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

UNCLAS E F T O SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 001459 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
SENSITIVE 
 
TO ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES FROM CHARGE DICKSON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER KCRM CA
SUBJECT: CANADA:  ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES' MAY 18 VISIT 
TO OTTAWA 
 
¶1.  (SBU) As you prepare for your first meeting with Canada's 
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Minister of Justice 
Irwin Cotler, I want to extend my welcome and offer the 
Embassy's continuing support for the range of issues, 
initiatives, and processes that form the core of the 
Department of Justice's interests and programs in Canada.  At 
a time when Washington, Ottawa, and indeed Mexico City, are 
formulating ideas to advance North America's collective 
prosperity and security, your visit underscores the 
importance we place on open and forward-leaning collaboration 
with Ottawa.  The Cross Border Crime Forum is a prime example 
of this U.S. and Canadian collaboration and your visit, even 
during troubled political times in Canada, underscores our 
commitment to this process. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) You come to Ottawa at a very "interesting" time 
politically.  At this point it is unclear how long - or if - 
the minority Government led by Prime Minister Paul Martin can 
remain in office without a new national election.  Stephen 
Harper, leader of the Official Opposition Conservative Party, 
is committed to bringing down the Liberal Government and 
forcing an election as soon as possible, and he is very close 
to having the votes to win a no confidence vote, now 
scheduled for May 19. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) This uncertainty does spill over into the law 
enforcement arena, and you will undoubtedly hear of Justice 
Minister Cotler's stalled attempt to advance additional 
anti-human trafficking legislation, an issue of concern he 
and your predecessor shared.  Still, even in the present 
unsettled atmosphere, your visit can reinforce the absolute 
necessity for official Americans and official Canadians to 
push forward on our common law enforcement objectives.  This 
is nowhere more evident than in your confirmation that the 
Cross Border Crime Forum shall continue to be the driving 
mechanism that gives voice to our Justice-to-Justice 
dialogue, a road map that continues to serve us so well. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Regardless of party affiliation, most Canadians 
understand that prosperity, safety and well-being of our two 
societies are linked.  Most Canadians appreciate the threat 
posed by would-be terrorists and increasingly by organized 
and violent criminals.  While many don't feel Canada is 
itself a primary target for terrorists, they realize that an 
open and free-flowing border with the U.S. is vital to their 
economic prosperity.  This understanding has given us 
leverage as we pursue our law enforcement/justice goals in 
Canada.  Indeed, your predecessor's quiet but firm commitment 
to law enforcement was heard loud and clear throughout Ottawa. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The working relationships among the Ministries of 
Justice and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and your 
Department of Justice are professional and productive.  The 
warm welcome you receive from Deputy Prime Minister McLellan 
and Minister Cotler is genuine and reflects the exemplary 
working relationship on justice and law enforcement issues 
that has existed for years.  Both have stated that they want 
this relationship to continue and expand.  To further our 
agenda, we suggest you raise the following issues with your 
Canadian counterparts that the Mission sees as 'fixable' 
stumbling blocks to even better cooperation.  They are: 
 
------------------------- 
Canada's Privacy Concerns 
------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) There is growing concern among certain consumer and 
union groups in Canada about the privacy effects of certain 
elements of the Patriot Act, primarily Section 215.  In 
November 2004, following objections public employee unions in 
British Colombia to the contracting out of health claim 
processing to a U.S. firm, the BC Privacy Commissioner issued 
a report that raised concerns but characterized the risks as 
manageable through additional contractual safeguards.  The 
Federal Privacy Commissioner has undertaken a review of the 
issues raised in BC and the federal Treasury Board has asked 
federal agencies to review their contracting and report back 
on any potential issues. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) While Canadian government experts believe that 
Patriot Act procedures are not incompatible with Canadian 
privacy legislation, which is more operationally flexible 
than that of the European Union, the government feels 
increasing pressure to address the issue.  They suggest 
exchanging views and information on a range of 
privacy-related topics in a low-key, non-confrontational 
manner, rather than focusing on the Patriot Act.  We suggest 
that you reassure your interlocutors that the U.S., too, has 
addressed and is committed to privacy issues. 
 
