Vive Le Canada - Paul Cellucci: Shut Up!

Paul Cellucci: Shut Up!
by Paul Harris

A brief history lesson for those of you who are not so aged as I.

In 1967, Canada celebrated its one-hundredth anniversary as a nation. We formally became a country on July 1, 1867 although it was not until the Statute of Westminster passed by Britain’s parliament that we finally got legal and political independence. It was not until 1982 that we finally got our own constitution and even now the Queen of England is technically our head of state and has a representative in Canada; we still speak of the final process in our lawmaking as ‘royal assent’.

In 1967, we turned our centennial into a year-long party. The World’s Fair, which we called Expo ‘67, was held in Montréal and the heads of many foreign countries came to call and to pay their respects; I actually happened to be there as a teenager and see US President Lyndon Johnson from a distance.

For those who may be unfamiliar with our past history, there is a long-standing movement in that province for Québec’s separation from the rest of Canada and during the 1960’s there were some particularly violent episodes, murders, bombings, and so on. The separatist movement still exists but the violence has at least faded away.

With that background, you can well imagine the dismay and horror when French president Charles DeGaulle visiting Canada in 1967 and giving a public speech where he proclaimed loudly to a francophone audience: ‘Vive le Québec libre!’ (long live a free Québec). The last thing we needed during those turbulent times was a foreign head of state showing up on our doorstep to stir the pot. Prime Minister Lester Pearson ordered him out of the country.

On March 26, 2003, Paul Cellucci decided to drive a wedge into Canadian-American relations. Mr. Cellucci, former governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, is the American Ambassador to Canada and he decided to publicly chastise our government.

The government of Canada had officially notified the United States that we would not participate in the war against Iraq. We are continuing with our involvement in Afghanistan as part of the "war against terrorism" but it was our position that the case for war with Iraq had not been made, that the proper avenue for resolving the Iraq issue was the United Nations. America’s southern neighbour, Mexico, had declared essentially the same thing.

To be sure, there were Canadians who disagreed with this stand but the majority appears to believe that any action absent the support of the United Nations is wrong. It is my view that Canada’s decision was correct although I believe our government’s handling of the issue was obnoxious, clumsy, deceitful, and not defensible.

But Mr. Cellucci chose the occasion of a breakfast speech before members of the business community in Toronto to publicly rebuke the government of Canada. He took some shots at remarks by members of the government that were critical of the United States and of President George Bush, in light of the government’s failure to reign in its members. That is a fair criticism, but it had no business being aired in that forum. As an ambassador, Cellucci knows that the appropriate protocol required him to voice his country’s displeasure to our government in private. It is fair game for our government to be politely critical of our neighbours, and vice versa, even publicly; but the sort of dispute raised by Cellucci belongs in the corridors of the statesmen and women, not in the public.

Cellucci was particularly critical of Canada’s reluctance to join in the war effort in Iraq. He said: “There is no security threat to Canada that the United States would not be ready, willing and able to help with. There would be no debate. There would be no hesitation. We would be there for Canada — part of our family.”

He may be right about that although I would need to be convinced. But the same is certainly true in reverse. Canada leaped to America’s aid immediately on September 11, 2001 without being asked, without caring where the threat came from, knowing only that our closest friends were in peril. A great many Americans found themselves stranded in Canada because in-bound airplanes were diverted and they would be among the first to agree that Canada opened its arms, with no questions asked. We sent volunteer workers and equipment and cash to help with the aftermath in Washington and New York.

The expectation that we would help was taken so much for granted that President Bush didn’t even bother to say thank you when he was publicly thanking everyone else. While some Canadians were miffed by that, Bush explained that we were so much like family that it was just a given that the help was there and a given that it was appreciated. While I think that is probably true, I don’t believe George Bush does.

Where Mr. Cellucci went wrong, of course, is in his implication that Canada failed to come to the aid of the United States in its time of peril. There wasn’t one; they were under no threat from Iraq, it was quite the opposite. The United States was not in peril; the United States WAS the peril.

His remarks are particularly disingenuous because of something else he said in his speech. He referred to Canadian troops and vessels involved in the "war on terrorism" and our warships presently on patrol in the Gulf region. He said: “The Canadian naval vessels will provide more support to this war in Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our effort there.” If that is the case, then his public rebuke was even more obnoxious; he acknowledged that we were providing the help, and then chastised us for not providing it.

And since that fuss created by Cellucci’s remarks last spring, he has continued to be an outspoken critic of Canada, its policies, its laws. He has criticized proposed changes to marijuana laws, gay marriage laws, he has threatened or implied that failure to adhere to Washington’s oblique directives will result in border chaos for us. He has persisted in interfering in domestic affairs which are not his role. In short, he has been sh*t disturber.

In correspondence I have had with many Americans, Argeo Paul Cellucci is described as the "failed governor of Massachusetts". Doing a little digging into his less-than-stellar political history reveals why he was shuffled off to an ambassadorial post as a reward for his party faithfulness. He has apparently always been loose-lipped, interfering where not wanted, and arrogant.

There have even been petitions circulated in various media in Canada to urge the Canadian government to send this man home. A Canadian ambassador in Washington behaving as this man does would long ago have been sent packing. If we don’t have the gumption to expel him, at least we should demand that he shut up.

Paul Cellucci should learn a little more about how to be a good ambassador and he should learn how to properly express his country’s displeasure about something. Of course, there is the distinct possibility that he is directed to speak as he does; because there was clearly no love lost between his president and our previous prime minister. Maybe that will change now that we have a new kid on Sussex Street; but if it doesn’t, hopefully our new guy will have the guts to escort Mr. Cellucci to the border.

----
Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing businesses with the tools and expertise to reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. Canadian businesses can reach him at paul@working-solutions. He has traveled extensively in what is usually known as "the Third World" and has an abiding interest in history, social justice, morality and, well, just about everything. Paul is also a freelance writer and can be reached at paul@escritoire.ca. He lives in Canada.