Well I suppose it was inevitable eh? Ever since the Quebec students began marching, the Con media has been attacking them like a pack of rabid hyenas.

The Con liberal Andrew Coyne called them a violent mob. The windy little teabagger Rex Murphy called their protest a self-indulgent parody.

The petty-bourgeois hack Margaret Wente did her ghastly Marie Antoinette impression.

But now Michael Den Tandt has gone one deranged step further, and called for the Quebec students to be caned.

There’s a better way: Dispersal with massive use of tear gas; then arrest, public humiliation, and some pain. In 1994, an 18-year-old American named Michael Fay, living in Singapore, was arrested and pleaded guilty to charges of vandalism and mischief, after he keyed several expensive cars. He was sentenced to four months in jail, a $3,500 (Singaporean dollars) fine and six strokes of the cane, applied to his bare buttocks.

Barbaric? Not really. Arguably, caning is more merciful than incarceration for an energetic young vandal on the cusp of becoming a full-fledged career criminal. Many would probably rather be caned than locked up, given their druthers.

Caned like they are Singapore . . .

And I really don’t know what to say? Except is he serious?  Is it booze? Is it dementia? What kind of kinky stuff is this?

And of course what kind of savage country are we becoming?

You know the other day a friend of mine said the problem is the boomers invented the youth culture. But now they are old, so they hate the young with a passion. And  this is the beginning of a brutal generational war.

But I prefer to think it’s just another sign that Canada, corrupted by the filth of Stephen Harper and his Con thugs, has lost its way.  And doesn’t even recognize that the young are its future. And that they are fighting for a better world.

“When we defend the right to free public education to serve the people and their needs, we confront the bigger fishes that are obstacles along our path. And it is at this point that we must be more ingenious, more intelligent, more committed, more relevant, to avoid falling into the game and strategy of those who wish to divide us, frighten us, those who see us as hardliners, as delinquents.

A better world for ALL of us here now, and all future generations.

And I did point out to my friend that not all older Canadians are on the wrong side of history . . .

Didn’t you just love that fighting senior telling the cops what he thought of them?

Yup. Michael Den Tandt should shove that cane where the sun don’t shine.

The Con media should restrain themselves.

And the Quebec students should keep on marching . . .

It’s not at all a bad thing that CBC loudmouths Don Cherry and Kevin O’Leary have agitated some viewers lately, Cherry with his rant against former NHL enforcers who have come out against violence in hockey, and O’Leary with his interview of American journalist Chris Hedges, in which he told the Pulitzer Prize-winner “you sound like a left-wing nutbar” (to which Hedges replied “I don’t usually go on shows where people descend to character assassination”). The CBC has been at pains for some time now — roughly since Stephen Harper came to power — to demonstrate that it can dish-up right-wing opinion with just as much zeal as Fox News, and, servile as that may be, it has at least resulted in a welcome new pithiness at the MotherCorp.

However, while Cherry’s a clown, O’Leary’s just a clown act. You can tell that Grapes, for all his showboating and blowing of somebody’s budget on rococo suits (does the CBC pay for those things? Maybe we should shut it down), is genuine in his celebration of violence, whether from players on the ice or soldiers in Afghanistan. O’Leary, on the other hand, seems to be engaged in a branding exercise. His tired “greed-is-good” routine, which he trots out on both “Dragon’s Den” and, as with the Hedges incident, “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange,” is so calculated to offend stolid Canadian values that the CBC ought to add a glint to his smile and give him a moustache to twirl. It’s plain he thinks he’s remaking Canada in his own, Michael Douglas-without-a-toupee style, one rube at a time.

Both men are pursuing agendas with the potential to do harm. Indeed, decades of hockey violence have already left a lot of players brain-damaged, as a very good segment of “The National” demonstrated the other night. And the current Occupy Wall Street movement, not to mention the entire American economy, shows you where greed gets you. But that’s free speech for you; even dimbulbs have a right to it.

But while Cherry’s an institution, and thus untouchable, O’Leary’s preaching to a rapidly diminishing cohort. The CBC ought to get rid of him, not because his views offend some people, but because they’re so painfully stale-dated, and he delivers them about as convincingly as an informercial. If we want to wallow in ’80s nostalgia, we can always download a copy of Wall Street.

By Alison@Creekside

A leaked 2004 CSIS report from LaPresse on Thursday purports to be a summary of a conversation between Abousfian Abdelrazik and Adil Charkaoui  in 2000 in which they plotted to blow up an airplane enroute between Montreal and France. It has already been enthusiastically repeated across our national press:

CBC: CSIS file reveals plot to bomb plane: La Presse

Gosh, CBC, your previous nice pix of Abdelrazik and Charkaoui are now replaced by scary ones.

G&M: Abdelrazik and Charkaoui plotted plane bomb: report

AFP:  Two Canada terror suspects plotted France attack: report

etc. … etc. …

Never mind that this “news” was already reported nearly two years ago after a federal court judge annulled Charkaoui’s security certificate because government lawyers refused the judge’s order to reveal their wiretap evidence, citing “security concerns.”

About now you are probably wondering what kinds of ”security concerns” trump giving evidence about someone you allege was plotting to blow up a plane.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney:

“I read the protected confidential dossiers on such individuals, and I can tell you that, without commenting on any one individual, some of this intelligence makes the hair stand up on the back of your neck,” he said. “I just think people should be patient and thoughtful and give the government and its agencies the benefit of the doubt.”

The re-leak has nonetheless been greeted with skepticism by Boris, Dr. Dawg, Pogge, Sixth Estate and no doubt many others because we all remember previous security leaks from government officials who are more than happy to anonymously rejig conveniently-timed select bits of complete bullshit to a cooperative media.

