Month: October 2007

The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games will announce details of the ticket program tomorrow:

The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games are a global event and will be an experience of a lifetime for everyone who attends,” said Dave Cobb, VANOC Executive Vice President, Revenue, Marketing and Communications. “It’s been our goal since day one to develop a fair, affordable and accessible Olympic ticketing program and we look forward to sharing the details of the plan this week with Canadians and potential spectators from around the world.”

VANOC’s announcement on Thursday, October 11 will include the on-sale date for tickets to the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games, how and where the public can access tickets, the pricing of the tickets to each event and a flavour of what the public can expect to experience when they attend Vancouver 2010 events.

Well, Danny Williams is still Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. And sadly, his Opposition — and yes, Virginia, Danny will have an Opposition — will not include Elvis Loveless. Though I don’t know him, I was rooting for him largely because of his name and also, because some Newfoundlanders here in the capital whose opinion I respect, were also rooting for Elvis.

But, sadly, Tracey Perry, the Progressive Conservative candidate in Fortune Bay—Cape La Hune, proved to be nearly twice the candidate Elvis was — beating him 2,539 to 1,395.

Elvis, a Liberal candidate who once worked in former Premier Brian Tobin’s office, shouldn’t feel so bad. His leader, Gerry Reid lost by seven votes in his riding and, across the province, just three Liberals were elected. I’m calling it a Danny Tsunami. They join NDP Leader Lorraine Michael — the only NDP candidate to win — as King Danny’s opposition.

 

 

The Western Standard, a voice of (largely) Western-based Conservatives, has shut down its print edition. Publisher Ezra Levant says the twice-a-month publication wasn't close to making a profit. The Standard claims it had a readership of about 250,000.

Even before they saw the evening newscasts or read the newspaper coverage, staff in the Prime Minister’s Office say they were pleased with the press conference Stephen Harper gave yesterday afternoon in the National Press Theatre (NPT). It was the first time since he became prime minister that Harper used the NPT, the preferred venue of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.

Moreover, it was the first time in more than a year that Harper gave a press conference in Ottawa in which a member of his staff did not act as moderator. That issue had sparked a long-running battle between the PMO communications staff and the Parliamentary Press Gallery (PPG). PPG executives had argued that one of their own ought to be moderator and that ‘a list’ of questioners maintained by a member of the PMO’s staff had too much potential  for abuse.

Yesterday, Hélène Buzzetti, a journalist with Le Devoir and a member of the PPG executive, was the moderator whereas, for most of the last year, it was Dimitri Soudas, the Deputy Press Secretary for the Prime Minister.

A senior advisor I spoke with last night in the PMO says Harper himself was very pleased with the press conference. Harper believes he was able to get across a few key messages and that the diversity and quality of questions allowed him a chance to speak about several topics. In fact, advisors and the PM are kicking around the idea of doing a Q&A session with reporters on a quarterly basis.

“The preparation is tough. It’s like spotting for an exam,” an advisor said.

The advisor says the idea to hold the presser camer from Harper himself. “No one would even think of pitching such an idea to him,” the advisor said, a recognition, perhaps that advising the PM to ‘make nice’ with the media was probably a contributing factor to the departure of William Stairs as Harper’s director of communications and his replacement by the current incumbent, Sandra Buckler. 

On Tuesday morning, Harper half-jokingly said to some key staffers that he didn’t think he’d been in the media enough in the last several days. That, as it turned out, was his main motivation — he just felt he hadn’t been getting enough press. And so, after thinking about it, Harper himself proposed to do a Q&A session and do it yesterday. So far as timing goes, yesterday would have been the last possible day to do it as Harper has now headed west towards Calgary to spend Thanksgiving with his mother and then when he returns to Ottawa it would be too close to the Throne Speech for him to do such a presser.

