Bush Thankful for Friendly Waves in Canada

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

OTTAWA -- Thousands of demonstrators protested President Bush's visit Tuesday, but Bush, eager to patch up relations with the northern neighbor, said he felt he'd received a friendly welcome.

"I frankly felt like the reception we received on the way in from the airport was very warm and hospitable, and I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave -- with all five fingers," Bush said with a smile.

Prime Minister Paul Martin played along.

"I know what you mean, Mr. President," he told reporters at a joint news conference. "I mentioned to the press that was with us in Chile that I found that Spanish and English and French are three different languages but that sign language is universal."

* __

Antiwar demonstrators from Toronto, who joined thousands of people gathered here to protest Bush's official visit to Canada, rolled out an "unwelcome mat" -- a giant carpet-turned-protest sign.

"Over 100,000 people have been killed so far by the invasion and occupation of Iraq," said Dylan Penner, a leader of the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War. "War criminals like Bush aren't welcome here."

Some opponents along Bush's motorcade route from the airport to downtown were polite. One sign said "Please Leave."

The crowd near Parliament Hill, though, minced no words in expressing their opposition to Bush's presidency. Police in riot gear heavily guarded buildings the president visited downtown.

Several dozen people held placards that branded Bush an "assassin." A truck parked near the motorcade route was emblazoned with the phrase "Bush is a war criminal." A sign, depicting Bush riding a missile marked with a swastika, read "Go Home (expletive)!"

"Canada is not against America," said protester Fredric White, 40, who works for an entertainment company. "We're totally against Bush. He's arrogant and ignorant. We totally disdain his policies on the war and his treatment of the U.N. The administration has an imperialist attitude where he thinks he can take over countries by bombing them.

"He's courageous to come here because we can't stand him."

Perhaps fittingly, from the perspective of demonstrators, Bush entered a Parliament building for his meeting with Martin through a 302-foot campanile called the Peace Tower.

Networks' coverage of visit proves insight is snow joke

Chilly reports earn frosty reception

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

I should be typing this wearing sealskin mittens but I lost them in the blizzard of frozen north metaphors that blanketed the U.S. media landscape yesterday.

Good thing I could hitch my American Eskimo Sydney to the wheel on the generator so she could fire up the computer and TV in the old igloo.

Otherwise I'd have to write my column in the snow.

Yup, U.S. news people make it easy for critics to dump on them.

That's because yesterday, in covering the first day of U.S. President George W. Bush's visit to Canada, they used every chilly chestnut they could think of to describe this country and its relationship with theirs.

From the Wall Street Journal editorial seeking a "Canadian warm front" in a potentially "frosty reception" to Fox News asking if Bush can "defrost relations" to CNN's headlining "Big chill! Can President Bush melt the ice up north?" it's a wonder that Air Force One didn't ski into Ottawa.

"Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras: colder and lot less interesting," said CNN Crossfire's Tucker Carlson to renegade MP Carolyn Parrish on Wolf Blitzer Reports.

(Recall that he's the guy that comic Jon Stewart called a "dick'' on live TV not long ago.)

"There's a lot of dog sledding in Canada," Carlson continued.

"There's not a lot of dog sledding; there's a lot of dog walking," Parrish coolly retorted, refusing to get hot under the collar, despite being misrepresented on U.S. TV all day.

Earlier, on Crossfire, Tucker and his co-host Paul Begala also mocked Canada, describing it as "limpid, flaccid," "third-rate," and "a made-in-Taiwan version of the United States."

But CPAC's Ken Rockburn, billed as "a real live Canadian," snowed them.

When confronted with images of the afternoon anti-Bush demonstration in Ottawa, Rockburn shrugged, "There was probably more yelling on your show today than I saw at these protests."

Ironically, CNN seemed to show more Canadian protesters than it ever did of anti-war, anti-Bush Americans. No wonder the channel, like MSNBC, didn't pick up on their presence until 3 p.m.

Of course, that's when helmeted and shielded police began a shoving match with them. Until then, the U.S. cable nets ignored the peaceful crowds, despite the fact CBC Newsworld and CTV Newsnet were showing images of the estimated 5,000 demonstrators earlier in the day.

