Bush visit to Canada in doubt

Bush visit to Canada in doubt Official reason is war has altered his schedule: Officials in both governments say heckling, demonstrations would only worsen relations

Sheldon Alberts, Deputy Ottawa Bureau Chief, with files from Bill Curry and Robert Benzie National Post, with files from news services

OTTAWA - The White House is considering cancelling a planned state visit to Ottawa by George W. Bush in May because of the war in Iraq and increasingly strained relations between the U.S. administration and the Chrétien government.

Beth Poisson, press attache at the U.S. embassy in Ottawa, said, "President Bush is a wartime president now and so there is some uncertainty about his schedule."

But there is also growing concern in the White House that Mr. Bush would receive a hostile welcome from Canadian parliamentarians, particularly government MPs, who have made a series of anti-American and anti-Bush remarks in recent months.

"The optics of that scenario would not be good," an aide to Jean Chrétien noted.

The embassy's confirmation that Mr. Bush's scheduled May 5 visit -- which would be the President's first to the nation's capital -- is in jeopardy came one day after Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, said Americans are "disappointed and upset" at the federal government's decision to stay out of the war in Iraq.

At least one Liberal MP said yesterday that Mr. Cellucci should be expelled over the comments.

While the Iraq war is the official reason the President's visit might be called off, U.S. administration sources also said the White House questions the value of having Mr. Bush travel to Ottawa at a time when relations between the Bush and Chrétien administrations are so sour.

"The White House is reviewing whether it would be a productive visit. They are wondering whether it would be constructive," said one U.S. official.

"There are questions about what can the two leaders do at this point? What would the agenda be?"

Canadian officials say the chances of repairing the relationship would not be helped by the likelihood of mass demonstrations in Ottawa and heckling from legislators when Mr. Bush addressed Parliament.

"Can you see any circumstances under which Bush would come here knowing this was the reception he was likely to receive?" one official said.

The Prime Minister yesterday downplayed the Canada-U.S. rift and highlighted Canadian support for the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and reminded the House of Commons of Canada's past and future troop deployments to Afghanistan for the war against terrorism.

"Can you see any circumstances under which [Mr.] Bush would come here knowing this was the reception he was likely to receive?" one official said.

The Prime Minister yesterday played down the Canada-U.S. rift and highlighted Canadian support for the United States immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, reminding the House of Commons of Canada's past and future troop deployments to Afghanistan for the war on terrorism.

"The people of the United States know very well that on Sept. 11, in the first hour of their great difficulties, the Canadian people received in their homes 40,000 Americans who had no place to land," Mr. Chrétien said. "The people of the United States and the government knew very well that when they asked us to fight terrorism, we were the first ones to go there and we put troops in to fight terrorism in Afghanistan."

Sources said the White House is less angry over Canada's decision to stay on the sidelines as the U.S. fights in Iraq than at the sharp criticisms of the President over his handling of the Persian Gulf crisis.

In particular, sources said White House officials remain furious over Jean Chrétien's refusal to rebuke Herb Dhaliwal, the Natural Resources Minister, for saying last week that Mr. Bush's decision to go to war proves he is "not a statesman."

U.S. officials had hoped North American energy issues would be a central element of the meetings.

But one senior Liberal, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said "the Americans don't like the optics of having Dhaliwal as Natural Resources Minister sit across the table."

Mr. Dhaliwal's remarks have also scuppered efforts to organize a visit to Ottawa by Spencer Abraham, the U.S. Energy Secretary. "Mr. Abraham has said, since Dhaliwal's comments, that if they want to get me up there, they are sure not going about it in a very constructive fashion," the U.S. official said.

Stephen Harper, the Canadian Alliance leader, said he hopes Mr. Bush still visits Ottawa "and I would expect that he would get a good and polite and professional reception from all members of Parliament regardless of their affiliation."

Mr. Chrétien got another dose of criticism yesterday from Ernie Eves, the Ontario Premier. Mr. Eves wrote Mr. Cellucci to offer his government's support to the U.S. during the war in Iraq.

"I share your expression of disappointment in the response of the Canadian government," said Mr. Eves, whose letter followed a similarly pro-U.S. dispatch last week by Ralph Klein, the Alberta Premier.

Reaction by Liberal MPs to Mr. Cellucci's criticisms of the Canadian government was relatively muted yesterday following the government caucus's weekly meeting, but one MP took a harder line.

Alex Shepherd confirmed to reporters that he had called on the Prime Minister to have Mr. Cellucci "censured and expelled."

Mr. Shepherd said he made the demand because Mr. Cellucci "had gone over the diplomatic line" in his speech to an audience of business executives.

Several Liberal MPs who have been critical of the Bush administration refused to comment on Mr. Cellucci's remarks. Others said they hoped for a speedy U.S. victory in Iraq.