The idea of having Harper read an initial statement or make an announcement was considered, then rejected. It was also Harper’s idea to use the National Press Theatre. Up until yesterday, Harper, on the advice of his staff, has held pressers most often in the foyer of the House of Commons. He once told his staff he didn’t think he looked good sitting down behind a desk as one does at the NPT. Still, he thought the NPT would fit the bill and so he picked that that venue. Then, in the moring yesterday, he and his staff went through a list of likely questions and responses — many of which he never had to use.

For example, Harper was expecting journalists to ask about the Ontario election, where Progressive Conservative leader John Tory is trailing badly in the polls. Harper’s response, had he been asked, would have been that he supports John Tory — and then Harper would have added  something along the lines that he supports all Progressive Conservatives who are seeking to be premiers of their province — even Danny Williams!

 

The Conference Board of Canada took a look at the problems in the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market and has concluded that it’ s unlikely the problems will spread north.

CANADIAN ECONOMY LIKELY TO OVERCOME U.S. SUB-PRIME CRISIS

Toronto, October 4, 2007 – Canada’s economy should emerge without serious damage from the U.S. sub-prime debacle—if the U.S. economy can stay out of recession—according to a Conference Board of Canada analysis released at its Business Outlook briefing today.

“The combination of the strong Canadian dollar and slowing U.S. growth will decrease exports in sectors such as wood products and automobiles, but the Canadian domestic economy remains robust and should offset declines in exports,” said Kip Beckman, Principal Research Associate and author of The U.S. Housing Market Meltdown: Implications for Canada. “In addition, most Canadian banks have limited direct exposure to the sub-prime mortgage market, and should be able to weather the storm. [Read the Conference Board report]

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the National Press Theatre yesterday, responds to questions about the Afghanistan mission:

Jennifer Ditchburn, Canadian Press: Mr. Harper, on Afghanistan, a two-pronged question: What do you say to people who say why should we, why should our men and women in uniform be shouldering the burden in the most dangerous part of Afghanistan? Why doesn’t the rest of the world step up? We have been there long enough. And the second part of that question is, you talked in the spring about building a consensus on Afghanistan with the other parties. It is clear that consensus doesn’t exist. So how will Canada, Parliament and the Canadian people find out what we will be doing after February 2009?
Harper: Well, in terms of burden of other countries, we have been clear: Other countries have to do more. NATO has to do more. I think the future of NATO does hinge on this mission ultimately being successful.
As you know, several NATO countries have put their shoulder to the wheel, others not so much, but I do notice in the last several months, there have been a series of announcements of various countries who are putting in more troops. I think they are moving in the right direction.
It may not be enough or fast enough, but we obviously want to encourage that. I don’t think we encourage other people to do more by saying we will do less.
The question is why are we shouldering such a heavy burden? Because we are in one of the most difficult provinces, if not the most difficult province in the country. The decision to take the responsibility for that province was the decision of the previous government.
They weren’t offered a choice of you can take this province now and you get to change your mind later if it turns out to be too difficult. We took that responsibility as a country. I think we should see that responsibility through to the best of our ability. I think our men and women in uniform are committed to doing that. They are the ones who are making the sacrifice and, as I think I have told you before, I call the families when there are — I obviously speak to troops regularly — but I call families when there are losses and almost inevitably, what they demand of the government is not get out, they demand of the government that we complete the job in which their son or daughter strongly believed, or husband or wife strongly believed.
So we think we have a moral responsibility there. It is not a matter of just playing to the polls. Ultimately, in retrospect, the choice of the word “consensus” was wrong. I didn’t mean to imply we would get every party on side. What I simply meant to say was the government can’t obviously assure a majority vote on its own.
We have to have the support of some members of the opposition to get a majority vote in favour of deployment. We are committed to the principle that our military deployment should be supported by Parliament and we have also communicated clearly through our allies that future deployment will be dependent on getting that parliamentary support.