As apparently dumbfounded CNN anchor Tony Harris queried reporter Suzanne Malveaux, "(H)as this protest been gathering throughout the day? I don't recall it earlier today. Or is it something that's just sort of developed over the last hour?"

After that, the images of the police scuffling with protesters dominated coverage of the visit.

"A not so warm greeting from our neighbours to the North," said CNN's Judy Woodruff.

"No, this is not Ukraine, this is Canada!" brayed Wolf Blitzer.

Not surprisingly, the protests made all three major network newscasts at 6:30.

CBS led with its report slugged, "Trouble With The Neighbours." Canadian-born John Roberts, chief White House correspondent, interviewed protesters about their concerns.

Not so NBC's David Gregory. His report, which followed news of Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge's resignation, focused more on "mending fences." Of course, the fence he showed was a snow-bound border crossing.

As for ABC, the Canada visit ranked third in its line-up. Again, the tagline was "Mending Fences," although reporter Terry Moran did show a giant "Bush is a war criminal" sign from the protest. A follow-up piece by Bob Woodruff reviewed Canada-U.S. relations.

As for Bush, he acted as if he never got a cold shoulder.

His news conference quip about the warm welcome here was in heavy rotation all night: "I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave -- with all five fingers -- for, -- heh, heh -- for their hospitality."

Yeah, well, we used all five fingers because that's the way our mitts are made.

But, judging from the coverage, the White House will probably be holding its finger to the Canadian wind chill for a while.

Additional articles by Antonia Zerbisias

Just say No to missile defence

RICHARD GWYN

Let's talk about anti-missile defence, since Prime Minister Paul Martin and President George W. Bush avoided talking about it during their meeting in Ottawa even though it's the most important contemporary issue in Canada-U.S. relations.

For starters, it's better to not think of it as a Canada-U.S. issue. It -- this being whether we should join the project or stay out -- is better understood as a domestic Canadian issue.

In Washington, it's impossible to detect the least interest in whether Canada joins or not. If anything, they may marginally prefer that we stay out.

The system is going ahead anyway; indeed, soon it will be operational in a limited way.

We will bring with us only a minuscule amount of money, a small amount of technology and no collateral in the form of real estate -- unlike during the Cold War when we were in the direct line of flight of missiles and bombers from the Soviet Union.

For the small benefit of adding a certain political legitimacy, we'd impose the price of being perennially unwilling members of the anti-missile defence coalition.

Also, it's not our affair that the system itself is almost totally unnecessary and that it probably won't work.

It will supposedly protect the U.S. against nuclear missiles launched by "rogue" states. Even if any such states could actually do this, it's unimaginable that a dictator would consign himself and his country to oblivion, as would happen in the instant retaliation.

The likelihood of a defensive missile actually knocking down an incoming missile -- a bullet hitting a bullet -- can be argued endlessly, but most of the system's tests have failed. Still, the mere fact that it might work just might deter an attacker, if one ever existed.

For the projected $80 billion U.S. price tag, this seems like a trivial payoff, except as a subsidy to the military-industrial complex.

The system is far from trivial, though, but for reasons that have nothing to do with rogue missiles -- except, perhaps, as public relations cover.

"It's about space, stupid," declares George Friedman, the highly regarded American strategic analyst.

As reinforcing evidence, a Pentagon document recently leaked to the press talks about the need to ensure "space superiority ... to ensure freedom of action in space for the U.S. and its allies and, when directed, deny an adversary freedom of action in space." A study by our own defence department declares that a "significant risk (of the anti-missile system) is its reinforcement of trends toward the weaponization of space."

The anti-missile system is unquestionably the first step towards the militarization of space. Canada opposes this because of the risk of triggering off a new arms race. Indeed, in answer to a question in the Commons, Martin repeated our opposition to the weaponization of space the day before Bush arrived.

So, if we join the system we will make a mockery of our foreign policy.

Yet, there are sound domestic reasons for us to clamber aboard.

Our refusal to join would mean the end of the near half-century-old NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence) Command that tracks intruders into the continent. A Canadian is deputy commander of NORAD.