Let’s review just the anonymous bullshit security leaks about Maher Arar for instance, for which no public officials were ever called to account and who are presumably still happily at it.

In 2002, while Arar was being tortured in Syria, an anonymous official source linked Arar to “a suspected member of Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terrorist network.” That suspected member was Abdullah Almalki — later cleared by the Iacobucci inquiry.

Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar:

CanWest bureau chief Robert Fife, July 24, 2003: “Terror threats in Ottawa: Two kinds of fear: Report says

Syrian intelligence helped U.S. to foil al-Qaeda plot on target in Ottawa : One official would only tell CanWest News Service that Mr. Arar, a 36-year-old Ottawa engineer, is a “very bad guy” who apparently received military training at an Al-Qaeda base. “

As noted by Justice O’Connor in the report: “The apparent purpose behind this leak is not attractive: to attempt to influence public opinion against Mr. Arar at a time when his release from imprisonment in Syria was being sought by the government of Canada.”

Coincidentally the sudden re-issuing of this “new” leak about blowing up planes happens to coincide with Abdelrazik’s attempt to get his name off the UN 1267 terror list this month.

To continue:

G&M, Oct 10, 2003: Unnamed Canadian government sources said that Mr. Arar had been “roughed up,” but not tortured, while in detention in Syria

CTV, Oct. 23, 2003: “Senior government officials in various departments” said that Mr. Arar had provided information to the Syrians about al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and cells operating in Canada.

Juliet O’Neill, Ottawa Citizen, Nov. 2003 : “Canada’s dossier on Maher Arar: The existence of a group of Ottawa men with alleged ties to al-Qaeda is at the root of why the government opposes an inquiry into the case.”

Fife: Dec. 30, 2003 : “US, Canada ’100% sure’ Arar trained with al-Qaeda”: “A senior Canadian intelligence source said the United States had an extensive dossier on Mr. Arar and that ‘if the Americans were ever to declassify the stuff, there would be some hair standing on end.’”

Toronto Star: Learning from media mistakes in Arar case, May 2009:

“Unnamed officials also told Craig Oliver at CTV News that Arar was only released because he had given information to the Syrians about Al Qaeda and about other Canadians suspected of terrorism activities. Oliver later explained that he felt the story was credible because his sources were senior officials in two different government departments. Nonetheless, years after the Arar inquiry’s report, he apologized to Arar in person for running the story. He also told him of an offer he had turned down – a photograph of Arar training in a camp in Afghanistan. As he describes: ‘The source wanted me to use the information without showing me the photograph. That was a very solid source . . . This experience has made me more skeptical . . . I knew these people very well.’”

So you’ll have to forgive the rest of us if we also share Craig Oliver’s reluctance to be conned into accepting any more conveniently-timed leaks and smears from anonymous security officials who, for all we know, are the same ones who previously set out to turn public opinion against Arar even as they destroyed his life for reasons they have yet to account for.

CBC Power & Politics on the Oslo massacre, at noon Friday, edited:

Evan Solomon: This raises again the spectre of international terrorism.

Stockwell Day: As recently as July 8th in Norway there was a dragnet for al-Qaeda suspects related to the Manchester bombing. Whether this group is tied to them we don’t know . . .

Solomon: A suspect has now been arrested. This looks like a multiple series of attacks that are going on. Now remember Norway did have a small number of troops in Afghanistan.

It’s a very very fluid situation but it does raise all sorts of security issues about — this is a hackneyed phrase but on a day like this it suddenly has new poignancy — the war on terror.

We don’t know who’s taken credit for this, or responsibility for this attack, but if indeed it is al Qaeda, if indeed it is an extremist act that has any connection to what’s happened in Afghanistan, how do we square that with what the PM said at the end of our mission there that Afghanistan and what’s going on there is no longer a threat to global security?

Stockwell Day: Well the level of training that was going on in Afghanistan was extreme in exporting terror.

[Stock goes on about our accomplishments in Afghanistan] In Canada we’ve had the Toronto 18. Security has to be #1.

Solomon: The profile of these extremists . . . Somalia — these are the places where extremists take root.

Stockwell Day: The single reason for this type of terrorism . . . this type of terrorism will continue . . . and we hope to be able to limit it through the 21st century . . .  is the result of extreme lunatic insane ideological teaching and it happens whether the people involved are from poor areas or wealthy areas. Don’t forget Osama bin Laden himself was a multi-millionaire growing up in Saudi Arabia in a very, very wealthy family. The Toronto 18 were all in good financial shape. Many of this extremist al Qaeda type extremist lunatic ideology that is even being bred in the US — these are coming from people who are not disaffected by poverty. This is the result of an insane extreme religious teaching and I encourage those within the broader community to reach out to extremists within their own community and they’ve got to get the message out to the young people that they are being told lies — that the afterlife for them is not what they’re being promised.

Thank you, Doris.

BBC: Scores killed in Norway attacks

A massive bomb blast shattered buildings in the capital Oslo, killing at least seven people. Then a gunman rampaged through a youth camp run by the ruling Labour Party, killing 84 people. On Saturday police continued combing the island as a number of teenagers were still missing, feared dead.

Norwegian media identified the man as Anders Behring Breivik, 32. Police charged him for the island massacre and the Oslo bomb blast.

Police said the man was answering questions and they described him as a right-wing Christian fundamentalist.

It’s so damn hard following the daily romper room in the House of Commons, you know? It’s so, like, boring to form an opinion that isn’t about head-shots in hockey. And then, as if that isn’t too much to expect, you’re prodded and goaded to a polling station — WTF! — to vote — GAK! — for, like, the gazillionth time in, like, I dunno, four years, when there are way better things to do in a day that’s already so busy, whatwith commuting, working, taking care of the kids, watching “Dancing with the Stars” 24/7. Life is so hard when you’re a 30-something Canadian.

