This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

id: 28178
date: 3/4/2005 21:22
refid: 05OTTAWA706
origin: Embassy Ottawa
classification: CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
destination:
header:
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
----------------- header ends ----------------
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000706
SIPDIS
NOFORN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/04/2013
TAGS: PREL MARR PGOV CA
SUBJECT: CANADIAN OPPOSITION LEADER HEARS DISAPPOINTMENT
RATHER THAN "SOLIDARITY" ON MISSILE DEFENSE
Classified By: DCM John Dickson. Reason 1.4 (b) and (d).
¶1. (C/NF) Summary: Ambassador Cellucci met March 4 with
Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper, at the latter's
request. Although the original reason for the meeting was to
explain and gain understanding for the Opposition Party's
position on Missile Defense, the Senate vote to keep the
border closed to live Canadian beef and the murder of four
Canadian police officers by a drug dealer in Alberta also
came up. The Ambassador took the opportunity to raise
concerns over lack of leadership in both major parties in
their handling of Missile Defense. End Summary.
¶2. (C/NF) The Opposition leader first raised the hot topic
of the Senate vote on beef exports to the U.S. and asked
about the current status of the minimal risk rule. The
Ambassador explained the process and pointed out the
announcement by the President to veto any measure that came
from Congress to overturn that ruling. This was about as
strong a signal as anyone could get that there is no linkage
between trade issues and Ottawa's rejection of Canadian
participation in missile defense. (NOTE: Newly arrived
Canadian Ambassador to Washington Frank McKenna, in a recent
interview, had hinted at possible linkages between trade
problems and Canadian public attitudes toward cooperation
with the U.S. END NOTE.) It was a not subtle message,
comparing a leader who knew what was in the best interests of
the U.S. and was not shy about expending political capital in
standing up for it.
¶3. (C/NF) Harper asked the Ambassador for his take on the
government's handling of the Missile Defense issue. The
Ambassador pointed out that the two reasons he heard from
Martin were that he could not trust the Conservatives for
their support and he wanted to avoid an anti-American debate.
Harper said that he never heard that there was a specific
proposal on the table, and the Conservatives were unprepared
to support a project or a proposal whose contents had not
been revealed or even discussed.
¶4. (C/NF) The Ambassador dismissed this as playing politics
with North American security. He pointed out his dismay that
when the government, in response to a NATO request, was
considering sending a small number of Canadian trainers to
Iraq to help train the Iraqi army, the Conservatives were the
first to launch a shrill protest against boots on the ground
in Iraq. Harper countered weakly that they needed to do this
because the Liberal election campaign had effectively
targeted them as being hawks on Iraq. The Ambassador also
pointed to the last-minute Conservative renege in Parliament
on the bill to split International Trade from the Department
of Foreign Affairs that caused the government its first
legislative defeat. Harper tried to correct the record by
saying that they had never promised their support over this
bad idea and that, even when they had come out in support of
Liberal initiatives (the budget, e.g.), government insiders
planted critical leaks in the press that made the
Conservatives look bad.
¶5. (C/NF) On the Missile Defense decision, the Ambassador
reiterated his disappointment that Canadian leaders on both
sides of the House of Commons had refused to provide the
leadership needed to do what was in Canada's interest. The
White House was not happy with the way the issue was handled,
and Washington officials, especially in Defense, were
questioning Canada's reliability as a partner. For the first
time Canada and the U.S. were out of step on North American
defense. With respect to NORAD, the Ambassador expected that
we would move forward with the renewal process, but in a more
limited, cautious manner than might have been the case with
Canadian participation in Missile Defense. He found it odd
that Canadians at NORAD would now be able to help identify
and analyze an incoming missile threat to North America, but
would presumably have to leave the room when decisions were
made on what to do about it.
¶6. (C/NF) The Ambassador then commented favorably on what
appeared to be a significant and meaningful increase in
Canadian defense spending, calculated to at least to begin to
reverse a decade long decline. His impression was that this
funding was serious and was locked into a procurement cycle,
and wondered if his optimism were justified. Harper said
that if the decision rested with the Conservative Party, it
would be a guaranteed deal, but he couldn't say the same
about the Liberals. Down the road, you could never be sure
which way the Liberal wind would be blowing.
¶7. (C/NF) Ambassador Cellucci expressed his and Washington's
condolences on the loss of the four Mounties gunned down the
day before while conducting a marijuana grow-op investigation
in Harper's home province of Alberta. He asked Harper if
this would have any effect on the government's plans to
decriminalize marijuana. Harper thought that it would
probably put the brakes on the pending legislation to
decriminalize small amounts of marijuana. The Liberal party
stance on drugs, however, especially marijuana, tended to be
soft. Passage of the bill might be slowed, but it would
likely move forward later in the year.
¶8. (C/NF) Comment: The leader of the Opposition came
looking for understanding and solidarity in criticism of the
Martin government, but the Ambassador's message was blunt:
Canada's handling of the Missile Defense issue reflected a
basic lack of principled leadership on the part of both the
government and the Opposition. The latter, sticking to the
line they were not expected to lead, never laid out a
principled position in support of North American defense, and
instead used this issue to try to divide the Liberal party.
And the Liberal government, given its minority status and the
need to stop the hemorrhaging of votes in pacifist Quebec and
left-leaning urban ridings in Ontario, also based its
decision on political expediency. In terms of security
policy, however, both sides knew that at least symbolic
participation in missile defense was where Canada should be
heading. End Comment
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa
CELLUCCI
=======================CABLE ENDS