CANADA'S NEW PRIME-MINISTER TELLS U.S. "TO BUTT OUT"

picked this up from the BBC website.
who says canadians can't have fun, eh ?
we are so proud of our new prime-minister that we are already using him to create international friction. i doubt that chirac was really amused. perhaps he'll invite the jokesters to join the foreign legion. hbg
-----------------------------------------------------------

Chirac tricked by Canadian hoax

French President Jacques Chirac thought he had taken a call on Friday from the new Canadian prime minister - but found himself the victim of a radio hoax.
The pair of hoaxers, known as the Masked Avengers, rang the Elysee Palace from their base in Montreal.

Mr Chirac congratulated the caller he thought was Conservative leader Stephen Harper on winning Monday's election.

Audette and his partner in crime Sebastien Trudel work for the CKOI station, Canada's most popular with more than one million listeners.

Audette said: "It was the first time Sebastien and me had spoken to a head of state."

As Mr Harper and Mr Chirac had yet to speak, "We said, why not, we'll give it a go and we're delighted that it worked," Audette said.

Mr Chirac began by saying: "I would like to offer my congratulations for your election victory. We have excellent relations and I'm sure they'll carry on in the best spirit."

Audette, in a deliberately thick French-Canadian accent, then complained that French newspapers had portrayed him in a bad light.

Mr Chirac responded: "You can't prevent newspapers from saying any old stuff. That's true in France and it's true in Canada."

"Exactly Mr President, liberty, equality and fraternity. Amen," said Audette.

Mr Chirac, 73, then invited "Mr Harper" to visit France.

When the gag was revealed, the president laughed, saying: "Oh right, I understand. In any case, please know that my friendship for Canada and the new Conservative government is a real and unequivocal friendship."

The hoaxers have in the past targeted Tiger Woods, Bono, Donald Trump, Paul McCartney and Janet Jackson.



.

Well, for what it's worth, if America took the time to check a geography book (do they exist in the States?) they would see that the Northwest Passage- Arctic - DOES belong to Canada. Harper is right on and I am pleasantly surprised that he took on the US so soon. The issue is that fresh water will be worth billions, esp. as the glaciers melt, so naturally the US thinks they can just step in and take it. That's usually their M.O. Also, going that route saves time/fuel on large vessels, so he who controls that part of the world will naturally be quite powerful. Canada powerful? Time will tell. We certainly have the resources.

Poppycock. First, not just the US, but the entire International Maritime Community maintain that the Northwest Passage is an International Shipping Route, with unrestricted passage to be granted vessels of all nations, sea conditions permitting (which as yet, and possibly for decades to come, if ever, they do not). Second, Canada can assert whatever it wishes, but the fact of the matter is Canada has no capability to enforce sovereignty nor even effectively to patrol, let alone to secure the Northwest Passage.

It's war I tells yez

Everybodys getting cocky with America now. Were not very popular.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

I'd love to see your source from whence your above balderdash emanates. since the source below states "there has yet to be a concrete international agreement". America, as usual, just THINKS it owns the NW Passage, another attempt at global dominance.

Canada isn't a tiny little defenseless country inhabitated by guys with chainsaws and suspenders to hold up their insulated pants. We are quite aware of America's agenda. The following article may help illustrate what Canada is doing to protect HER waters. American ships may be allowed through, after they register with Canadian officials......

The facts: The dispute between Canada and foreign countries, particularly the United States, over Arctic sovereignty has gone on for decades.

Canada says the waters have long been used by the country's Inuit, who gave their support to Canada's sovereignty claims in the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

The United States and others insist that while the islands belong to Canada, they are surrounded by international waters.

The shrinking polar ice cap, as well as the fact that the Arctic ice is thinner than it once was, has opened up the prospect of the Northwest Passage becoming a major shipping route between Asia and Europe.

Such a route through the Arctic islands would be 7,000 kilometres shorter than the current passage through the Panama Canal.

University of British Columbia professor Michael Byers, who, along with University of Montreal professor Suzanne Lalonde, directs a project on Arctic sovereignty and the Northwest Passage, called Mr. Harper's rebuke to Mr. Wilkins -- over U.S. failure to recognize Canada's Arctic sovereignty --"remarkable."

Mr. Byers had been recommending that Canada install an icebreaker on each side of the northern coast well before Mr. Harper's recent campaign promise to buy icebreakers. He said Mr. Harper's plan would go a long way toward boosting Canada's sovereignty claim.[/color

[b]The professor said that there has yet to be a concrete international agreement dealing with the status of the waters.[/b]
"The honest answer is, it's a dispute," he said. "With sovereignty, you either use it or you lose it."

Mr. Byers noted that a Russian-flagged icebreaking cruise ship, the Kapitan Khlebnikovi, is already sailing the Northwest Passage. It charges passengers about $10,000 (U.S.) for the northern journey and visits Inuit communities during the summer.

