TRANSCRIPT: Stephen Harper: the Mansbridge interview (Part Two)

Peter Mansbridge: You know, I'm not an economist, you are. But I'm puzzled, and so, it appears, are some economists as to how you can attack the deficit issue and the overall debt issue by decreasing corporate taxes, by not increasing personal taxes. And at least, so far, not attacking that size-of-government issue.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: I was going to say, Peter, you were doing so well until now. Because you were - here, I had CBC attacking me from the right!

PM: I'm not attacking you. I'm just laying out the argument that comes from some of your supporters.

PMSH: But not very many. But let me let me respond to that one.

It is transparent as an economist that you're not going to grow our economy by raising taxes. You know, look at ourselves compared to the United States and others. Look at the job growth. Do you think that would continue if we started raising taxes on consumers and raising taxes on employers?

Several years ago, [Finance] Minister [Jim] Flaherty in concert with most of the other provinces - by the way, not just Conservative governments - Liberal governments, NDP governments - we set out to brand this country as having a 25 per cent business tax rate, shared federal/provincial. And that's what we've all - not all of us, but almost all of the senior levels of government, the senior governments in this country - have been aiming for and moving towards.

And why do we want that? Because it will put us in a good competitive position that will attract investment. But at the same time, over time, that will maximize revenue to the government. Raising our taxes will, you know, we can get some more revenue this year, but frankly it's going to make this a less competitive country, a less good place to invest.

So, you know, we're aiming for 25 per cent rate, as we've cut these taxes a lot already. Have we seen huge drops in revenue, other than through the recession? No, in fact, revenues have been very robust because we're attracting investment.

PM: Why are you spending close to $20 billion on fighter jets? You want me to come at you from the other side - we'll try that.

PMSH: Well, fighter jets? Well, the CF18's, Canada's traditional fighter jet as you know, will reach the end of its useful life beginning at the end of this decade. So starting in 2016 - and by the way this was just following through on something the previous government did - planning for the next generation of fighter jets...

PM: I get that, but do we need the best fighter jet in the world right now? Is that what we need in terms of everything else that's going on economically?

PMSH: Well, first of all, let me just put this in perspective. First of all, we're not spending money until 2016, right? That's when we start buying these planes, not for another five or six years. And that cost is the cost of these planes over a 40-year life expectancy. So, you know, it's not contributing to the deficit now and it's for a very long-term purchase of an asset.

Will we need them? Look, I know this. We've heard these arguments before whenever budgets are tight: "Does the military really need them? We don't need them today." Did we know we would be in Afghanistan ten years ago, twelve years ago? Did we know we would be in the Balkans? Did we know we were going to have the Gulf Wars? Did we see the end of the Cold War? We don't know these things, Peter.

What we do know is that the international situation will evolve. We don't know what the risks and the threats will be in the future, but we know there will be some. And we know the men and women in the Canadian Forces, air, land and sea, will be called upon to respond. And when they are, we want to make sure they have a range of good, flexible equipment so they can respond safely and do their jobs effectively. And if you look at the level of military spending we're maintaining in this country, if anything we may remain below where most of our allies are.

PM: Let me try and quickly go through a couple of things.

PMSH: Sure.

PM: As you mentioned earlier, you said you haven't been able to do all the things that you wanted to do, given the minority situation. Let's assume you wind up with a majority. The gun laws - would they change according to the way you were hoping to change them?

PMSH: Well, the thing that would change, Peter, is we would abolish the long gun registry. We've been very clear about that. Would we abolish licensing for gun owners? Absolutely not. Would we abolish screening to ensure that the violent and dangerous can't get their hands on guns? Absolutely not. Would we take away a registration of restricted handguns? No. The core of our gun laws are supported by most gun owners. It is just the extreme that [it] went to in the last few years with the long gun registry that people want to see change.

PM: Would you re-open the abortion issue?

PMSH: No, no. Look, Peter, I have spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue. It's one on which people, including in my own party, have passionate views. They're all over the map. And you know, what I say to people, as you know, many people I know are pro-life. What I say to people, if you want to diminish the number of abortions, you've got to change hearts and not laws. And I'm not interested in having a debate over abortion law.

PM: Capital punishment?

PMSH: I don't see the country wanting to do that. You know...

PM: You don't sound as firm as...

PMSH: Well, I personally think there are times where capital punishment is appropriate. But I've also committed that I'm not, you know, in the next Parliament I'm not... no plans to bring that issue forward.

PM: You've appointed dozens of senators.

PMSH: I have.

PM: Senate reform. What would you do with senate reform if you had a majority?

PMSH: Well, we actually now for the first time just in the last couple of weeks, we now actually have a majority in the Senate itself. So I ...

PM: Because of doing something you said you'd never do?

PMSH: Well, I preferred not to do. Look, Peter, I went three years without - I think I appointed one or two senators, I didn't appoint anybody, but ultimately that didn't get us anywhere. So now I've appointed senators to pass our Senate reforms. And I want to limit the terms of senators. I think it's ridiculous that a senator could serve up to 45 years. And I want to have some kind of process where the public can choose their senator.

There are other things I'd like to see. But I'm committed to making - and you know I've been clear about this - I'm committed to making only incremental changes to the Senate that don't provoke large constitutional negotiations because the public doesn't want to get into that.

PM: We're approaching the end of this interview. Over the five years, as you know, not a lot has changed in the way Canadians regard their political parties in terms of the polling numbers.