Without NORAD, we'd be blind. And in our self-interest, we need now to keep our eyes wide open.

NORAD's new importance (its original purpose, watching for Soviet bombers, is obsolete) derives from the likelihood of challenges to Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic because of climate change.

Trans-Arctic commercial travel may soon be feasible, and likewise the exploitation of High Arctic resources. Denmark has already declared it will develop oil and gas reserves under the pole on the grounds that these are in an area that is part of its Greenland territory.

Way back in May, 2003, then-prime minister Jean Chrétien announced that discussions would start with Washington about Canada's role, or non-role, in the anti-missile system.

For well over a year now, we've been dithering (unlike Britain, Japan and Denmark, which have all joined the system) essentially because Ottawa's political hope of a payback from Washington was cancelled by its fear of mass public protests if we joined.

But, since Washington doesn't care whether we join, there'll be no payback anyway. Instead, as Ottawa can't bring itself to tell Canadians, we do need to keep standing on guard over our Arctic.

At issue, therefore, is two opposing threats to Canadian sovereignty: in the Arctic and in space (by our going there with the Americans, however much we keep protesting we're not doing it and that they shouldn't be doing it).

What to do? Surely, to say No to anti-missile defence, and to space militarization, but to say Yes to the Arctic by spending there what we need to be a real player, militarily as well as politically and diplomatically.

An arctic snowhawk !

SMILE, CANADA. BUSH IS HERE

November 30, 2004

by Phillip Todd

From last night's town hall-style forum on The National, which showcased Americans and Canadians who have moved from one country to the other, to the polls probing the differences between the two nations in this morning's papers, it seems George Bush's visit to Canada has us all in a tizzy about what it means to be Canadian. There are usually two answers to this question, and both use the United States as their compass point. The first is the perception that we are morally superior. The National's forum last night was a pretty good example. And in yesterday's Globe, Norman Spector complained that this undercurrent pervades most Canadian coverage of the US. The second answer takes Thomas Axworthy's point of view, that Canada is on the decline because it can't deliver the three Ds: defence, diplomacy and development. Predictably, these are the takes of the left and right sides of the debate.

Naturally, they're both correct. While progressive Americans fret that over the past generation their nation has gone from being a beacon of hope and democracy to a reviled global menace, Canadians have watched with pride as our modest country has taken steps to becoming one of the most compassionate, pluralistic and open societies in the world. There was even a moment a year or so ago when it seemed Canadians' ultimate fantasy was being realized: articles were popping up in the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Economist suggesting that this country, not its storied southern neighbour, was leading the charge for rights and democracy in the hemisphere. Sadly, a few articles do not a global reputation make. Canada may have values that the world, and even the US, would do well to look to as guiding examples, but sadly we just don't register out there. Those three Ds that the right touts so much are what force nations to take notice--and, in doing so, perhaps seek to emulate. Maybe it boils down to this: are we satisfied being the world's best kept secret or is it influence we crave? MediaScout's hunch: it's the hunger for influence that did the US in. So let's just stay under the radar.

Let's make baby and bombs!

Bush arrives in Halifax

LOL, note that the picture file name is "shrub"

Conditions were grim at the Ottawa airport as U.S. President George W. Bush's plane headed for Halifax early Wednesday, finishing the Ottawa portion of his short visit to Canada.

His plane was about 40 minutes late getting off the ground amid low visibility, light snow and gusting winds. Conditions in Halifax were better when he arrived, but the forecast called for showers and a high of 5 degrees.

Mr. Bush had spent the night in Ottawa and will be back in Washington by evening. His time in Halifax will be brief -- less than two hours in all -- but will include the major speech of his visit.

Addressing an invitation-only crowd at Pier 21, the entry point for many Canadian immigrants, Mr. Bush will offer his nation's thanks to the Nova Scotians who took in air travellers stranded on Sept. 11, 2001. He is scheduled to speak shortly after 11 a.m. local time (noon EST) and will be headed back to the airport about an hour later.

Prime Minister Paul Martin will also travel to Halifax, in a separate plane, and is scheduled to speak as well.