And, of course, it’s all the politicians’ fault, with all their playing games, which has led Canadians to tune out of politics, which has contributed to declining voter turnout, which has . . . blah-blah-blah.

Here’s the thing. It’s not the politicians’ fault. It’s yours. Yeah, I’m talking to you — you who haven’t read this far. You, the Canadian voter or, rather, the Canadian who does not vote. You know who you are. Lord only knows, there are enough of you. But, you’re not reading this because, well, because then you’d be reading, and the Canadian who does not vote also does not read and does not think.

But now, from the network that brought you . . . Oh, sigh, I don’t know, name any old banal CBC show — “The National” — comes Vote Compass.

Frustrated by feeling left out when the conversation shifts unexpectedly, recklessly, and bewilderingly to the election? Completely unaware of the issues? Been living under a rock? Been hit in the head with a rock? Now you can know where you stand on the issues, find out what you think of the party leaders, and know which party to vote for, even if you have no clue.

I like to call it “Voting for Dummies.” Just register your “feelings” on a series of about 30 issues decided on by the CBC and a group of academics, ranging from “Canada should seek closer economic relations with the USA” (strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, etc.) to “How many new immigrants should Canada admit?” (many more, somewhat more, about the same as now, etc.). Click away, and find out if you’re a progressive or a troglodyte. Because if the CBC and a group of leading academics can’t tell you where you fall on the ideological spectrum, well, who can?

Not everyone is happy with the quiz. According to a tweet from @punditsguide, “A Facebook group has popped up of NDPers from Sask complaining about the CBC Vote Compass.” And at least one academic, one who is likely jealous because academics always seethe with envy, thinks the Compass is flawed, causing “the survey to default to Liberal.” Add to that the fact that so many Canadians who have taken the test have been surprised by the result, and it’s no wonder the country is so far off fucking course.

Let me be honest (because this election is about honesty, if nothing else – and it really is about nothing else). Truth be told — and it won’t be — The only real issue in this election is whether or not Stephen Harper is a douchebag. Plain and simple. That’s all you need to decide in order to vote. Nevertheless, whether with compass or not, I predict 40% of Canadians will not manage to find their way to a polling station on May 2nd. Why? Because half of you couldn’t find your food dish if it was moved, let alone navigate to a school gymnasium or community centre. That’s the half that gave up before reading this far. They’re complete failures as Canadians. The test isn’t even that hard! Vote Compass asks 30 questions; voting day asks one. One question. Multiple choice. MFC!

Vote. You do remember how to vote, don’t you? You just hold your nose and mark an X. Or have you sat your fat ass on the sidelines for so long that you really do need directions on how to think?

You’re a 30-year-old Canadian. Grow up. You don’t need a compass. You need a whack upside the head.

By Frank Moher

So, all you digerati who are celebrating this morning because the Conservatives have told the CRTC to rescind its decision on user based internet billing, or else: do you really want the federal government calling the shots on this? The Tories especially?

One can’t help but admire the campaign run by openmedia.ca that has gathered some 358,000 signatures (and counting) on a petition against running the meter on broadband usage, and turned the issue into a political lodestone  I haven’t managed to become as exercised about it as many of you because, as a Shaw Cable customer, I’ve been living with a broadband cap for, well, ever. Not that they’ve ever enforced it, and not that I usually get very close to exceeding it. But then, it’s a fairly cushy 100 gb/month plan, and I get a deal on it because it’s bundled with my cable TV.  I realize that if you’re getting gouged on a 50 gb/month plan, and now facing the prospect of getting further gouged, you have every reason to be pissed-off.

But do you really want Industry Minister Tony Clement as your knight-in-shining-armour? It was Clement’s tweeted confirmation on Wednesday night that the government would force the CRTC to reconsider its ruling, or see it reversed in cabinet, that set off general jubilation across the Canadian Internetz. But that’s a very slippery slope he’s leading you down on his white charger. Give the Tories the idea that it’s okay to meddle in the decisions of its putatively independent regulator, that that whole “arms-length” approach to broadcasting is so 20th-century, and things could get really ugly really fast. Especially with a government that’s once again nosing around the idea of selling-off the CBC.

Clement’s meddling comes on the heels of Heritage Minister James Moore’s decision to override Library and Archives Canada and force them to show the documentary Iranium. As sage arts journalist Jamie Portman wrote in the Ottawa Citizen, that set a bad, bad precedent.

“For all his grandstanding about safeguarding democracy and the Canadian government from the bullying tactics of the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, the bottom line is that a minister of the Crown has violated the arm’s-length relationship that exists between independent federal cultural agencies and the politicians.

In brief, Moore should not be telling his agencies what or what not to do.”

Who knew Clement and — why look! Who’s that over his shoulder? Looks like PM Steve! — would follow up on Moore’s precedent so quickly? But that’s what’s happening here. You may like what they’re doing in this instance. But when the time comes that they stick their fingers in someplace else they don’t belong, and you don’t like what they’re up to, those of you huzzahing today about the Cons’ intervention are going to be in a very poor position to complain.

Montreal Simon

Gawd. What an awful day. Work was hell. It was rainy and slushy. The brand new rink is melting. And then when I made it home on all fours and put on the TV, there was Stephen Harper having a chummy chat with Peter Mansbridge.

Great Ugly himself squatting on a chair, with his legs spread wide apart like he was about to give birth. Blowing smoke out of both ends.

Asked by Mansbridge what his “gut feeling” was on whether there will be a federal election in 2011, the prime minister insisted the Conservatives would be ready if the opposition parties trigger one.

