At his closing press conference in Italy at the G8, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked about the future relevance of the G8. Here is an unofficial transcript of the question Harper was asked and his English-language response. (He responded somewhat similarly in French). The attack on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff came, unprompted by reporters I should point out, at the end of his comments to a question about the future of the G8:
Reporter: I would like to hear you speak about the future of the G8. What do you feel about the pressure that has been exerted by some countries to broaden the group to G5+1 to make it a G14 given the fact that year-in and year-out we see power from emerging economies and, with this in mind, how do you expect the Muskoka summit to unwind? Will there be as many participants there as there are here?
Rt. Hon Stephen Harper: The G8, in our judgment remains, an important forum. It is a forum of the major developed countries in which we get together, countries with much in common in terms of their economic structure, their values, their history. And we get together in a very intimate setting where we are able to discuss the major questions of the day.. that can drive a wider consensus. I think we reached at this particular g-8 meeting very important discussions on climate change and on Iran for example, things that I think will have a lot of impact going forward.
So I think it is an important forum. Some people say well the G8 is not a representative body in the modern world. It is not representative of the power. It's not representative of the economic realities of the modern world. It's not an appropriate forum for global governance. I agree with that. I don't think those of us who continue to support the importance of the G8 suggest that it is a body of global governance.
Obviously we have to have, we have to develop a wider body that will be more representative. What we've had recently, what we've had at this forum as I mentioned earlier — I counted at one point a G8, a G9, aG14 or 15, we had a G18. At one point a G19 and a G25 and finally ended with a G28 and of course we also have the G20 process going on around the world which is now up to G24 last time I counted. So I think our challenge for the year will be to try and use our presidency of the G8 to bring some coherence to this as we move forward.
I think it's important that the G8 continue to be a forum where we have the discussions among the major developed economies. At the same time, we do have to develop an institutionalized, more representative forum. We listened carefully at this summit to what other countries had to say and will be taking some decisions in this regard as we move forward towards Muskoka.
If you don't mind giving me a moment to address the comments of Mr. Ignatieff. The leader of the opposition suggested very recently in the last day or two, I gather, that it's possible — I’m not sure if he's saying it's desirable or should happen or could happen — that there will be a group come to the fore, a group of major countries that will exclude Canada. I don't know where he's getting this idea. Nobody but Mr. Ignatieff in the world has suggested excluding Canada from a meeting of major countries. Nobody. It's the first anybody has heard of it. I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian. I don't think you go out and float ideas like this that are so obviously contrary to the country's interests when no one else is advocating them. So I would suggest that he look carefully at his comments and withdraw those. Frankly they would be irresponsible coming from anybody but particularly irresponsible coming from a kean Canadian Parliamentarian.
Immediately after those remarks were made, Dimitri Soudas, the prime minister's press secretary, told reporters that Harper's remarks on Ignatieff were incorrect and that he had misinformed the Prime Minister about them. The prime minister's staff said the remarks they misattributed to Ignatieff may have been made by an academic during a television interview.
For the record, Ignatieff, in London, England, earlier this week, said something about Canada's presidency of the G8 that was remarkably similar to what the prime minister said. Here's Ignatieff:”Huntsville should be a plce where we will make substantial progress redefining and refocusing the G8 itself.”
My colleague Peter O'Neil was at the press conference and filed this report.
Thanks for posting this. The communion nonsense has proven that one has to take media attacks against Harper with a pound of salt, but there's no excusing this one. Completely unacceptable.
It's notable that the rest of the media, and the article you link to, are calling it a criticism of Iggy, not an “attack”.
Oops, I just criticized you, guess you're going to think I “attacked” you.
You're a white male, and not a young one, David. You tacitly – and let's get real here, you do – support a profoundly anti-white male coalition which is likely to take power. I've looked at the HR policies of Canadian Press, to name one, and they explicitly are trying to get rid of white males as fast as they can and replace them with minorities and women. I suspect Canwest is of similar mind.
Parenthetically, your industry really is quite male and white; the rest of us have to contend with race and gender quotas and it's going to look good on you when you get the “9 O'Clock box”; you actually agitate for running yourself out of your own job.
You need to be better, man.
Harper got bad info and this was a rare misstep and an honest mistake. Reading what he said, it was cool calm collected criticism based on the info he had – that's our Stephen Harper and I am proud to have him representing my country, a country with the best economy in the G8. He's the most well spoken, forthright PM in my lifetime and maybe yours.
Come on – Stephane Dion? Ignatieff has a shoe factory lodged in his mouth, as a Conservative I love knowing he can barely utter a sentence without a gaffe, and there have been many.
It just isn't logical what you are doing. You're better than this. We all praised you when you – once, and only once – gave Harper a fair shake when Taber took an unfair shot at him. You've got millions who will have your back if you do the right thing and play it fair and square. Consider it. I'm embarrassed to be a Canadian – do you think investors and potential immigrants are impressed with our media, which unfortunately does influence how and what people think? I sure wouldn't invest in Canada, and if I were a new grad I'd get the hell out of here. I still might.
How can you stand it, David? How?
I hate to break it to you, Embarrassed, but that leader you're so proud of said, as he apologized, “During the press conference, I attacked Mr. Ignatieff …” Watch it here.
I'm not spinning; I'm just reporting. In my book, there's no good news and no bad news — just the news.
Actually you don't hate to break it to me, you're quite happy Harper mischaracterized his own remarks; this is the snark I was talking about in my comment. We don't talk like that in my culture, we're more mature, more manly than that, and I wish we could get back to that Canada where people didn't talk, and act, and think like you: snarky. How is this progress? You know the book, Snark: It's Mean, It's Personal, And It's Ruining Our Conversation? Consider reading it.
Harper is not the final word on the matter – right? – and that was no attack, it was a cool headed calm criticism based on info he was given. Misguided isn't an appropriate characterization – he got screwed by Soudrias, not his fault.
You spin every day, you're a very left wing guy, snarky, catty. You ignored the more important part of my post: I care about what is happening to Canada, it is becoming a worse country, not better. You don't care and you are part of the problem. I care, that's why I am commenting on your blog, not as some vendetta, I don't even know you. Spare me the I don't spin nonsense; what, are you going to say “I spin”? No, you're not stupid. And neither am I.
I'm asking you: show some care for your country, a country that is going down the tubes rapidly. You can start by decoupling yourself from the anti-taxpayer anti-Christian anti-white anti-male anti-family anti-baby anti-elderly leviathan that is Canada's media, be your own man, be a professional, and stop being so snarky.
I regret that I'm not in a position to wish you good evening.
To address the actual story here; Stephen Harper had no reason whatsoever to even mention Michael Ignatieff in his response in the first place. Call it what it was, which was an opportunity to politically slam his biggest threat. Bad info or not, the whole comment was unnecessary and if he didn't have a damn clue what he was talking about, he shouldnt be talking about it. He IS your Prime Minister. An aide handed him information that would make Ignatieff look bad, and he ran with it. It wasnt a pertinent piece of information in regards to the question. He even pulled a 'if I could just speak to THIS issue for a moment…' which shows you it is unrelated and off topic.
I just LOVE your view that it is deplorable how everyone 'jumped all over Harper for just a simple 'mis-characterization' of his own comment. I seem to remember a whole TV ad that played on a certain opponent's apparent mischaracterization of himself, and how anyone defending him was somehow less Canadian that any card carrying Conservative. This opinion is not isolated to this particular incident either, unfortunately. It has manifested itself in this wonderful country's foreign and immigration policy as well.
I also take issue with your condescending attitude towards people who may have a left-leaning conscience. I love my country, and I would even venture far enough to say I love it more than you do. On what do I base that assumption, you may ask? On the same grounds you seem to; if your beliefs are different from mine, and therefore wrong, I must clearly be more of a patriot than you.
Foolproof logic, eh?
Tories can be just as 'snarky' and ignorant as any Liberal or Dip. They can be just as mean-spirited, and they can put just as much spin on anything, and are just as notorious for doing it! Dont think for a minute that your Conservative Party is any more benevolent than any other. They are not.
I realize I was not involved in the least in this banter, but I felt compelled to speak out on David's defense here. Maybe I am in fact hurting his case here, seeing as I am pro-tax, pro-secular, anti-racist, pro-21st Century family, pro-choice, and, granted, VERY anti-elderly (but really, who DOESNT hate old people? Apparently, only the Conservatives). If so, I apologize, David.
From your transcript: “I would like to hear you speak about the future of the G8” asks the reporter.
Those arguing that mentioning Ignatieff in this context was extraneous to the question are WRONG, IMO.
• Ignatieff was shown in a CTV clip, either prior to or after his Isaiah Berlin lecture in London, commenting on the “forest of institutions,” like the G8, the G20, the UN, the IMF, the World Bank. Some refocussing or redefining of the G8 itself is needed, according to Ignatieff.
Check the CTV newsite for this clip:
“G8 summit : CTV News Channel: Gordon Smith, University of Victoria, on what's being achieved at the G8”
• Information was given to the PM that Ignatieff said Canada might be excluded from such redefinition.
• When asked about “the future of the G8” the PM of course responded to the alleged Ignatieff comment, which had to do exactly with that: “the future of the G8.”
While I commend you, Mr. Akin, for providing the transcript of that exchange, I disagree with you when you say “The attack on Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff came, unprompted by reporters I should point out.” [my emphasis]
Granted, the PM was NOT asked explicitly to comment on what Ignatieff had said, but what Ignatieff had said was indeed pertinent to the question: “the future of the G8” and Canada's role within it.
There have been many instances of Harper opponents saying Canada is no longer a world player, that Canada's influence on the world stage has been diminished etc.
Ignatieff's alleged comment was another such belittling of Canada's world stature, and the PM addressed that.
Now, in my non-priestly function, I absolve the PM for bringing up Ignatieff's alleged comment. And I commend him for immediately apologizing for mistakenly attributing those comments to him.
Both the PM and Mr. Soudas have hopefully learned a good lesson: Reagan's dictum “Trust but verify.”
BTW, to call it a “misguided attack” is an evaluation, not a reporting of facts, strictly speaking.
Again, I appreciate your efforts in reporting “just the news” but sometimes non-neutral language, such as “misguided attack,” creeps in, less so in your articles compared to other journalists. That kind of emotionally-coloured language should be avoided in reports, IMO. Let the op-ed writers use such phrases, but reporters should refrain from making such judgments.