Protests by the Halifax Peace Coalition are planned and a mock trial of Mr. Bush was conducted on Tuesday. The group said its designated protest spot was too small and that it will instead march through the downtown, wearing black armbands, and plans to hang a "He's not welcome" banner at Cornwallis Park. They hope to serve an arrest warrant on Mr. Bush for war crimes.

"We will observe a minute of silence for the deaths of innocent people in this 'war on terrorism'," the group said before the protest began. "We will also have a moment of silence to mourn the death and destruction caused by Bush policies and voice our concerns before returning to Grand Parade or returning home. This will be a peaceful protest."

A few of the people who took in air travellers stranded by the Sept. 11 attacks have spoken out on behalf of the peace group, saying that they resent being used as a belated photo-opportunity.

More to come

Parrish jousts with CNN's Carlson

Broadcast News and canada.com    Sound Off

Broadcast News

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

CREDIT: Canadian Press

Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish

TORONTO -- A kinder, gentler Carolyn Parrish appeared on CNN as the US president visited Ottawa.

The outspoken MP, who was turfed from the Liberal caucus two weeks ago, has attracted attention for her anti-American comments. But she softened her stance yesterday during an interview with news anchor Wolf Blitzer.

When asked if she thought George W. Bush was an idiot, Parrish told Blitzer "the coalition of idiots I was referring to, I think, were mostly the politicians in my own government."

She said "how could he rise to the top job in the country by being an idiot?"

But Parrish also seemed grateful that Bush won't be in office forever. She said "as good neighbours, we will wait patiently for another four years."

But she did cross swords with the U.S. network's political commentator, Tucker Carlson.

"I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States," said Carlson.

"We're a very secure nation because we haven't ticked off the rest of the world. We march with the world. We're not out of step," replied Parrish.

At one point, Carlson said he didn't believe the average Canadian held negative feelings toward the U.S. because they are too busy dogsledding.

"There's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking," responded Parrish.

"Welcome to our century," said Carlson.

TRANSCRIPT

President Bush is making his first official visit to Canada trying to thaw a relationship that's turned frosty over issues ranging from Iraq to timber. Our White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux is traveling with the president in Ottawa. She's joining us now live -- Suzanne.

SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Despite the efforts to mend fences between these two countries, these two leaders, this visit attracted thousands of protesters, essentially demonstrators protesting Iraq policy, the Iraq war. Also a number of other issues as well, including a U.S. ban on Canadian beef as well as the U.S. tariff imposed on softwood Canadian lumber. Now all of these disagreements, of course, the two leaders addressing them. They personally have a good relationship, but realize there are quite a few disagreements, but the two of them side by side decided to emphasize the positive. The president, instead of talking about the disagreement over Iraq, emphasized Canada's cooperation and its peacekeeping role in Afghanistan, its humanitarian aid that it has provided in Iraq and also its willingness to forgive some $450 million in Iraqi debt.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: Canada and United States share a history, a continent and a border. We also share a commitment to freedom and a willingness to defend it in times of peril. The United States and Canada fought side by side in two world wars, in Korea and the Persian Gulf and throughout the Cold War. Today, we're standing together against the forces of terror.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Now while the leaders disagree on Iraq policy, both of them coming out very strongly, agreeing on Ukraine's elections, calling for the fact that they need -- it needs a peaceful resolution on the disputed election result, calling for both sides to come together. President Bush also acknowledging the Polish president, Kwasniewski, for his initiative in those negotiations -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Suzanne Malveaux in Ottawa, thank you, Suzanne, very much. The president will continue his talks in Canada tomorrow.

She made it clear she has opposed President Bush on the issue of missile defense.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CAROLYN PARRISH, CANADIAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: We are not joining the coalition of the idiots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Now this Canadian lawmaker is raising eyebrows again. She will join us live. Also, one of the deadliest months yet for U.S. forces in Iraq. Why the cost of American lives is surging.

And a life or death decision process beginning in the final phase of the Scott Peterson murder trial. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Will President Bush mend that long fence along the 49th Parallel?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave with all five fingers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: He has his work cut out for him. Joining us now from Ottawa is the Canadian parliament member, Carolyn Paris. She was expelled from the Liberal Party for what Prime Minister Martin called "unacceptable behavior," which included a recent stomping of the George W. Bush doll. And here in Washington, Tucker Carlson, he is the Canada-baiting co-host of CNN's "CROSSFIRE." He has suggested that our northern neighbor, in his words, is a third-rate country. We'll get to Tucker in a moment. Let's begin with Carolyn Parrish.

