Were the USA to announce tomorrow that Canadian security is no affair of ours and that US forces would never be committed to Canadian defense then you'd promptly find out what you're being protected from.

The fact is, we need to be committed (if only moral support) to supporting the United States in their military endaveours, because Canada does not have the military capability to defend herself We need the United States in a crisis, if we were attacked, invaded, god knows what. They are there, but its not guaranteed, and we need to keep a strong relationship with the U.S.

As I said, the only country that's ever invaded us is the States.

Now I am not opposed to Canada/U.S. friendship nor am I opposed to helping out friends, but please tell who you think we are being protected from. Just for the record of course.

Yeah, cuz when we're in a fight, the US is there to help. Like Afghanistan right now. Or WWII. *rolling my eyes*

And isn't a relationship supposed to be a two-way street? Why doesn't anyone ever worry about the US damaging its relations with Canada? Such as by appealing softwood decisions in our favour, or launching an entire war without our support.

Mr. President and Nancy, distinguished guests, mes amis: I have the particularly happy duty of introducing to you tonight a great friend of Canada, Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States of America. This is an important personal occasion for me in that it is the last opportunity for me to welcome him to our country as President.

As you know, there is something in the constitution of the United States, called the 22nd Amendment, which apparently limits the lease on the White House to two terms. That brought to mind an incident that actually occurred to me about a year and a half ago. I was sitting at home on a Sunday reading the New York Times, and there on the front page was a headline that said "Reagan's popularity plummets to 59 per cent:' So right there I said: "There is the fundamental difference between Canada and the United States - language:' The word plummet obviously does not mean the same thing here as it does in the.United States. So I called the President at Camp David and I asked him whether he had seen this. He said "yes" and he was feeling a little down. I said: "Ron, I don't know how to break this to you, but 59 per cent on a good day is all that Margaret, Helmut and I will get together."

Next January, Ronald and Nancy Reagan will be taking their leave of Washington and returning to California and their beloved ranch in the hills above Santa Barbara. Since September of 1984, I have had the distinct pleasure of working closely with President Reagan. In the process, we have become friends. This is not to say that either of us has ever lost sight of the national interest of his own country, but I think that it has helped us to find the mutual interest of both of our countries. I suppose that too much can be made of special relationships between countries just as too much, perhaps, can be made of personal relationships between leaders. I don't think that this is the case between our two countries and I don't think that it is the case between these two leaders but others will have to be judge of that. Along the way Ronald Reagan and I, as well as Nancy and Mila, have become very good friends. There is more to this than simply a case of a couple of Irishmen getting along or even singing a song. By the way, I want to tell the singer tonight that both the President and I appreciated his talent and we viewed it with great envy.

We decided early on that the best way to manage our relationship, the relationship after all between the two most important trading partners in the world, was to meet on an annual basis and to phone whenever either wished. That is exactly what we have done over the years. If you go back and look at our communications beginning with the Quebec Declaration and the various joint declarations emanating from it, you will see the agenda and the task we set for ourselves. It was a challenging agenda on trade, on defence and on the environment. I suppose it is fair to ask at the end of the day: "What have we achieved?"

The Free Trade Agreement is going to give Canada access to a market of 250 million people, half of them within a day's drive of Toronto, making Toronto the centre of access to the biggest and richest market in the world. It's a good deal, a very good deal for both of our countries.

On defence, we have renewed our commitment to the security of North America and we are going forward with the Warning System as well as completing the modernization of our air and naval defences.

On the environment, we have shown leadership in such issues as the deterioration of the ozone layer and toxic wastes in the Great Lakes and we have more to do on the troubling issue of Acid Rain. Secretary Shultz and External Affairs Minister Joe Clark are addressing that actively, pursuant to instructions from the President and requests from us at the end of the last meeting.

As always, there is much unfinished business between our two countries, but I believe the annual meetings between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada have become a permanent feature of our affairs. They have helped to focus our agenda and to galvanize our officials.

We have addressed some of the most complex and difficult economic issues here in Toronto, from the troubling question of Third World debt to the challenging issue of agricultural subsidies. One of the reasons for these annual meetings is that we live in an increasingly inter-dependent world. As the President noted last week in his particularly thoughtful address to the Atlantic Council, over the years the Economic Summits have been a corner-stone of co-operation among the major democratic economies. They are part of the superstructure of Western strength and East-West affairs. In East-West relations, we have seen more than a thaw under Ronald Reagan, we have seen infinitely more than a thaw, more than detente, we have seen the coming of a new season of hope. That season of hope came about because Ronald Reagan said from the very beginning that there was one way to bring the Soviet Union to a realization of peace and that was from a position of strength - the strength of the United States and the solidarity of the alliance. That is exactly what is taking place.