“My gut tells me I don’t know,” Harper said. “It’s 50/50. We take the threats from the opposition very seriously. I don’t think it’s in the country’s interest, I don’t think it makes any sense to have one right now, but if we’re forced into one, we’ll be ready.”

Claiming he doesn’t want an election, he’s not interested in partisan politics, he just wants to make us rich, if that nasty coalition would let him. And of course he’s just a nice guy who loves hockey.

When in fact he wants an election and his precious majority so bad he can bite it. He’s just squatted over Canada and dumped a steamy load of some of the most disgusting attack ads this country has ever seen.

Where the leader of the Opposition is portrayed as a sinister foreigner.

Who hates Canada.

Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe are portrayed as traitors.

Plotting to destroy this country.

The only people getting richer in Harper’s Canada are the rich.

According to Toronto research agency Investor Economics, the richest 3.8 per cent of Canadian households controlled 66.6 per cent of all financial wealth (not counting real estate) by 2009, up from 60.6 per cent in 2005 just before the Conservatives came to power.

The federal government is being bled white even as an aging population prepares to swamp existing services.

And of course Stephen Harper is NOT a nice guy, he’s a power hungry right-wing ideologue who is leading us to a very dark place to satisfy his inner demons.

Gosh. It seems so obvious to me eh? But then I remembered what Lawrence Martin wrote on Tuesday.

With the release of the ads, Mr. Harper appears to be sticking with the tactics that helped get him here. He’s banking on the notion that, in the end, Canadians really don’t care whether their prime minister has any class or not.

And I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of country we are becoming? Are we being dumbed down or numbed into bovine complacency? Have five years of this foul regime ground down our values so much, that nothing shocks us anymore?

Or is it, as James Travers suggests, that the country itself is changing?

Federal politicians no longer debate the broad questions of justice, climate change or foreign policy. Instead, they dispute the details of law and order, ethical oil and how long to extend the Afghan mission.

And then I was forced to consider whether in that kind of Canada Stephen Harper COULD fool enough people to get his majority. And finish off what remains of this country.

Because in the Kingdom of the Dumb and the Numb ANYTHING is possible.

And then I felt dizzy. Like that other Simon in the Lord of the Flies did, when he stared at the pig’s head . . .

And realized the monster was US.

Oh boy. I’ll be back. We WILL win. Those ugly Cons WILL be defeated.

But right now I feel I’m drowning . . .

I can tell from our logs that a lot of people are still looking to find out what Wikileaks’ purloined cables have revealed about Canada, but the answer remains: Not a whole lot. Little enough, in fact, that it’s possible to run the Canadian content all in one place, as I’ve done below.

Some glimmers of something have emerged. It’s interesting to learn that Canada is as capable as the U.S. of employing belligerent blowhards like former CSIS Director Jim Judd. It’s Judd who, in a cable dated July, 2009, is quoted as saying that video of Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr would result in “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” and “paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty.”

Excellent playing to your audience, Mr. Judd. The fact remains, however, that Khadr was a child soldier at the time of his capture and our treatment of him contravenes the Geneva conventions as well as various others that Canada has championed. I’m sorry — was that a paroxysm of moral outrage?

It’s also positively bracing to read that our support of the corrupt Karzai regime in Afghanistan makes Canadian ambassador William Crosbie’s “blood boil.” Apparently not everyone associated with this phony war has been made malodorous by it. But none of this is the sort of globe-shattering intelligence some were expecting.

However, that’s not to say there won’t be any; with only 1618 or 251,287 cables published as of this writing, it’s early days yet. And it’s worth noting that only 15,652 of the cables are labelled “secret” anyway. It’s ridiculous to propose, as Doug Saunders did in a Tuesday Globe column, that the lack of big reveals in the documents indicates the Empire is really just a stumblebum bureaucracy:

The leaks from the State Department and Pentagon, amounting to hundreds of thousands of documents of which only parts have yet been revealed, have unveiled one or two instances of spying, some serious military excesses and undocumented civilian deaths that occurred during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and a few cases of co-operation with unsavoury leaders.

But for the most part, the diplomatic cables leaked to date show a network of public servants whose actions are independent, reasonably professional and not driven by anything other than widely understood government goals.

Earlier in the piece, he wonders:

is it possible that Mr. Assange is disappointed that WikiLeaks has not revealed the United States government to be driven by an elaborate and centrally controlled conspiracy?

Well, assuming he’s not as naive as Doug Saunders, probably not. The fact that a relative handful of missives marked “secret” haven’t disclosed a whole lot tells us precisely nothing. As journalist and former NSA contractor Wayne Madsen has noted, much of what gets labelled “secret” in government correspondence is barely worth noting much less being covert about (per Mr. Judd’s comments). Give us some “top secret” memos — which may be what Assange has in his poison-pill file — and then we’ll talk.

Meantime. here’s most of what has come out so far about, well, us. The second one, regarding the CBC, is particularly good.

***

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

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 OTTAWA 003115

SIPDIS

NOFORN

NSC FOR NSA RICE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2009
TAGS: CA PGOV PREL
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR PRESIDENT BUSH,S VISIT TO CANADA,
NOVEMBER 30 – DECEMBER 1, 2004

Classified By: Ambassador Cellucci, reasons 1.4 (b) (d)

Summary and Key Themes
———————-

¶1. (C/NF) The Canadian Government and the Embassy strongly
welcome your visit and the opportunities it will afford to
advance our broad bilateral relationship. The two key themes
I would stress for your visit are partnership and
reassurance. The Canadians need to be reassured that at the
end of the day, whatever tactical disagreements we may have
over Iraq and individual trade cases, we are firmly united
across the world,s longest undefended border by common
values, shared political heritage, and the largest bilateral
trading relationship in the planet,s history. We need to
send the message that we value Canada with no strings
attached. The early timing of this visit will help make this
point.