Thanks very much for joining us. We're going to show our viewers that picture of you stomping that George W. Bush doll. What were you trying to prove?

PARRISH: Actually, I was making fun of myself. We have a program up here called "This Hour Has 22 Minutes." And they love to get politicians to do bizarre things, like put rollers in their hair and jump into bed with strange people. And they kept giving me direction and I kept following it.

BLITZER: So, you apologize for that?

PARRISH: Nope.

BLITZER: Why not?

PARRISH: Because I was making fun of myself. It was a parody on me and my anti-Bush position. And if you can't make fun of yourself in this business, then it's time to get out of it.

BLITZER: What about the sound bite that -- we'll play it right now. I want you to listen to what you said about this coalition the president has been trying to put together.

PARRISH: I've heard it before.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PARRISH: We are not joining the coalition of the idiots.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right. Give us the context of that.

PARRISH: Well, I was speaking to a large crowd on the steps of the House of Commons. There were a lot of people there protesting against Canada's joining missile defense and I happened to agree with them. General Gard (ph) came up from the States, representing 48 former military people, and I had spoken with him about it. We also had Professor Postal (ph) from MIT telling us this isn't going to work. And I think it is an increase to weaponization of space. I think it's a very bad idea. And the coalition of idiots I was referring to I think were mostly the politicians in my own government.

BLITZER: All right. So you don't consider President Bush an idiot?

PARRISH: No. How could he rise to the top job in the country by being an idiot?

BLITZER: Tucker Carlson, what do you think of this latest twist in the U.S.-Canadian relationship?

TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST, "CROSSFIRE": Oh, well, I mean, it's part of an ongoing sort of battle that the U.S. doesn't really participate in. I think you get the sense that Canadians think much more about the United States than the United States thinks about Canada.

I think, you know, Canadians are nice people, it's a nice country, but it's a country in the grip of a national insecurity complex. Canada needs the United States for trade, for a lot of reasons. Without the U.S., Canada is essentially Honduras, but colder and much less interesting. And I think that that makes Canadians -- the dependence that Canada has on the United States makes Canadians understandably resentful.

BLITZER: Carolyn Parrish, those are fighting words.

PARRISH: Oh Tucker, you're way out to lunch on this one, my friend. Most of the top six things you buy from us are raw materials: hydro, gas, oil. You need us more than we need you.

CARLSON: We exploit your natural resources, that's true. But in the end, Canadians with ambition move to the United States. That has been sort of the trend for decades. It says something not very good about Canada. And I think it makes Canadians feel bad about themselves and I understand that. PARRISH: No. I don't agree with you, Tucker. I think Canadians who have a good social conscience and are more European in their outlook live here quite happily.

CARLSON: I bet.

PARRISH: Those who want to make huge bucks and not worry about where they're coming from go to the States. And we're glad to be rid of them.

CARLSON: Well, with that attitude, no wonder they leave. I concede that.

PARRISH: No wonder.

BLITZER: What is the attitude now, Carolyn Parrish, in Canada, President Bush has been re-elected, there's a bigger Republican majority in the House as well as in the Senate, has there been an accommodation, if you will? Are Canadians ready to accept this American president?

PARRISH: Listen. We accept the democratic process. And that was why I was interviewed the day after the election. And I said the people of the United States have clearly spoken. I think this was a non-controverted result and I think as good neighbors, we will wait patiently for another four years.

BLITZER: I was in Ottawa 10 years ago or so, then-President Clinton spoke before the parliament.

PARRISH: Yes, he did.

BLITZER: He was pretty warmly received. You noticed this time, Tucker and Carolyn, the president of the United States is not speaking before the parliament in Ottawa. Carolyn Parrish, why is that?

PARRISH: I think Mr. Clinton shared a lot of our values. He talked about Medicare and he talked about banning weapons. He said that he envied us our gun laws. So he was more simpatico with the Canadian people. And he was very warmly received. He's a very terrific guy?