Andrew Mayeda, CanWest Prime Minister, you talked about completing the job in Afghanistan, but…the campaign is not going well on the ground. There has been an increase in IE attacks, there has been an increase in suicide bombings. The Canadians are essentially fighting for territory that they claimed last fall. I’m just wondering, in your opinion, militarily, is Canada winning the war?
Harper: Well, first of all, I can’t comment on the country as a whole. I can tell you that our commanders continue to believe we are making progress.
The fact of the matter is last year, the Taliban was often confronting Canadian troops in a conventional and offensive stance. That is not the case any longer. The Taliban has retreated purely to guerrilla and defensive tactics and so, in a sense, I think we have made some significant progress there.
But you know, I don’t think the objective of Canada, even in the long term, can be that we will root out every single piece of resistance to the government of Afghanistan.
I think our objective is to get security in Afghanistan to the point where the Afghans themselves can be responsible for their own security and hopefully, a state where other things will happen, where development will be able to proceed at an enhanced pace, where governance can be establishing through Kandahar province and Kandahar city.
So you know, our objective is not to fix all the problems of Afghanistan. It is to transfer a viable situation to the Afghan armed forces. We believe we are making progress in doing that, both in terms of the security that is being established and in terms of the training of the Afghan forces themselves, along with some of the initial steps that are being taken on development and governance and reconstruction and other matters.
We do have to lay out some timelines, some realistic timelines to achieve those things but I don’t think that timeline is necessarily today or necessarily February 2009 but we will address that as directly as we can in the Throne Speech.

Mike Blanchfield, Ottawa Citizen: Prime Minister, on Afghanistan, would you be willing to fight an election on the future of the mission if you thought that the debate wasn’t on a level that you thought was serious enough or that weighed the issues clearly enough or if you saw evidence, say, of partisan politics being played? You’ve described it as a moral responsibility and you’ve been quite forceful in that depiction of how you feel about it. How far would you be willing to go to do the right thing?
Harper: The Speech from the Throne will lay out what the government believes, where the government believes the country should head. And what we believe the major priorities are and what we intend to do on those major priorities.
It’s a decision of the opposition if they want to force an election on those things. Obviously, anything we put forward in the Speech from the Throne in a confidence vote are things that we are prepared to run on and prepared to defend in front of the Canadian population.
When it comes to matters of global security or leadership of a military deployment, I believe strongly that anyone who wants to possess the office of Prime Minister has to be prepared to make those kinds of decisions based on the long term best interest of the country, based on whether we fulfill our responsibilities to the poor people of Kandahar whose security we have accepted to take care of, at least in a transition period.
We have responsibilities to the international community with whom we must work on a range of international foreign affairs and defence issues and of course, we have a responsibility to the men and women of the Canadian Forces who we’ve asked to do a job and I think they expect that leaders will stick with those commitments, not abandon them at the first sign of wavering poll numbers or increasing casualties.
I think on these things, what the public is looking for is leadership and that we make decisions for the right reasons and I would urge anyone who aspires to the office of Prime Minister, I would say that I think it’s unwise politics and will be proven to be unwise politics, to play to short-term or uninformed political sentiment on issues that are so critical to the long-run interest and security of our country, to our obligations to others and frankly our obligations to our own men and women in uniform.
That’s what I will urge and hopefully, this debate won’t simply be about do we stay after 2009 or do we pull out after 2009, but the debate will be, what are the options in terms of staying or in terms of leaving or in terms of doing some things and not others? What are the options? What are the up sides and the down sides and what are the costs and what are demands on the military and what’s the best option?
You know, Mr. Dion, if you don’t mind me saying so, Mr. Dion has criticized me for many things. One of the things he criticized was that the last decision was taken too hastily.
Now, I think there’s, there’s some validity to that in the sense we’d only been a government three months and we were nine months away from a decision so we had to take a hasty decision. But I think there’s some validity in the criticism.
But I don’t think if you’re going to make that criticism, that you then turn around and say well, we want the government to make a decision on the next deployment two years in advance before we have any facts.
What all the members of the opposition like the government should be doing is trying to gather all the facts and determine what’s in Canada’s best interest and I don’t think our best interest is unrelated to the interests of the people we’re trying to help or of our fellow nations who are working with us on that particular mission.