The real threat, according to Mr. Myers, is that shipping vessels will start using the passage in violation of Canadian environmental laws if Canada is unable to patrol the region. The two Arctic experts also recommend the imposition of mandatory registration for ships entering Arctic waters, a system already used off of Canada's Atlantic coast. And they call for radar to be installed at the entrances to the Northwest Passage.
The Liberal government increased its surveillance of the Arctic, through electronic methods and northern military exercises.

Speaking in late 2004, former U.S. ambassador Paul Cellucci hinted the United States may be willing to recognize Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage if it helps U.S. security.

"We are looking at everything through the terrorism prism," he said. "Our top priority is to stop the terrorists. So perhaps when this is brought to the table again, we may have to take another look."

Mr. Byers said he viewed the comments as an invitation from the U.S. State Department to renegotiate the issue. END.

Yes, the very typical threat that Canada must help with US security, then the US 'may be willing' to recognize Canada's claims to the NW Passage. PLEASE! Quit using the excuse of terrorism to threaten countries into compliance! It's getting to be quite an old ruse and by now even you Americans must see that. We will not be dictated to by Americans. And, what's more, Canadians know WHERE the NW Passage actually is.
The arrogance of America is appalling. It takes quite a bit of bad foreign policy to piss of Canada, but you guys did it! Congrats!

By the way, how many Americans even know where Nunavut IS????

Our new PM has just gained a whole lot more respect in my eyes. It was expected that he might be a Bush puppet. Seems that he is now pulling the strings.

If someone wants to treat us discourteously, I would not necessarily recommend treating them discourteously in return, but cooperating less, or helping them less in the future is probably in order. There ought to be a clear benefit to being our friend and penalty for being our enemy.

I am not saying that Canada should alter its position on geographical boundaries, but I would hope that the disagreement could be a courteous one. In my own personal life, I am not very likely to reward bad treatment with good treatment unless I happen to feel in a particularly charitable mood.

If invading Iraq was necessary in the first place, then the fact that it made someone mad is irrelevant.

bm

I want to hear more from the Canadians here about this new government & what it means for Canada.

Why it made them mad is what is relevant. It's the reason for Canadas actions. The world knows our motives and our methods.

and what did it gain?

Canada knows we'll go after their water so same way we went after Iraqs oil. Which is why we put Saddam Hussain into power and gave him the materials and technology for WMD's in the first place. To protect and acuire our interest by any means possible.

We would probably just use the water to wash our Hummers anyway.

The facts are that in no way does the US press any sovereign claim to The Northwest Passage; the US and the general Maritime Community position is that the waters constitute an international shipping route. There is no "Concrete Agreement" simply because Canada refuses to formally acknowledge that her sovereignty in the region applies to the coastal and island land masses (which no one disputes), but not to the navigable waters *which only Canada disputes). From your Mr. Bryers, as quoted in your above post: " ... The United States and others insist that while the islands belong to Canada, they are surrounded by international waters ... " Any problem there is Canada's, is of Canada's own making, and is of no consequence to the rest of the world.


No such threat or assertion exists other than in the fevered imaginations of those given to such foolishness. As far as Canadian sovergnity goes, just about a year ago, Canada Effectively Relenquished soveriegnty of her own airspace.


What I, and many Americans, see is that the leftist America-Worst Bushophobia long since has staled and grown tiresome - though it is amusing in its futility.


You've got that a bit backwards; The US will be dictated to by no one.


I imagine most Americans don't, though personally I've actually been to Frobisher Bay - now called Iqaluit - capital of Nunavit, since 1999 Canada's newest territory - a couple times. Baffin Island is a pretty neat place.

What some perceive to be arrogance others perceive to be evidenced competence and achievement. Them what can do, and them what can't but wish they could generally are jealous of them what can and do.


Sorta small cheer for small potatoes - a nothing kudos for a non-accomplishment. I suppose, though, there's some cheer to be had knowing some folks have been pissed off by US foreign policy, and even more knowing Canada's liberals are among the impotently pissed off; foreign policy is not intended to please a nation's enemies. I imagine that Canada's liberals now have even greater empathy with their futiley tail-chasing American counterparts, the Democrats.


Oh, and thinking of Nunavut, Canada's newest Territory - I think its appropriate it came into being as a distinct political subdivision on April Fool's Day.

Hows that for arrogance?

All they have to do is declare, as the US has, that the 200 mile limit includes activities to secure it's borders.

No?

Did ya miss the part that the person complaining is the new Conservative Prime Minister?

Arrogance? As long as you think that's how it's perceived.

bookmark

No I did not. First, he's "Conservative" only in the sense he's a bit to the right of Canada's decidedly Western-European Left/Liberal Socialist style center, and only slightly to the right of that at that (though at least thats a start). Second, I think its cute he decided it was necessary to get the ball rolling by pandering to the Canadian left and picked such a non-issue to "Show his backbone" as his opening act. I's say the arrogance there is all Canada's - but arrogance isn't quite the word I'd use. I almost think think impertinence would serve better, though the overall insignificance of the issue renders even that a bit harsh; perhaps disingenuous is better all around.

I like that PM-elect Harper is asserting his "Canada first" mind set and I like his reminder to the citizens that Canada is a sovereign nation, and as such is required to define and muster some defense of its borders.