¶2. (C/NF) Specifically, it would be very helpful if you came
to Ottawa with three key public messages. First, a positive
signal demonstrating movement on BSE, short of resolution but
beyond &we,re working on it.8 A firm date for completion
of the regulation would give PM Martin a huge political boost
and help beleaguered Canadian ranchers get through the
winter. Second, appreciation for the positive role Canadians
play in the world as peacekeepers and in transmitting our
shared political and cultural values to failed and failing
states. And third, personal thanks for our close cooperation
in defending the continent against terrorism, both in border
security, and in the larger fight to roll back the
availability of weapons of mass destruction, contain the
activities of terrorist groups, and support development that
will provide alternatives to terrorism.

¶3. (C/NF) Several themes about the future would also be
helpful for your private meetings. You should note the
substantial Canadian support to date for Iraq reconstruction
and encourage Canada to play a larger role in the development
of political and security institutions there. You should
promise continued close cooperation in places such as Sudan,
Afghanistan, and Haiti, and solicit PM Martin,s views on how
to best synergize our efforts. And finally, you should
commit to focus on settling our trade and environmental
disputes. End Summary

Martin,s Minority Government Stable, but Weak
———————————————

¶4. (C) After governing in majority for ten years, the Liberal
Party called elections June 28 to gain a mandate for PM
Martin, who succeeded Jean Chretien in December 2003. The
Liberals were hurt by a scandal involving the disbursement of
public monies in Quebec, and the Martin government was
reduced to minority status, the first in Canada since 1979.
In the first week of Parliament, Martin was able to loosely
win over the New Democratic Party, putting him neck-and-neck
with the Conservatives and the separatist Bloc Quebecois.
Both the Liberal-NDP and the Conservative-Bloc alignments are
very tentative, however, and different issue-driven
coalitions are likely to emerge on an ad hoc basis.

¶5. (SBU) Predictions on how long the government will last
range from six months to two years. Canadians do not want to
go to the polls soon and the Government and Opposition know
it. But given the nature of Canada,s political system, the
Government,s fall is never more than one bad decision away.

¶6. (C/NF) The Liberal’s thin margin leads Martin to exercise
extreme caution, which some observers are now touting as weak
leadership. The PM has made it clear that he will not try to
carry out an aggressive agenda, and on issues such as missile
defense, would just as soon wait rather than try to tackle it
now and risk a negative vote.

Seeking Canada,s Place in the World
———————————–

¶7. (SBU) All of this is taking place in the context of a
certain amount of soul-searching here on Canada,s decline
from &middle power8 status to that of an &active
observer8 of global affairs, a trend which some Canadians
believe should be reversed. In the short term the country,s
priorities are improving the quality of life for Canadian
citizens and there is little support for increasing defense
spending (currently among the lowest per capita in NATO) or
the foreign affairs budget. PM Martin has promised to focus
his government on policies to perpetuate the &Canadian
economic miracle,8 help cities, improve health care, and
provide easier access to child-care. However, he has also
made modest increases in the defense budget and has announced
plans to add 5,000 troops to the armed forces.

Engagement on Homeland Security
——————————-

¶8. (SBU) Within the constraints of weak public support and
low funding, PM Martin has made his foreign affairs and
homeland security bureaucracies more capable and has kept
Canada selectively active in global issues. In the wake of
the September 11 attacks, Canada has implemented a range of
practical measures that improve Canada,s homeland security
while facilitating the flow of people and commerce across our
common border. Starting with the December 2001 Smart Border
Action Plan with the U.S., changes include enhancements to
aviation security, full compliance with UN and other
multilateral conventions, and strengthening of financial
controls. In the fall of 2003 Canada undertook an aggressive
reorganization of its security and border agencies,
consolidating them into a structure similar to that of DHS,
and in April 2004 rolled out its first-ever national security
strategy. Bilateral efforts have resulted in better
information sharing, joint targeting, and smoother flow of
low-risk traffic.

¶9. (S/NF) A potential irritant on the Canadian side that may
be raised has to do with sharing of intelligence regarding
Iraq operations. The government is aware that we are
creating a separate US-UK-Australia channel for sharing
sensitive intelligence, including information that
trationally has been U.S. eyes only. The GOC has expressed
concern at multiple levels that their exclusion from a
traditional “four-eyes” construct is “punishment” for
Canada,s non-participation in Iraq and they fear that the
Iraq-related channel may evolve into a more permanent
“three-eyes” only structure. PM Martin may raise this with
you privately.

A Modest but Effective Agenda on Global Affairs
——————————————— –

¶10. (C) PM Martin has also kept Canada in the game
internationally. In 2002 Ottawa sent 750 soldiers to
Afghanistan where they served with distinction in Khandahar,
and Canada led the maritime task force monitoring movement in
the Persian Gulf, a service that began with an eye on
Afghanistan but later was useful in the lead-up to Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Ottawa continued to support democratization
in Afghanistan, leading the ISAF mission from February to
August 2004, and contributing 2,300 of 7,100 troops. Canada
has been active in development and elections support for
Afghanistan, committing USD 500 million to a wide-variety of
programs through 2009. Finally, Canada has pledged to deploy
a Provincial Reconstruction Team, possibly to Khandahar, in
the fall of 2005.