Some excerpts from a press conference held by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, yesterday, at the National Press Theatre. I have lightly edited the remarks, usually for clarity (The PM tends to use the word 'obviously' a lot, for example, in the same way some speakers us 'uh' as they pause in their speech.):

Brian Laghi, The Globe and Mail: Prime Minister, I just would like to ask you about some of the demands that have been made by the various opposition parties with respect to the Throne Speech. Mr. Duceppe has said that a number of these demands aren’t negotiable. He mentioned the elimination of the spending power for example . . . and I’m wondering if these are negotiable items for you?
Harper: Well, let me just say that I think it has been an unusual couple of weeks in Canadian politics. We had the by-election results in Quebec. I know I’m not supposed to be an analyst but as an analyst, I wouldn’t have predicted that the results of those by-elections would be a message to Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Dion to make non-negotiable demands and otherwise demand a general election. That would not have been my interpretation of the by-elections, but, you know, Mr. Duceppe is responsible for his own political party, his own interpretation of the results and that is his decision.
The opposition has made a number of suggestions ranging from suggestions to demands — all three parties. We always listen very carefully to what the opposition says and we will attempt, as far as the Throne Speech can, to address head-on the issues that they have raised. We may not be giving them the policy they want, but we will try and address the issues and we will be seeking a mandate to govern and that is, I think, what a Throne Speech is all about.
I know the opposition has all kinds of demands. I respect that they have the right to make demands. At the same time, let me just say that the government has some things it wants to get done in this Throne Speech in this upcoming session of parliament.
We want to continue to raise Canada’s place in the world, defend our sovereignty. We want to deal with the question of extension of the Afghan mission in a responsible way — look at the options, make sure they are fully considered, take a responsible decision.
We have important initiatives on the economy, on the environment and on crime.
I think our positions are well understood. They have been developed over the past year, in some cases in response to some opposition criticism, maybe not exactly what the opposition would like, but we have tried to adjust and come up with realistic and responsible policies, and we will be asking Parliament to give us a green light to proceed with our — with our initiatives in those areas.
That is what we will be asking from Parliament and we will be asking for a clear mandate from Parliament to do that. That is what a Throne Speech is supposed to be all about and you know, I think you have to remember, there is one other subject matter that is among the government’s priorities and that is strengthening the Canadian federation. We all know that Mr. Duceppe fundamentally disagrees with that objective. So you know, I think it wouldn’t be a surprise to hear that we will not be fully satisfying the demands of the Bloc Québécois but we will do our best to address the subject matter that they have put before us.

Susan Lunn, CBC Radio: Mr. Harper, I’m wondering after 19 months in government, what challenges do you see ahead for your government and your party and for yourself personally as you look ahead?
Harper: My preferred course of action will be to lay forward a Throne Speech and to govern on that Throne Speech and, as I think I have just said, the Throne Speech will lay out our priorities in the key areas: strengthening the federation, strengthening our position in the world including dealing with the Afghanistan next steps, crime, economy, environment. We are going to ask Parliament for a mandate. Once we have that mandate, we are going to consider that that basically gives us the right to consider those matters confidence going forward and to get results and get things done.
What we want to do in the next year is keep governing and keep implementing our platform, modified as I think it has been, to respond to opposition concerns and to public demands. Beyond that, obviously if we don’t get approval, the opposition will force an election. It is not my preferred course of action, but you know, if they force that, we will be ready for that.