BLITZER: Would you have heckled President Bush had he come into the parliament?

PARRISH: Absolutely -- no, no, no. I'm not a heckler. I don't heckle anybody.

BLITZER: Would your colleagues have heckled him?

PARRISH: I don't think so either. I think the reason Mr. Bush didn't address the parliament is was they were having a hard time finding common ground that he could talk about. We do not support the war in Iraq. We are not impressed with 100,000 dead Iraqis. We're not impressed with 1,000 dead American soldiers. So, what would be the basis of the conversation? We couldn't solve softwood lumber in a speech in the House of Commons. We couldn't solve the beef problem. So there was no common ground for a speech.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: What about -- Tucker, I was going to say to you, what does it say that the president of the United States on an official state visit to Canada, the first time in a decade, doesn't address the parliament?

CARLSON: Well, you know, he doesn't want to get heckled. That's right. I'm glad to hear Ms. Parrish is not a heckler, merely a person who stomps on dolls. You've got to have standards. And I appreciate yours. No, look. Just simply because the United States and Canada disagree about the war in Iraq and they do doesn't mean they can't have productive conversations. I mean, the United States and China talk about all sorts of things. We're major trading partners. And I think in the end, it only hurts Canada, these attacks on the United States. Again, just to restate a pretty obvious point that I know is foremost on your mind, Ms. Parrish, Canada needs the United States. The United States does not need Canada. But you need us. And so to alienate our administration is probably not such a good idea.

PARRISH: Tucker, that's a really bad attitude, my friend...

CARLSON: It's true.

PARRISH: I think we need each other. I think we have got a long-term trade partnership. I think both countries benefit from that partnership. And when you say to us, we don't need you, that's not a way to make friends...

CARLSON: In fact, it's not even a value judgment, it's simply a recognition of economic reality. Of course it's good for the United States to trade with Canada, but it's vital for Canada to trade with the United States. So you gain nothing by alienating the administration.

PARRISH: It's pretty vital for California to take our hydro-oil (ph). I think it would be dark the next day. I think this is not a productive conversation. I think we're long-term friends, we are long-term trade partners. And we will weather this recent storm. We are fundamentally opposed to might is right and brute force and preemptive attacks on other countries. That's fundamental in Canada.

CARLSON: Well, you have the benefit of being protected by the United States and you can say that. But I think if Canada were responsible for its own security -- you would be invaded by Norway if it weren't for the United States and so you...

PARRISH: We're a very secure nation because we haven't ticked off the rest of the world. We march with the world. We're not out of step.

BLITZER: Tucker, don't you believe that this 3,000-mile border that the United States shares with Canada that it's imperative that the U.S. has a friendly ally on the other side?

CARLSON: Oh, of course. In the end, the countries are friendly. There are some French politicians who get something out of...

BLITZER: But when you say the United States doesn't need Canada, the United States has a 3,000-mile border with Canada.

CARLSON: My only point is as a matter of trade, Canada is far more dependent on the U.S. than the U.S. is on Canada. That's simply a fact, again, not even a value judgment. But of course the United States needs a good relationship with Canada and I suspect it will always have one unless some separatist government comes to power and the country splits into two, which is always possible. But short of that, no, absolutely the countries will remain allies and there will always be politicians who see it to their benefit to stomp on Bush dolls. But no, I don't think the average Canadian feels -- the average Canadian is busy dogsledding. You know that.

PARRISH: That is such -- that's such a caricature and you have to understand from this lowly backbencher that shouldn't even be on your show, I am of total insignificance within my own party and within the country, you're sure putting up a lot of fuss and putting a lot of attention on this. It shows a very weak ego, in my opinion. I think if you're as strong as you say you are, anything I have got to say can't hurt you.

BLITZER: I will point out to our viewers as well as to Carolyn Parrish that Tucker Carlson often speaks with tongue in cheek. Is that a fair assessment, Tucker? Just want to make sure our viewers don't literally believe that every word that you're saying.

CARLSON: I don't think every Canadian is dogsledding at all times but I do think there's a lot of dogsledding in Canada. Yes, I do think that's true.