¶11. (C) In Haiti, Canada has provided civilian police
officers, a sizable aid budget, and positive involvement in
diplomatic efforts on the ground. Canada has been largely in
synch with our efforts to seek a durable solution to Sudan,s
current and chronic crisis. PM Martin, who met with
President al-Bashir in Sudan last week, supports the
&responsibility to protect8 as an obligation of each
government and a core function of the international community
through the United Nations. Canada has allocated US$16
million to support the African Union in Sudan.
¶12. (SBU) Despite opposition to our invasion of Iraq, Canada
has offered strong support for Iraqi reconstruction, saying
“we can’t afford to fail.” The GOC quickly committed funds,
pledging about US$ 240 million in Madrid, and made active
efforts to leverage contributions from countries that were
initially hesitant. Over two-thirds of Canada’s aid has been
allocated and over half has been disbursed on projects such
as police trainers in Jordan. Canada also supports Paris Club
efforts on debt reduction.

Trade and the Border: Vital Links for Canada
——————————————–

¶13. (SBU) The U.S. and Canada have the largest bilateral
trade relationship in the history of the world and over 95%
of that trade is trouble-free. The billion dollars a day in
trade with the U.S. generates about a third of Canada,s GDP,
with energy exports and the integrated North American auto
industry dominating the picture.
¶14. (SBU) Since implementation of NAFTA ten years ago,
US-Canada trade has doubled. Most Canadians see NAFTA as a
success but are frustrated by its limits, thrown into relief
by U.S. trade remedy actions on softwood lumber and pork.
Expectations that NAFTA would give Canadians greater control
over US actions have largely been disappointed. The softwood
case remains a long-running and intractable irritant; even
so, Canadian lumber exports boomed last year in response to
US housing demand.

¶15. (SBU) There are trade disputes and then there is beef.
Reopening the border to trade in live cattle is Canada’s most
pressing bilateral concern and our top priority for this
visit. Cut out of our highly integrated North American
market since 2003, Canadian ranchers have lost over $2
billion to date. Canada has spent $400 million on relief for
the cattle industry, but many farmers and their suppliers may
not survive another winter. Indefinite delays and the
perceived unpredictability of the U.S. regulatory process
have soured views of the U.S. in some of the most
traditionally pro-American regions of Canada. Issuance of
the new rule, or at least a firm commitment to a date for
completion, would help restore public confidence and give the
GoC some political room to respond to other U.S. priorities.
In the long term, failure to resolve the problem will result
in two North American beef industries, reducing efficiencies
and stiffening competition in traditional US export markets.
Significantly, movement on beef will give Martin political
space to cooperate more on security.

¶16. (U) Canada enjoys an enviable economic situation, with
steady budget surpluses and the most sharply-reduced debt
burden in the G-7. Although the economic outlook is rosy,
the currency’s rapid appreciation against the U.S dollar,
driven partly by rising commodity prices, could put a damper
on exports, and there are concerns here about global
imbalances and the sustainability of the U.S. economic
recovery. Even with strong economic fundamentals, Canadian
GDP growth is projected to lag that of the U.S. in 2004.

¶17. (U) In addition to worries about exchange rate risk and
perennial trade disputes, Canadians feel increasingly
vulnerable to &border risk8. Exporters worry about
lengthening border delays due to infrastructure overload and
to tighter security measures such as prior notice
requirements. Application of USVISIT fingerprint and photo
requirements to Canadian non-citizen residents, and the
possibility that eventually Canadians will require passports
to enter the U.S., have sparked public anxiety among
Canadians. Businesses fear that future terrorist incidents
could lead to catastrophic border closings and strongly
support the GoC,s efforts to strengthen bilateral security
cooperation. Continued DHS engagement with Canada via the
Smart Border Action Plan, the Ridge-McLellan dialogue, and
regular working-level meetings, is a key element in managing
this anxiety and addressing underlying problems. The GoC is
pushing to accelerate progress and add to the &Smart
Border8 agenda in its version of the North American
Initiative, &Beyond Smart Borders8.

Energy Inter-Dependency
———————–

¶18. (U) Canada is by far the United States’ largest foreign
source of energy. It is our largest supplier of petroleum,
as well as our leading external source of natural gas,
uranium, and electric power. With Alberta,s oil sands now
classified as &proven reserves,8 Canada,s petroleum
resources of 180 billion barrels are second only to Saudi
Arabia,s.

¶19. (U) Canada,s northern territories contain large energy
resources, notably natural gas deposits in the delta of the
Mackenzie River, several hundred miles east of Alaska,s
Prudhoe Bay. The energy industry expects that two gas
pipelines will be built, one from the Mackenzie Delta and the
other from Alaska,s North Slope. As the regulatory
framework for the Alaska line develops, industry will have to
determine the pipeline,s exact route both in Alaska and as
it passes through Canada.

¶20. (U) Canada’s electric power sector is interconnected at
numerous points with the U.S. grid and has for decades been a
large supplier of power to the U.S. market. The U.S./Canada
Joint Task Force that investigated the August 2003 power
outage recommended the creation of a North American Electric
Reliability Organization, which would implement mandatory
standards for electricity transmission in both countries.
Canadian players in this industry are intensely interested in
the shape of proposed U.S. energy legislation, as it affects
their future strategies.

Environmental Issues
——————–

¶21. (U) The U.S. and Canada cooperate closely on a broad
range of environmental issues. Together we have made
significant progress on key issues, including trans-boundary
air and water pollution, regulation of pesticides and
chemicals and protection of the Great Lakes.

¶22. (C) There are, however, a number of thorny cross-border
water issues still unresolved, including Canadian demands
that the U.S. move a derelict fishing vessel (Victoria M)
mistakenly scuttled in Canadian waters, controversy over the
proposed clean-up of pollution of the Columbia River from a
Canadian smelter in British Columbia and North Dakota,s
plans to mitigate flooding at Devils Lake by pumping water
through a canal system to the Red River.

