually support the mission?

Its too hard to tell. While a snapshot of things today would present the scenario you posted, just two weeks ago it wasn't the case -- but we were still hearing 'right wing conspiracy' then.

I mentioned it because my point was that they refuse to admit they ever do anything wrong (or anyone else ever does something right as PM) out of their belief of entitlement to the position of PM. How could anyone else ever get it right? If they don't look like the righteous ones the obvious choice is that someone must be cheating to make it so because they are entitled to lead this country.

Argus · October 9, 2006

Hmmm, 49% of Canadians *don't* think we should exit in 2009.

But support for the mission will crumble?

It's quite possible Canadians have become confused due to our leadership dishonestly equating support for the mission with support for the troops.

Or to opponents dishonesty mixing Afghanistan and Iraq together.

It is disingenuous to separate "the mission" from "the soldiers."

The soldiers are the mission; they certainly look at it that way.

A great many of the shrillest voices raised in opposition to the Afghanistan deployment have a long and well-documented aversion to all things military. These are the same individuals who raged against the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, mostly because it was U.S.-led — and the Americans are, you might have heard, responsible for global terror. (This is, essentially, the Osama bin Laden/Ayman al-Zawahiri manifesto.)

Lips were zipped when the Taliban toppled so easily from power and when Kabul exploded with joy as the Northern Alliance rode into the capital.

The same dissidents have crept back to their rhetorical platforms, cravenly conflating Afghanistan with Iraq, and coalescing now — dishonestly, in my view — around Canada's sacrifices, purportedly pointless and for a doomed cause.

Why we should care about Afghanistan

Ricki Bobbi · October 9, 2006

This could be part of the reason for the shift in public opinion.

The above linked column is one of *two* columns in the Toronto Star today supporting the mission.

Call me crazy, but if the Red Star is supporting military action then it is likely a majority of Canadians will support it. (Reason being that any right of centre voter will likely support the mission. The Star's opinion pages can swing centre and centre-left voters.)

gerryhatrick · October 9, 2006

My goodness, what a smooochfest!

Methinks little miss Licia has a crush on her PM. She certainly slavishly fed us whatever he had to say without question or challange. Is she the CPC communications officer?

She even accused those evil Liberals of "making up" the story about the CPC preparing legislation over the marriage thing. Um, wasn't that a story broken by the Globe and Mail and confirmed by Vic Toews?

Sun Media, FOX news print edition! :lol: