US embassy cable - 04OTTAWA3027

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 003027 
 
SIPDIS 
 
NOFORN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/05/2014 
TAGS: MARR, PGOV, PREL, CA, Missile Defense, Conservative Party 
SUBJECT: CANADA: CONSERVATIVES DIVIDED ON MISSILE DEFENSE 
FOR CANADA; GOVERNMENT LIKELY TO AVOID DECISION IN NEAR 
FUTURE 
 
REF: OTTAWA 2990 (NOTAL) 
 
Classified By: POL MC Brian Flora.  Reason 1.4 (b), (d), (e). 
 
1. (C/NF) SUMMARY:  Despite broad speculation in media and 
academic circles that the government was poised to take a 
(positive) decision on Canada's participation in missile 
defense, PCO Clerk Alex Himelfarb indicated to the Ambassador 
that the government would seek to avoid a debate and vote on 
MD anytime soon (reftel/NOTAL).  Coincidentally, in a 
separate meeting the same day (November 8), Conservative 
Defense Critic Gordon O'Connor voiced his party's 
(unexpected) reservations on MD to poloffs and DATT; he 
shared privately his assessment that missile defense is so 
politically divisive that the minority government will not 
risk bringing it to a vote.  Discussions with House Foreign 
Affairs Committee Chair Bernard Patry, and FAC Assistant 
Deputy Minister (ADM) Jim Wright's comments on his MD 
briefing to the Liberal Caucus bear out the judgment that 
Parliamentary ignorance and misinformation about missile 
defense are key factors in Canadian reluctance to make a 
decision about the program.  END SUMMARY. 
 
OFFICIAL OPPOSITION (CONSERVATIVE) NOT CONVINCED MD IS FOR 
CANADA 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
2. (C/NF) At Ambassador's request, Poloffs and DATT met with 
Conservative M.P. Gordon O'Connor, Opposition defense critic, 
ostensibly to help fill the Opposition's knowledge gap on 
missile defense.  Elected to the Commons for the first time, 
O'Connor is a retired Army Brigadier General who also worked 
as a consultant for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.  O'Connor 
spoke candidly, noting at the outset that he was less 
concerned with technical details (obtainable from web sites, 
he said), than with what role the Liberal government is 
considering for Canada in the missile defense framework.  The 
Opposition wanted to know "what" the government would be 
signing up for, and "what" will be debated when the issue 
comes to the Commons floor. In light of the five years the 
government had worked the issue, O'Connor said, there must be 
"some kind of arrangement" that the U.S. and Canada had 
discussed.  He added that while he fully appreciates the 
American view that the threat is increasing over time and the 
U.S. needs to be prepared, at present he doesn't see a clear 
benefit to Canada.  O'Connor reflected that Canada might be 
better off sitting it out for now and, if the threat became 
compelling, perhaps "re-engaging" with the U.S. five or ten 
years hence. 
 
3. (C/NF) Polmiloff responded that there is no "Agreement" 
per se at this time.  Rather, the Embassy's understanding 
drawn from the public debate was that in putting missile 
defense to a vote, the government would seek Parliament's 
blessing to commit to and negotiate Canadian terms of 
participation in the program.  O'Connor said that the 
government possesses full authority to negotiate and sign 
treaties; therefore, in his view, it does not need 
"permission" to negotiate MD participation.  Rather, he 
agreed with what Defense Minister Graham had said on public 
radio -- that the government should negotiate a package with 
the U.S. and present the terms to Parliament for 
ratification.  On delayed Canadian participation, DATT 
acknowledged that while it was clearly Canada's prerogative, 
Canadians should be made aware of the opportunity cost of 
waiting, as the program continues to evolve independently of 
and without consideration for issues of potential 
interest/concern to Canada. 
 
4. (C/NF) O'Connor added that he believes there is no/no 
incentive for the government to bring the issue to a vote at 
this time.  In his estimation, the anti-federalist Bloc 
Quebecois (54 votes) and left-of-center NDP (19 votes) would 
"absolutely oppose" any missile defense proposal, and a 
considerable number of Liberal MPs clearly would like to 
follow suit.  He believes that the Liberals, knowing that a 
missile defense vote will expose the rifts in the Party, will 
simply push it further down the road, perhaps even to the 
next election.  Politically, O'Connor said, the issue also 
was tricky for the Opposition.  In essence the Conservatives 
would like to continue opposing the government without 
betraying their basic advocacy for strong defense.  They see 
four options if and when the issue comes to the floor: 
Support, Oppose, Abstain, Allow the caucus to vote its 
conscience (a free vote). 
 