Mr. Dhaliwal said "the ambassador is free to express his views" and that he recognizes Americans are Canada's best friends.

"When they have casualties, that affects us as Canadians emotionally because we have a strong attachment to the Americans," Mr. Dhaliwal said.

"I've done business with Americans, I've bought millions of dollars worth of goods from down there. And I have family and relatives down there as well."

Marlene Jennings, a Liberal MP from Montreal who has criticized U.S. handling of al-Qaeda prisoners, said she understands U.S. disappointment with Canada.

"Now that the war has been engaged, I hope the United States and Great Britain and its other allies will be successful in their military operation in Iraq," said Ms. Jennings, who caused controversy last year by saying many U.S. legislators are ignorant and uneducated about Canada because they never travel abroad.

"I do believe the President has the best of intentions ... and that he is a highly moral man and he wants to do the right thing [in Iraq]," added John Bryden, the MP for Ancaster-Dundas-Aldershot, who has been a vocal critic of the U.S.-led war.

"It is a sign of the respect in which Canada is held by Mr. Bush that Mr. Cellucci should speak out in this way."

But Alex Shepherd, the MP for Durham and a frequent critic of U.S. foreign policy, said he was "upset" by Mr. Cellucci's remarks.

"I don't think that's the purpose of an ambassadorial role in Canada," Mr. Shepherd said. "I think back at some of the history of our country. We went and fought in the First World War, the Second World War without the Americans, and Mr. Cellucci could use a little wake-up call to history."

Jim Karygiannis, a Toronto Liberal, said he was offended by Mr. Cellucci's interference in Canadian policy making. "We're the ones that get elected, he is not."

" I used to think the US should take Canada over. "

Canadians are so used to socialized everything that they couldn't take living in a free country.

We don't have much in common with them, they don't share our value of freedom. I've got a lot of Canadian relatives that I'm ashamed of for voting as they do.

" Mr. Shepherd said. "I think back at some of the history of our country. We went and fought in the First World War, the Second World War without the Americans, and Mr. Cellucci could use a little wake-up call to history."

What history, of what planet, is this guy reading from?

norton, not that I'm interested in arguing with any of my American friends about anything at the moment, but may I point out that in WW1 and WW2, because of our status as a country of the British Commonwealth, when Great Britain declared war on Germany, both times, Canada was automatically at war, and all of our defences and resources henceforth, from that moment, were employed to protect England and the Queen. That is why we were at war from the outset. The point being, the US did not enter WW1 for quite awhile (rightfully so, and we didn't make a stink about it) and it took over 2 years for the US to enter WW2. The US had a right to that decision. I certainly don't fault them for that, and I'm sure many Brits and Canucks didn't at the time either. Facts are facts. Look up the dates England went to war in the 20th century. Those dates are the exact same dates that Canada did. We were essentially the right arm of Britain. They are at war, we are at war, period. In many ways, I wish things were still like that.

That we don't want to integrate Canadians into our free society, they wouldn't fit, they don't love freedom, there is too much socialism there.
I was taking his comment as he wouldn't want Canadians to be part of the US now.

I've read up on the political divisions in Canada, things written by Canadians, and some there were saying some of the provinces should become part of the US, some who couldn't exist on their own. A lot of the military bases are in Quebec, and electrical production, things that any country needs to keep going. So some Canadians have said they couldn't keep going if there was a separation from Quebec and might have to be part of the US. What I read was written about a decade ago, maybe a bit longer.

That is a bit different from saying that we should take them over, which I don't think, but the thought that some might become part of the US is an idea that has theoretically floated around for a long time.

Some of the provinces can't pay their own bills and are in a negative balance, with a few provinces like Ontario paying enough taxes for several of the western provinces for all their social giveaways.

The main reason some in the western provinces would want to be part of the US is so we could pay their bills for them, their socialized medicine.

The annual G8 Economic Summit is in France this year. Is there any reason why Bush should go since he is on the outs with most of the other countries?

Lets see, Bush is on good terms with the UK, Japan, Italy, and is on bad terms with France, Germany, and Russia, with Canada being iffy at best. I say go, and embarrass the French while he's there...

I say go, and embarrass the French while he's there...

Go to France and have the anti-Bush demonstrations be plastered all over the TV for a week? Go to France while U.S. troops are still fighting in Iraq? Add to it the fact that the relations between the countries is so bad right now that nothing will be accomplished. Sorry, but I think that the G8 summit will be another casualty of the war along with the UN and NATO. Why keep it on life support? Pull the plug instead.

That is a bit different from saying that we should take them over, which I don't think

Quite a bit different, which of course was what the poster said. And it is the only thing I addressed. I have no interest in theoreticals about combining countries peaceably.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.