PARRISH: Very little, my friend.

CARLSON: You know that's true, Carolyn. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). But there's a lot of dogsledding.

PARRISH: No, there's not a lot of dogsledding. There's a lot of dog walking, my friend. Not a lot of dogsledding.

CARLSON: Welcome to our century.

BLITZER: There's some dogsledding in the United States as well, including the beautiful state of Alaska. Tucker Carlson speaking tongue in cheek sometimes, not always. Sometimes.

Carolyn Parrish, you're an important guest. All of our guests are important. Thanks very much for joining us.

PARRISH: Thank you, Wolf. I've enjoyed it. Thank you, Tucker.

CARLSON: Thanks. Thanks a lot, Carolyn. See you in Canada.

PARRISH: Yep.

BLITZER: U.S.-Canadian relations, a very, very important subject to all of our viewers, both south and north of the U.S. border.

- from CNN

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041201/IBBITSON01/TPComment

By JOHN IBBITSON

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - Page A1

OTTAWA -- They leaned against their respective podiums as they listened to each other speak. They cracked jokes about the weather, touched each other easily on the shoulder; their wives kissed. They got along.

The arrival yesterday of George W. Bush in Canada marks the sixth meeting between the U.S. President and Prime Minister Paul Martin in less than a year. Only last week, they conferred at the APEC meeting in Chile. They will talk again today, in Halifax, before Mr. Bush returns to Washington.

Both men want to repair the rift in Canada-U.S. relations. Both are going out of their way to cement a relationship that will withstand and transcend day-to-day irritants. And they are succeeding.

Although there have been no huge announcements, no signal breakthroughs, the two sides have set an agenda of steady-as-she-goes agreements to improve security, bilateral trade and the environment.

There may be more in six months, when Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan -- no doubt in consultation with whoever replaces Tom Ridge as U.S. Homeland Security chief -- reports on specific progress in opening the border to trade while increasing the security of the continental perimeter.

But what matters is, Mr. Bush and Mr. Martin are comfortable in each other's company. Yes, the President pushed the missile-defence issue a bit harder than Canada would have liked. He larded his remarks at yesterday's joint press conference with the sort of war-on-terror tub-thumping that drives the thousands who protested against his visit to fury.

But it is clear that the tensions that marred relations in recent years -- over American unilateralism, the President's early obsession with Mexico, America's refusal to sign on to the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto accord and, of course, over the war on Iraq -- are steadily dissipating.

The President knows that Canada accurately reflects a global community badly split between those who support the Pax Americana and those who resent the administration's bullish unilateralism.

"I made some decisions, obviously, that some in Canada didn't agree with," Mr. Bush said at the press conference, in reference to the invasion of Iraq, ". . . but I'm the kind of fella who does what I think is right and will continue to do what I think is right."

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien would have been unable to suppress a frown, standing beside an American president who said such a thing on Canadian soil. But Mr. Martin looked on with equanimity, and laughed heartily a few moments later when Mr. Bush thanked "the Canadian people who came out to wave -- with all five fingers."

But the fact of this trip, and of the previous meetings, reinforces the growing perception that, in his second term, Mr. Bush wants to improve relations with America's major allies, and that Canada is a good place to start.

The only real blemish in yesterday's talks concerned the vexed issue of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease. The Canadian beef industry is desperate to get the border reopened, a year and a half after a single Canadian cow was diagnosed with the disease. On Sunday, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew gave concrete assurances that the Americans had fixed a date to resume normal trade.

But, in fact, as Mr. Bush explained to Mr. Martin, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget will spend 90 days examining the proposed regulations for reopening the border, after which Congress will have 60 sitting days in which to consider overriding the regulations.

If all goes well, the ban could be lifted in late April or early May. But all might not go well.

Both sides are committed to reviewing the ineffective dispute-resolution mechanism that fails to resolve trade irritants. Chances are slim, however, that the Americans will cede sovereignty to any panel anywhere.

There are higher hopes that each side will expand an agreement that authorizes teams of customs officials to work on the other's territory to preclear goods and people crossing the border. There might also be progress in harmonizing some of the redundant regulatory frameworks that have each country conducting the same tests of the same products and separately reaching the same results.