PMSH: Has it ever?

PM: Well ...

PMSH: You know, Peter, it's funny, I always remember from my early days in politics people always talk about the Golden Age of Politics, when debate was civil and people looked at their political leaders on a high and mighty pedestal. But you know, I've read a lot of history and I've seen The Madness of King George and I think you can go back hundreds of years and the image of politics has pretty well always been the same.

PM: Well, you brought it up. I started watching politics from the press gallery in the 1970s: Trudeau, Stanfield, Diefenbaker. There was lots of cut-and-thrust, but it did seem more civil. There has been kind of a stepping up through the decades. You know, it got kind of nasty in the '80s with the Liberal "Rat Pack." In the '90s, it had another tone that kind of took on a dismissive attitude towards the opposition parties. And one could argue that it's reached even another level through these last few years.

PMSH: I don't know. I thought our first minority parliament was difficult for tone and I thought it got progressively worse to the point as, you know, where I called an election because I thought that really that Parliament had become...

PM: Dysfunctional?

PMSH: ...Well, not able to pass anything. You know, some in the Opposition took the view they could just block everything. We had the coalition issue. I think once that's cleared away, I think in this Parliament, not been perfect by any means, but I actually think the tone has been better and I think its productivity has been better. Now, that doesn't mean it will stay that way. Minority parliaments are challenges.

PM: So you think there's less kind of partisan rhetoric, crossing over the line?

PMSH: Well, there's always ... there's always partisan rhetoric.

PM: Well, the kind of over the line stuff that we've seen from both sides.

PMSH: Well, you know I thought particularly the last few months, I thought Parliament was actually, in the fall, pretty productive - pretty well behaved for the most part. Do I like everything that's said to me in question period each day? No, but that's part of being prime minister.

PM: Okay, well the point I was going to try to get to, accepting your point that perhaps not a lot's changed, but in terms of the numbers, there hasn't seemed to be a breakout for either side through this minority period. And those who claim to be experts on this say part of the issue is that many Canadians still either worry about what you might do if you had a majority, or they feel a certain coolness from you towards them. What do you say about that?

PMSH: Well, look Peter, time will tell. My own sense is Canadians have gotten comfortable with this government. That doesn't mean all Canadians agree with this government. Certainly many don't. But I think most Canadians understand that we're a government that is - whether they agree with us or not - reasonably confident, focused on real issues, on trying to make the country better, not trying to enrich or glorify ourselves.

That's my sense. Every time people tell me - and you're making a form of a glass ceiling argument, I've heard it before. I can recall when I was running for leader of the Alliance, I was told I had a glass ceiling of 10 per cent.

I remember when we first merged the parties, famous articles by the very experts you're citing saying the new party and my leadership had a glass ceiling of 20 per cent. These were running in late 2003, early 2004.

Then, of course, we crossed those barriers and we could never form a government and we could never be re-elected, we could never cross 30 per cent. We did.

So, look, I'm optimistic but my real concern is the following. We're in a difficult global economy. I think we've come through it pretty well. But it is still very challenging. And I've been very frank with Canadians. In spite of the good job creation numbers, there are a lot of threats to the Canadian economy in terms of what's happening globally.

We cannot take our eye off the ball. I want to see this recovery through so that we truly come out of it in a good position. And that is really my focus, and if we're forced into an election, we are. But that's not what I'm worried about these days.

PM: Well, if anything, we have seen a different side of you in the last year. Everything from the rock star to the hockey dad sitting on the couch with the family, Watching the [World Junior Championship] final. But nobody got a chance to see like what happened to you in the third period.

PMSH: (Laughs)

PM: The cameras had gone. I mean, most Canadians were throwing things at the television set by then. How did you handle it?

PMSH: Well, can I talk about the first topic and then I'll get to the hockey game? Look, let me just say about that - I'm glad people enjoy some of the musical performances I've done. For me that's a bit of a victory. I've always known, you know, I can do these things, but to actually go into it and have some fun doing it - that's one of the opportunities in this job that, you know, I'm glad I took advantage of.

In terms of the hockey game, Peter, I mean we were all disappointed. I told people - I'll be frank with you - I told people that I was worried late in the second period.

PM: Is that when you ordered the cameras out?

PMSH: I think they left after the first goal. But I was worried late in the second. I've coached a little bit of hockey. I don't purport to be an expert on it but I've coached a little bit. And I could see the momentum changing. And I could also sense that the Canadian players weren't themselves seeing the momentum shifting.

As soon as the Russians scored that first goal, I thought we were in big trouble. It's a learning experience. We forget how young these guys are, eh? You know - 17, 18, 19. These are young guys, they played their hearts out, they had a great performance up to that time and it's too bad for us and for them.

But I think it will be a great learning experience and I think some day they'll be playing those guys, most of them will be playing on a Team Canada and an Olympics or a World Cup, and because of that experience they'll be the gold medalists.

PM: Well, hockey can be like politics - it's not over 'til it's over.

PMSH: That's right.

PM: Do we have an election this year, do you think?

PMSH: Er.

PM: What is your gut feeling?

PMSH: My gut tells me I don't know. It's 50/50. We take the threats from the Opposition very seriously. I don't think it's in the country's interest, I don't think it makes any sense to have one right now, but if we're forced into one, we'll be ready.

PM: Prime Minister, thanks for your time.

PMSH: Thanks, Peter.

End of Part Two