5. (C/NF) O'Connor concluded that he did not want to leave 
the impression that he and the Conservatives do not 
understand the nature of the post-9/11 threat and the need 
for a strong, united defense.  They take the issue very 
seriously, he said, and are committed to improving Canada's 
defenses. But they cannot just fall into line without knowing 
precisely what the government is proposing and how MD fits in 
the overall defense picture. 
 
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR UNSURE WHAT MISSILE 
DEFENSE IS ABOUT 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
6. (C/NF) In a meeting on November 4, House Foreign Affairs 
Committee Chairman Bernard Patry told poloff and visiting 
WHA/CAN desk officer that he "expected" the missile defense 
debate to take place in December, with Parliament adjourning 
on December 12th.  Patry said the vote would be non-binding 
and that the government would brief Parliamentarians in the 
lead-up to the vote. He added that the likelihood was high 
that it would be a "free" vote for the Liberal Caucus and 
that, regardless of the outcome, the government would proceed 
with the program. 
 
7. (C/NF) Patry said the key concern for him was the 
potential for "weaponization of space." (NOTE: Rather 
tellingly, on at least one occasion Patry called the missile 
defense program the "space weapons program").  He did not 
know what the involvement of Canada would be, the cost, nor 
the impact of Canadian participation on NORAD.  Patry said 
that Canada accepts that the U.S. has a clear vision and 
rationale for the missile defense program and will proceed 
with it regardless of others' participation:  But that 
doesn't answer the question of whether MD is a "good idea" 
for Canada. 
 
FAC BRIEFING TO THE LIBERAL CAUCUS FURTHER REVEALS KNOWLEDGE 
GAP 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
8. (C/NF) Assistant Deputy Minister for Global and Security 
Policy Jim Wright provided a readout to DCM of his November 
30 briefing on missile defense to about 50 Liberal MPs. 
Wright, whose expertise and grasp of the issue are well known 
to USG interlocutors at post and in Washington, shared the 
key points he made: 
 
-- Regarding sovereignty: This is a Canadian decision and 
always has been; there is no pressure from the U.S. to sign 
onto missile defense. He argued that "it is an exercise of 
sovereignty to decide to participate" and it was difficult to 
imagine Canada not participating on an issue related to North 
American security. 
 
-- Regarding cost: Level of participation is a matter of 
choice.  Wright said he went into some detail about different 
levels opted by other countries in response to one MP's 
rejoinder that Japan had contributed $25 billion "but they 
got something for that". 
 
-- Regarding national security interests: Canada's decision 
should be part of a bigger strategy of prevention (consistent 
with involvement in PSI and Global Partnership) as well as 
protection (missile defense).  Moreover, MD should be seen as 
part of a comprehensive security package that includes smart 
borders, NORAD renewal, and BPG renewal. 
 
9. (C/NF) Wright told DCM that a minority of MPs want it 
"both ways": protection without paying, and command and 
control input but no assets on Canada territory.  He said he 
was careful not to raise expectations on industrial 
opportunities and notions of influence over the U.S.  Wright 
assesses the way ahead to be blurry. The FAC bureaucracy 
needs a political green light that will only happen once the 
politicians are comfortable that this is really "their" 
sovereign decision.  Wright said he took some criticism that 
this briefing was long in coming.  He confided that FAC has 
done "preliminary thinking" of what a framework might look 
like based on the US-UK agreement. Finally, while there was 
no green light on briefing other parties yet, Wright thought 
a decision to go ahead and offer briefings to the opposition 
caucuses might be made next week. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
10. (C/NF)  From our collective discussions with Canadian 
interlocutors it is clear that misinformation and plain 
ignorance about missile defense are factors in the 
government's inability to move the issue forward.  While 
parliamentary briefings by credible professionals such as Jim 
Wright can help to de-mystify MD, at this point the issue is 
so starkly politicized that only time--and perhaps a stronger 
government--may enable common sense to prevail. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
CELLUCCI