I can say without hesitation that we saw tangible results while watching the President and Nancy a few weeks ago in the Soviet Union doing so much on behalf of human rights; being so active on behalf of the Refuseniks; on Jewish Immigration and most of the troubling social issues apart from the great questions of war and peace. The results, Mr. President, have vindicated your policy of the strength and solidarity of the alliance. An entire class of missiles is being eliminated with stringent verification procedures. This is an important step, not just in arms control, but in arms reduction. And so an era is indeed drawing to a close, a period in world history that will be known as the Reagan years, that will by and large be remembered as a time of peace and a time of prosperity. The world of 1988 and President Reagan's last Summit here in this magnificent city of Toronto is far removed from that world of 1981 when he attended his first Summit here in Canada. Whereas we stood then on the brink of the deepest recession in a half a century, the Western economies are now in their sixth consecutive year of unprecedented recovery and expansion. As with the improved prospects for a durable world peace, I tell you ladies and gentlemen, that this is due in no small measure to President Reagan's leadership and his courage and vision for a better world.

The President has done more than stay the course. He has changed the course of American and world history. On a personal note, I have always found Ronald Reagan engaging, good humoured and generous. I should tell you that the first time I ever had the chance to meet with him in the Oval Office, I was Leader of the Opposition. May that never happen again. (I just said that to give Senator Gerry Grafstein cardiacarrest.) I met with him in June of 1984 and that very morning in the Washington Post the reports had come out on the economy, (if it's in The Post, it's accurate). Growth of 6.9 per cent was reported in the previous quarter; unemployment was down to under seven per cent; investment was up 12 per cent. I said to the President: "My God, those are wonderful numbers. Boy, would we love to have those in Canada." He said: "You know, Brian, it's funny- they don't call it Reaganomics any more:'

We have not always agreed but we have always agreed to begin from the basis of friendship between our two countries and between ourselves. I shall miss our meetings, Mr. President, but I shall continue, as will Mila, to value our friendship. We wish you and Nancy good health and long life. Our Irish ancestors put it in another way: "May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind always be at your back, may the rain fall soft upon your fields and the sun shine warm upon your face, and, until we meet again, may the Lord hold you in the palm of His hand:'

Personally, I would rather rely on multilateralism and diplomacy to protect Canada's borders than the U.S.'s imperial army. Problem with an empire is it always tries to expand, and when you border it, that tends to be bad news.

Russia for starters.

Think about that before you shoot off a retort at me, eh?

Bart, that was a question asked with the hope for a thoughtful answer, not a jab. Russia is a possibility but Russia appears to be lucky to hold its own federation together. I suspect they will be fighting Siberian seperatists (sp?) and will have little time to fuss with our own indigenous groups. A fight over arctic ownership may be in the works, but Russia won't be the only ones involved.

Besides--you assure us that there is no chance of global warming and therefore the arctic is returning its "natural state." By the way, that last bit was a jab, the rest is not.

Understand the nature of Russian politics. When Russia planted their flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole and then claimed the Arctic sea floor for Russia it took a LOT of pressure off of Putin. By creating an external conflict Putin gave Russians something to get their "Mother Russia" nationalism going and it got a lot of Russians to approve of Putin's heavy handed tactics.

Russia is not going to be a leading democracy in the world and their resumption of sending nuclear armed subs to sea and their resumption of long range bomber flights challenging US & Canadian air space is not a friendly act.

So the issue of the Arctic is now a card the next Russian leader may decide to play someday in order to quell internal disturbances.

Yes, the Russians may well pick a fight over Arctic territory and resources simply to get people at home to get their minds off of failed government policies.

No offence, but Canada is not protecting her own norther approaches right now. US and British and Russian subs transit Canadian waters all the time and Canada bitches about it but can't actually do anything about it.

For the simple fact that infrequent flyovers and even more infrequent show-the-flag naval exercises are the extent of Canada's military presence in her own northern reaches. The Russians have operational nuclear ice breaking destroyers. The USA has very adequate cold weather forces trained and ready to go from our bases in Alaska.

Which is, again, why I am frequently calling for Canada to invest some of her oil wealth into an adequate military so that Canadian sovereignty is assured by Canadians.

Pragmatically speaking, it is possible that an anti-American will become PM and have enough votes someday to end the military alliance and agreements with the USA. At that point the USA will change its focus from friend to foe.

So if you want to roll that way then you need to have a decent military both to blunt potential US adventures and to deal with Russian, Chinese, Japanese, EU, or Danish adventures. On your own. .

Besides--you assure us that there is no chance of global warming and therefore the arctic is returning its "natural state." By the way, that last bit was a jab, the rest is not.

Your northern communities are suffering because the ice set in so early this last year and it's so thick that it may even be 2009 before some areas get proper supplies. So, yes, practical observation would indicate that the Arctic is getting back to normal and a growing number of climatologists are starting to say the same.

Nope. Great Britain invaded before we did, ask a Quebecer if you doubt me on this.

Sorry I took so long to reply here, but my household was in an uproar yesterday. My youngest son was granted an electrical apprentiship and now begins earning hours toward his next year of schooling. That means he can now afford to rent his own place and move out with his girlfriend and child. As you can imagine I was going around muttering under my breath the famous words of Martin Luther King--"FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST!

Harper has fixed the damage Chretien and Martin have inflicted to U.S. relations.

But I'd definitely say that the United Kingdom is probably the top ally to the United States now.

At least in their eyes.

The fact is, we need to be committed (if only moral support) to supporting the United States in their military endaveours, because Canada does not have the military capability to defend herself We need the United States in a crisis, if we were attacked, invaded, god knows what. They are there, but its not guaranteed, and we need to keep a strong relationship with the U.S.