Tonda MacCharles, The Toronto Star Prime Minister, you are talking about your Throne Speech as a mandate to govern. You consider all these matters henceforth confidence matters, but why wouldn’t you take advantage of the disarray on the left, your opponents, and go into an election? What is holding you back?
Harper: Well, first of all, we have been very clear from the beginning that we want this Parliament to work and we want to govern. We have passed a law — Bill C-16 to establish fixed election dates. We have set an election for October 2009. That may be optimistic.
I think the Canadian people want us to govern and I believe the things we are bringing forward are either popular or, with full information, entirely defensible to the Canadian public.
I think we are acting on what they want us to act on. So it seems to me we should get on with governing. That is what they want us to do.
At the same time, from our narrow partisan interests, I continue to believe that the longer the government governs, the more it gets done, the more it has to run on in terms of re-election, the better that is for the country and for us.
So I’m in no hurry, but as I say, ultimately, I have set the date, October 2009. I’m clear when I want an election. If the opposition wants one earlier, they are going to have to say so, but the choice is not an election or obstruction. The choice is an election or give the government a mandate to govern and I have said what those things are.
We are clear on the economy. I don’t think it is any secret this government is going to want to see some further tax reductions. I think we are clear where we need to go with our international partners on climate change in the environment, on crime.
We ran on some pretty important priorities. We put some of those before Parliament. They have been sitting there for a year. If we get approval of the Throne Speech, we are going to expect those things to be passed. If we are going to be here, we are going to govern and I think Canadians will expect us to get results out of Parliament.

Peter Harris, Global: Prime Minister, you say the mandate is to govern. I guess I’m just wondering how much flexibility is in the Throne Speech, because we all know that the Throne Speech involves negotiation behind the scene. Are you open to negotiations and will amendments to the Throne Speech possibly be supported and put through by your government?
Harper: I’m certainly willing to talk to the other parties. I have had chats with Mr. Duceppe, Mr. Layton. I won’t comment on those. They can make their own comments, but they certainly came to see me.
I haven’t had that chat with Mr. Dion, but I do have to remind you that Mr. Dion said in August that in all probability, he would vote against the Throne Speech. He said that in August. What was interesting about the statement is at that point, the government hadn’t even said it was holding a Throne Speech.
So you know, there have to be some point to having discussions, but we know what Mr. Dion’s conditions are as well. He has made those very clear.
I think in this case, opposition has largely chosen to communicate through the media. That is fine, that is their choice. We understand what their positions are.
In terms of the broad parameters, the government will have, as I said, an economic agenda that will involve tax reduction, a significant tax reduction and obviously we are going to be seeking a mandate for that and that is a confidence measure.
The government is determined that, in this second session of Parliament, that the major criminal justice initiatives we take can get passed. They are overwhelmingly supported by the public. The opposition claims to have supported them in the last election and the time for obstruction on those things is over. That is one of the things Parliament is here to do, it is to adopt some effective crime legislation.
On the environment, I think the government has been clear and will continue to be clear.
There will be items that fall on and off the agenda. We all know that, but on the big parameters, the government is looking for a mandate.
In terms of amendments to the Throne Speech, there have been minor amendments in the past, but the amendments have never gone at the core of the government’s agenda.
I can say we can have some flexibility [but] a Throne Speech is a fundamental matter of confidence and the government’s overall plan for the session in kind of broad terms is a matter of confidence.

Greg Weston, Sun Newspapers Prime Minister, you say that you are going to be looking for a clear mandate in the Throne Speech. If we take the opposition leaders at their words so far, the Bloc are going to vote against it, the NDP are going to vote against it and at least half the Liberals will vote against it, probably the other half will either abstain or be home with the flu. That doesn’t sound like much of a mandate and if that is what you get, are you willing to go down the road to the Governor General and say, “We don’t have a mandate”?
Harper: The Throne Speech will outline the major priorities of the government. The government’s message to the opposition is clear. We are looking for a mandate to proceed with those priorities. It is not a choice between, 'We obstruct you' or 'We have an election'. The choice is you either force us into election or give us this mandate.
We will be interpreting a positive result, a positive vote on the Speech from the Throne as a mandate to consider the major elements of the Throne Speech and the major elements of the government’s program to be matters of confidence going forward, because we must be able to govern. This is only a reasonable request.
So I think the opposition — it is not a matter of making threats. They have to fish or cut bait. I don’t believe that in politics you make threats unless you mean them. I don’t know whether they mean these threats or not.
I’m very clear: We have to be able to govern.
We are going to put forward a program that I think is not going to surprise a lot of people. I think it is what people would expect from us. I think they are positions that the Canadian public does support or we are confident they will support.
We have tried to listen and tried to adapt our program where it is realistic to do so and where it is responsible to do so, to address the demands of the opposition, but you know, there is a fish or cut bait on this. You can’t pass the Throne Speech one day and the next day say, well we didn’t actually mean to do it or we didn’t actually give you a mandate. We will take it as a mandate and we will take it as an ongoing question of confidence, to get those things done.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, at the National Press Theatre yesterday, responds to our report that the Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier, may see his turn at the top end next year.