----------------- 
Production Orders 
----------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) U.S. and Canadian counter-terrorism and 
counter-crime efforts could result in more successful 
deterrents, arrests, and prosecutions if U.S. and Canadian 
law enforcement authorities could draw from better 
harmonization of legal provisions, methodologies and 
operational standards.  For instance, Canada's "probable 
cause to believe" and signed court order requirements are 
more difficult for Canadian law enforcement officials to meet 
than the "reasonable suspicion" standard used in the U.S.  As 
a result, Canadian law enforcement officials tell us that 
they are unable to secure warrants against individuals police 
believe have conspired or are conspiring to commit criminal 
and terrorist acts.  Presently, domestic legislation has 
passed in Canada (March 2004) that allows for production 
orders, but it has not been implemented for lack of a clear 
evidentiary standard.  Therefore, it would help if you were 
to suggest to Ministers McLellan and Cotler that they push 
for a process that compels evidence more expeditiously on a 
"reasonable suspicion" standard.  You may even want to 
reinforce the ongoing discussions in the law enforcement 
working group of President Bush's Security and Prosperity 
Partnership as an ideal channel to discuss this issue. 
 
--------------------------- 
Law Enforcement Partnership 
--------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Our working level contacts at the Ministry of 
Justice have told us that Canada may soon formalize a 
shiprider protocol with the United States that would allow 
U.S. Coast Guard vessels with Royal Canadian Mounted Police 
(RCMP) officers on board to conduct interdiction patrols in 
Canadian waters of the Great Lakes.  Our hope is that a 
shiprider protocol may serve as a stepping-stone to more 
routine U.S. and Canadian law enforcement joint operations 
along our contiguous land and sea frontier.  For instance, we 
would welcome the expansion of the already successful 
Integrated Border Enforcement Team (IBET) program to include 
joint (vs. the current parallel) patrols, and the addition of 
overflight and landing provisions for IBET air components. 
We would hope you could find the opportunity to endorse a 
US-Canadian shiprider protocol as an important law 
enforcement interdiction program. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Your interlocutors might also query you on the 
status of Title 19.  The absence of a carriage-of-arms 
reciprocal agreement between the U.S. and Canada has been a 
stumbling bloc to more effective IBET deployments since the 
inception of the program.  The U.S. passed amendments to 
Title 19 in February 2003, and DHS has initiated 
implementation procedures to allow for the cross-designation 
of foreign law enforcement officers as Customs Officers in 
the United States.  Canada has stated that it would be 
amenable to offer U.S. law enforcement officers Title-19-like 
authorities and exemptions, but will not do so until the 
apparent impasse in Washington is clarified and overcome. 
Whether or not the Canadians raise Title 19, the Mission 
contends that our ability to support effective law 
enforcement work in Canada requires our officials have the 
authority to carry arms.  We would your support in securing 
Title 19-like protections here in Canada.  In the meantime, 
should they ask, you might respond that you support this 
legislation. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) And, finally, your hosts may raise the US "Special 
301" report criticizing Canada's intellectual property rights 
(IPR) regime and enforcement mechanisms.  RCMP and local 
police officers are jointly responsible for IPR enforcement 
inside Canada.  U.S. (and many Canadian) companies have 
complained that Canada's enforcement regime against 
counterfeiting and piracy, both at the border and internally, 
is cumbersome and ineffective, requiring civil court orders 
before goods can be formally seized.  RCMP representatives 
say they are emphasizing training and streamlining procedures 
and have had a couple of highly publicized seizures in recent 
months.  The IPR enforcement issue has been on the agenda at 
both the Cross-Border Crime Forum and in the Security and 
Prosperity Partnership, and the US Trade Representative has 
committed to an "out-of-cycle" review of Canada's legal 
framework and enforcement procedures.  Canadian officials 
dislike and reject the US "Special 301" process but say that 
enforcement is receiving more attention as issues of public 
safety, e.g., imports of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, come to 
the fore.  Indeed, the safety issues surrounding pirated 
household electronic items are frequently raised by Deputy 
Minister McLellan.  During your meetings, you may want to 
underscore the U.S. commitment to getting these hazards off 
the streets and out of our homes. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
DICKSON