¶23. (C) The Canadians have raised these issues before at
senior levels and are likely to do so again. The most
pressing of these problems is Devils Lake, where Canada
believes that the state outlet from the lake to the Red River
would violate the Boundary Waters Treaty. North Dakota has
almost completed its canal system and plans to start pumping
water in the spring of 2005. Canada has asked for U.S.
agreement to &refer8 this issue to the International Joint
Commission for study and recommendations, but we have not yet
responded to that request. The Embassy believes it would be
in our interest to agree to a &reference,8 tightly limited
in scope and time-frame.

¶24. (U) Canada formally ratified the Kyoto Accord at the end
of 2002, despite vocal opposition from some provincial
governments and industries. While political approaches to
the climate change issue have differed between the U.S. and
Canada, practical cooperation has been close. In 2002, we
signed agreements on Renewable Energy and Climate Science,
and formed a bilateral Working Group on Climate Change. Few
Canadians understand just how much we do on climate change,
reducing U.S. efforts only to Kyoto. Canada participates in
several U.S.-led multilateral initiatives, such as the Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum and the International
Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy. We expect that they
will soon join the Methane to Markets Partnership.

Visit Canada’s Classified Web Site at

http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa

CELLUCCI

***

VZCZCXRO1729
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHIK RUEHKW
RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHQU RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHVC RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHOT #0136/01 0252315
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 252315Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7209
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHWH/WESTERN HEMISPHERIC AFFAIRS DIPL POSTS
RHMCSUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC
RUEABND/DEA HQS WASHDC
RUEAORC/US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000136

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV KPAO CA
SUBJECT: PRIMETIME IMAGES OF US-CANADA BORDER PAINT U.S. IN
INCREASINGLY NEGATIVE LIGHT

OTTAWA 00000136 001.2 OF 003

¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
has long gone to great pains to highlight the distinction
between Americans and Canadians in its programming, generally
at our expense. However, the level of anti-American melodrama
has been given a huge boost in the current television season
as a number of programs offer Canadian viewers their fill of
nefarious American officials carrying out equally nefarious
deeds in Canada while Canadian officials either oppose them
or fall trying. CIA rendition flights, schemes to steal
Canada’s water, “the Guantanamo-Syria express,” F-16′s flying
in for bombing runs in Quebec to eliminate escaped
terrorists: in response to the onslaught, one media
commentator concluded, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that
“apparently, our immigration department’s real enemies aren’t
terrorists or smugglers — they’re Americans.” While this
situation hardly constitutes a public diplomacy crisis per
se, the degree of comfort with which Canadian broadcast
entities, including those financed by Canadian tax dollars,
twist current events to feed long-standing negative images of
the U.S. — and the extent to which the Canadian public seems
willing to indulge in the feast – is noteworthy as an
indication of the kind of insidious negative popular
stereotyping we are increasingly up against in Canada. End
Summary.

“THE BORDER” -CANADA’S ANSWER TO 24, W/O THAT SUTHERLAND GUY
——————————————— —————

¶2. (SBU) When American TV and movie producers want action,
the formula involves Middle Eastern terrorists, a ticking
nuclear device, and a (somewhat ironically, Canadian) guy
named Sutherland. Canadian producers don’t need to look so
far — they can find all the action they need right on the
U.S.-Canadian border. This piece of real estate, which most
Americans associate with snow blowing back and forth across
an imaginary line, has for the past three weeks been for
Canadian viewers the site of downed rendition flights, F-16
bombing runs, and terrorist suspects being whisked away to
Middle Eastern torture facilities. “The Border,” which
state-owned CBC premiered on January 7, attracted an
impressive 710,000 viewers on its first showing — not
exactly Hockey Night in Canada, but equivalent to an American
program drawing about eight million U.S. viewers. The show
depicts Canadian immigration and customs officers’ efforts to
secure the U.S.-Canadian border and the litany of moral
dilemmas they face in doing so. The CBC bills the
high-budget program as depicting the “new war” on the border
and “the few who fight it.” While the “war” is supposed to
be against criminals and terrorists trying to cross the
border, many of the immigration team’s battles end up being
with U.S. government officials, often in tandem with the
CIA-colluding Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
(CSIS).

¶3. (SBU) The clash between the Americans and Canadians got
started early in the season and has continued unabated. In
episode one a Syrian terrorist with a belt full of gel-based
explosives is removed from a plane in Canada while the
Canadian-Syrian man sitting next to him is rendered by the
CIA/CSIS team to Syria — a fairly transparent reference to
QCIA/CSIS team to Syria — a fairly transparent reference to
the Maher Arar case. Fortunately for the incarcerated
individual, the sympathetic Canadian Immigration and Customs
Security official recognizes the mistake and shrewdly causes
the government to rescue him from a Syrian jail through
organized media pressure. The episode ends with a preview of
things to come when one of the Canadian immigration officers
notes with disgust, “Homeland Security is sending in some hot
shot agent.”

¶4. (SBU) Episode two expands on this theme, featuring the
arrival of an arrogant, albeit stunningly attractive female
DHS officer, sort of a cross between Salma Hayek and Cruella
De Vil. The show portrays the DHS official bossing around
her stereotypically more compassionate Canadian colleagues
while uttering such classic lines as, “Who do you think
provides the muscle to protect your fine ideals?” and “You
would have killed him. Let the American justice system do it
for you.” Her fallback line in most situations is “it’s a
matter of national security.”

