Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Stephen O who wrote (2325)	4/2/2003 6:44:55 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37611

I sent the Globe article around to a few people in my address book, at least two of whom told me that they've written Coderre too. Maybe we can do some good for a change.

To: Stephen O who wrote (2325)	4/3/2003 8:47:54 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37611

Holocaust survivor can remain in Canada: Coderre Last Updated Thu, 03 Apr 2003 7:27:25 cbc.ca TORONTO - A 75-year-old Holocaust survivor will be allowed to stay in Canada with her two sisters after the federal immigration minister reversed a decision by his department. Immigration Minister Denis Coderre said Wednesday Helen Dougherty could remain in Canada. In an earlier decision, the department ruled she had to leave or be deported, rejecting her application to remain on "humanitarian and compassionate grounds." Coderre's change of heart came hours after a Toronto newspaper ran a front-page story featuring Dougherty. "I have decided to instruct my official that, on compassionate grounds, to allow Ms. Dougherty to stay in Canada," Coderre told the House of Commons. Dougherty, a widow with Alzheimer's disease, came to live with her two sisters two years ago. They are her only remaining family. Canada's immigration rules don't allow Canadians to sponsor their siblings for permanent residence. The immigration minister has the power to waive the rules. Alliance MP Diane Ablonczy says it should not have required a public outcry for the government to do "the right thing."

To: Stephen O who wrote (2325)	4/3/2003 9:19:28 AM
From: DeplorableIrredeemableRedneck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37611

Interesting viewpoint: Why Chrétien put us on the sidelines Gordon Gibson National Post Thursday, April 03, 2003 VANCOUVER - Suppose for a second that the following were true: Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has declined to offer the support of Canada to the United States in respect of the Iraq war chiefly because the population of Quebec is overwhelmingly opposed to said war. Just suppose. What would one think of that? In posing such a fundamental question one must establish some ground for believing the proposition, and we have no direct testimony. Jean Chrétien has not said, "I am prepared to see Canada suffer the inevitable trade and economic losses that will be visited upon us as a result of American disappointment in our failure to support them, because the strains on national unity of supporting their war would have been worse." He has not said, "The re-election of the Parti Québécois on April 14 would open the way to another devastating referendum on separation. Quebecers are overwhelmingly opposed to the war on Iraq. Canadian support of that war would be used by the PQ as one more proof of how impossible it is for Ottawa to represent the 'Quebec nation,' thus making the re-election of the sovereigntists more likely. So I will not give them that argument." But these unsaid statements have the ring of truth, do they not? What other explanations can be given for the rejection of our best friend and greatest trading partner? What other reason could possibly justify the pain that will come about from the hardening of U.S. attitudes on, say, softwood lumber or wheat exports, of major importance to much of Canada. What other reason could be given for jeopardizing the PM's much anticipated trip to Washington to receive a parks award (already cancelled) and the visit of President Bush to Ottawa in early May (soon to be cancelled). What other reason could be given for setting up a situation where American policy-makers, inside Washington and outside, and including the private sector, on an ongoing basis have a seriously good reason for saying: "Canada on this deal? Do we really need them? If not, then no thanks." These little decisions happen in their hundreds every day, from the tourist visit not taken, to the factory not built, to the latest border tightening. What other reason indeed? Certainly not the failure of the UN to bless the Iraq war, though that is the stated Chrétien excuse. Unfortunately the whole world knows that without UN sanction Canada cheerfully joined in bombing Belgrade to get rid of the tyrant Milosevic. Why not now help bomb Baghdad, equally without UN sanction, to get rid of a far worse and more dangerous tyrant? No indeed, the UN is not the reason. Well then, what about the famously anti-American Liberal caucus. Could this explain the Prime Minister's actions? Hardly. His routine actions reek of contempt for the caucus, the latest being his demand to vote for more money for the billion-dollar gun control boondoggle, or bang, you're excommunicated. At the end of the day this Prime Minister has never much cared for caucus views, and now that he is on his way out and the caucus is mostly supporting Paul Martin he doesn't give a damn at all. Mr. Chrétien himself is not particularly anti-American (though he is quite content to play that card if it suits him). Reject the caucus explanation. So what explanation is left? Certainly not principle. On principle we should be against a dictator that could and would finance terrorist attacks on the West, even if we didn't care what he does to his own people. On principle we should stand by our greatest friend and largest trading partner even if we're not totally sure they're right. Thus on principle we should stand with them. On grubby economic grounds we should stand with them. Principle or dollars, take your pick. But why ignore both? Only politics trumps these arguments, and the only political issues left of sufficient importance to "Legacy Jean" are two: Keep the Quebec he nearly lost in 1995, and stick it to Paul Martin. Poking the Canadian finger in the American eye on Iraq nicely plays to both. Bernard Landry loses an election argument (he has praised the Ottawa policy on this one) and Paul Martin gets to pick up the pieces on our injured trade relations. Surely no one could be so cynical? I will listen respectfully to any other explanations, but none of them -- especially the UN excuse (remember Kosovo?) ring true. It comes down to Martin and Quebec. Older souls will hark back to the Second World War when the policy of prime minister Mackenzie King on the raising of essential troops was wholly driven by the politics of Quebec. For most Quebecers and their politicians it was not their war, and for King, Canadian unity (and especially the survival of his government, to put a practical gloss on things) was more important than matters of Empire. Conscription, the dreaded word of the day, was not to be imposed until 1944, and the cannon fodder came mostly from anglophones. But the nation survived and prospered nicely, thank you. Mr. Chrétien could cite this precedent -- if he were to admit the comparison, which he won't. Of course Mr. Landry looks set to win the Quebec election anyway and the nation may not survive -- but there we are. You take your legacies where you find them. Gordon Gibson is a Vancouver commentator.; ggibson@bc-home.com