These are the incremental steps that lead to freer trade, greater understanding and fewer tensions. But make no mistake: Paul Martin has made improving Canada-U.S. relations a cornerstone of his foreign policy. He is making steady, if modest, progress.

Okay, so he referred to Mr. Martin as "Mr. Prime Minister" at last night's dinner (the title doesn't take the honorific) and -- horrors! -- to Sheila Martin as "Madam First Lady." (That would be the Governor- General, if anyone.) He also said "it's good to be in Canada," and who's to say he didn't mean it.

Some people will resent a prime minister who places such store on repairing relations with an administration so unpopular with so many. Some will want to man the barricades.  Let them.  There are few among us whose life and work are not dependent on the health of the Canadian-American relationship.  It is a good day when, even if modestly, that relationship is strengthened.

*

No idea why there is all this fixation on Carolyn Parrish.  She certainly isn't representative of what all Canadians think.  If you will recall, she no longer is part of the Liberal caucus and is only able to retain her seat in Parliament as an Independent.

*

Seems like this topic needed some balance.  

I told Paul that I really have only one regret about this visit to Canada. There's a prominent citizen who endorsed me in the 2000 election, and I wanted a chance to finally thank him for that endorsement. I was hoping to meet Jean Poutine.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/12/01/bush.transcript/

And from 2000:

OTTAWA (AP) Stung by a pop quiz about foreign leaders earlier in his campaign, U.S. Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush has fallen victim to a foreign affairs prank.

Canadians are chuckling over his on-air answer when a comic posing as a reporter made up a story that Canadian Prime Minister "Jean Poutine"; had endorsed him.

"I appreciate his strong statement[,] he understands I believe in free trade," Bush replied. "He understands I want to make sure our relations with our most important neighbour to the north of us, the Canadians, is strong and we'll work closely together."

Canada's prime minister is Jean Chretien, not Poutine, and he has endorsed no one in U.S. politics. Poutine is a popular food in the French-speaking province of Quebec, consisting of french fries, gravy and cheese curd.

"The stunt was pulled by comic Rick Mercer from "This Hour Has 22 Minutes," a satirical TV show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Mercer, who sets up politicians for laughs. He button-holed Bush at a campaign event in Michigan before that state's Republican primary last month and fired several questions at him about a Prime Minister Poutine.

Canadians are keenly aware how little Americans know about them, a sense reinforced by Mercer, who has traveled in the United States fishing for evidence of that ignorance.

The real prime minister's office took the episode in stride, offering this response: "Clearly, Canada is not in the Bush leagues."

Gov. John Engler of Michigan, a border state with Canada, also didn't catch on when asked about Poutine at the same event. But he did seem surprised that a Canadian leader would supposedly take sides in a U.S. election.

In Arkansas, Mercer got Gov. Mike Huckabee to congratulate Canadians on their efforts to preserve their "national igloo," which Mercer had told him was melting because of global warming.

And he got American professors to sign a petition urging and end to the "Toronto polar bear hunt." Toronto is a city of 2.4 million people without any such bears.

Mercer said it's easy to lead his victims astray because they expect a straight question from someone they think is with the media.

"People don't really expect reporters to be asking trick questions," he said Monday. "It's all in really good fun."

---

Must I remind everyone what a poutine is

INTERNATIONAL / AMERICAS | December 4, 2004    

Bush Visit Leaves Canada's Leader With Missile Defense Dilemma

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS in Toronto   (NYT)   News

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/04/international/americas/04canada.html

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9067.html

hilarious :)

Is the one who break the tie in the house of commons if I remember well. It was already hot for Martin, couldn't be hotter. If the bloc and the conservative vote against Martin's liberal, he must get no abstention and get at least Parrish, or the other ultra-conservative independent, or both.

That's the little power she has. So there is maybe that.. And well... Drudge ... and Tucker Carlson on wanting to protect Canadian dogsledder. Unfortunately for him ,he couldn't get laid without paying here ;)

between "Carlson" and on "wanting", should be

Carlson contagious fixation on wanting ...