US embassy cable - 05OTTAWA706

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, Missile Defense, Stephen Harper 
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