Roger Smith, CTV : Prime Minister, welcome to the National Press Theatre. I want to ask you about Rick Hillier. There are reports that the government will not extend his term beyond early next year. Already soldiers are putting angry responses on the Internet. Some are organizing petitions to try and keep him on. Have you ruled out extending general Hillier’s term as chief, as chief of staff and if so, why?
Harper: First of all, the only thing true in these stories that I have seen today is that the Prime Minister does in fact appoint and designate the person who will be the chief of defence staff. That much is true.
But that said, the chief of defence staff is not appointed for a fixed term of office, not appointed for three years as some reports have said. There has been no discussion in my office or with me, with any senior officials about the possibility of changing the chief of defence staff and as a matter of fact, I think I just approved a pretty good rating for the chief of the defence staff.
I think he is an outstanding soldier who is bringing strong leadership to the Canadian Forces.

Stephen Harper just wrapped his first ever press conference as Prime Minister in the National Press Theatre. Other prime ministers, his own cabinet, and many politicians have used the NPT (located, as pictured on the left, on the first floor of the National Press Building on Wellington Street) but, upon taking office, Harper preferred to hold his press conferences in the foyer of the House of Commons with a podium in front of him. At those, he would stand. At the NPT, Harper sat at a desk.

And then there’s The List.

It’s gone. Kaput. No explanation and none needed. Everyone behaved themselves as Le Devoir reporter and Parliamentary Press Gallery executive member Hélène Buzzetti called out each journalist’s name who, in turn, stuck to the rules of one question each with no followup.

Harper himself looked as comfortable and upbeat as I’ve seen him in front of a packed house full of reporters. Dare I say it, but I think he might have been enjoying himself.

And, as I’ve said before, sometimes to Harper himself, answering questions is his strong suit. He’s very good at it. We heard him analyze the regional disparities of the New Brunswick economy; assess the military situation on the ground in Afghanistan; and joke about some major acquisitions some Canadian banks are making in the U.S.

Harper made lots of news today. For example, he is no longer looking for ‘consensus’ on extending the combat mission in Afghanistan. Instead, he’ll look for a simple majority of Parliament’s will. That is likely to drive a wedge in the Liberal Party as some MPs agree that there should be a role for the Canadian Forces, perhaps a combat one, beyond 2009. Liberal Leader Stephane Dion does not want a combat role although Dion will consider roles for Canadian troops in other parts of the country. 

Harper also said his next budget will have tax cuts — some big ones.

I’ll post up some transcripts of the 45–minute press conference as I’m able to.

This just crossed our desks. It will be the first time — so far as I know — that Stephen Harper will hold a press conference at the National Press Theatre — that's the facility managed by those 'hated' folks in the Parliamentary Press Gallery — since he's become Prime Minister.

As to the reason for the presser — there ain't one. It's a straight up Q&A.

Be sure to watch CTV Newsnet — we will be broadcasting this live at 3:45 pm (Ottawa time).

October 3, 2007
Ottawa, Ontario

Public event for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for today, October 3rd are:

3:45 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will be available to take questions from the media.

Press Theatre
National Press Building
150 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario

*Open to media*