¶5. (SBU) But the one-liners and cross-border stereotypes
really take off in episode three, in which an American

OTTAWA 00000136 002.2 OF 003

rendition aircraft with three terrorist suspects on the
“Guantanamo to Syria express” crashes in Quebec and the
terrorists escape — however, not before killing a Quebec
police officer, whose sympathetic widow appears throughout
the show. The DHS officer’s answer to everything is American
firepower, but in this episode even CSIS gets a chance at
redemption as the CSIS officer in charge challenges her. Ms.
DHS barks back, “You really want to talk territorial
sovereignty, or should we talk about getting the terrorists
back?” After being chased through the woods of Quebec by a
cross-culturally balanced CSIS-JTF2 team which kills a
15-year-old terrorist in a shootout, the bad guys are finally
cornered on the side of a pristine Canadian lake. Then,
after a conversation with Washington in which she asks “can
you bypass NSA and State?”, our DHS official calls in an
air-strike on the terrorists without Canadian concurrence.
Canadian planes, another official has explained, are “already
deployed to Afghanistan, helping our neighbors fight their
war on terror.” With only seconds to spare before the bombs
are dropped on the Quebec site, the planes are called off
when the CSIS-JTF team affirms positive control over the
terrorists. Finally, in a last-minute allowance for
redemption, the CSIS officer informs his DHS colleague that
the captured terrorists will not be turned over to the U.S.
but will stand trial for the death of the Quebec police
officer. She does get the final word, though, hissing the
classic phrase “you people are so nave,” before the screen
goes blank.

DEA ALSO TAKES SOME HITS
————————

¶6. (SBU) If that isn’t enough, “the Border” is only one of
the CBC programs featuring cross-border relations.
“Intelligence,” which depicts a Canadian intelligence unit
collaborating with a local drug lord-turned government
informant, is just as stinging in its portrayal of
U.S.-Canada law enforcement cooperation. Through its two
seasons, the program has followed plot lines including a DEA
attempt to frame the Canadian informant for murder, a CIA
plot to secretly divert Canadian water to the American
southwest, and a rogue DEA team that actually starts selling
drugs for a profit. A columnist in conservative Canadian
daily newspaper “The National Post” commented, “There’s no
question that the CSIS heroes on ‘Intelligence’ consider the
Americans our most dangerous enemies.”

EVEN THE LITTLE MOSQUE GETS IN TO THE ACT
—————————————–

¶7. (U) Even “Little Mosque on the Prairie,” a popular
Canadian sitcom that depicts a Muslim community in a small
Saskatchewan town, has joined the trend of featuring
U.S.-Canada border relations. This time, however, the State
Department is the fall guy. A December 2007 episode
portrayed a Muslim economics professor trying to remove his
name from the No-Fly-List at a U.S. consulate. The show
depicts a rude and eccentric U.S. consular officer
stereotypically attempting to find any excuse to avoid being
helpful. Another episode depicted how an innocent trip
across the border became a jumble of frayed nerves as Grandpa
was scurried into secondary by U.S. border officials because
his name matched something on the watch list.
Qhis name matched something on the watch list.

GIVE US YOUR WATER; OH WHAT THE HECK WE’LL TAKE YOUR COUNTRY
TOO
——————————————— —-

¶8. (U) And it appears that the season is just warming up.
After CIA renditions, DEA murder plots, DHS missteps, and
unhelpful consular officers, a U.S. takeover of Canada may
have been the only theme left for the CBC “H20″ mini-series.
The series was first broadcast in 2005, when it featured an
investigation into an American assassination of the Canadian
prime minister and a very broad-based (and wildly
implausible) U.S. scheme to steal Canadian water. A two-part
sequel, set to be broadcast in March and April 2008, will
portray the United States as manipulating innocent, trusting
Canadians into voting in favor of Canada’s becoming part of
the United States. Then, after the United States completely
takes over Canada, one brave Canadian unites Canadians and
Europeans in an attempt to end America’s hegemony. Another

OTTAWA 00000136 003.2 OF 003

program could prove more benign but will certainly include
its share of digs against all things American: Global TV
reportedly is gearing up for a March 2008 debut of its own
border security drama, set to feature Canadian
search-and-rescue officers patrolling the U.S.-Canada border.

COMMENT
——-

¶9. (SBU) EKOS pollster Frank Graves told Poloff he thought
that at this point such shows are reflective and not causal
in determining attitudes in Canada. They play on the
deep-seated caution most Canadians feel toward their large
neighbor to the south, a sort of zeitgeist that has been in
the background for decades. As one example, a December 2007
Strategic Counsel poll showed that nine percent of Canadians
thought U.S. foreign policy was the greatest threat to the
world — twice as high as those who were concerned about
weapons of mass destruction. What Graves does find
disturbing — and here he believes that the causal or
reflective question is not important — is that support for a
less porous border is increasing in both Canada and the U.S.:
in the U.S. because of generalized fear of terrorism and in
Canada because of concern over guns, sovereignty, and the
impact that a terrorist attack on the U.S. would have on
trade. Graves has detected an increasingly wary attitude
over the border that he believes could lead to greater
distance between the two countries.

¶10. (SBU) While there is no single answer to this trend, it
does serve to demonstrate the importance of constant
creative, and adequately-funded public-diplomacy engagement
with Canadians, at all levels and in virtually all parts of
the country. We need to do everything we can to make it more
difficult for Canadians to fall into the trap of seeing all
U.S. policies as the result of nefarious faceless U.S.
bureaucrats anxious to squeeze their northern neighbor.
While there are those who may rate the need for USG
public-diplomacy programs as less vital in Canada than in
other nations because our societies are so much alike, we
clearly have real challenges here that simply must be
adequately addressed.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

***

VZCZCXRO3160
OO RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHMT RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #0918/01 1911849
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 091849Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8157
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 0198
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 0815
RUSBPW/AMCONSUL PESHAWAR PRIORITY 0098
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/OSD WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM PRIORITY
RUEAHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USNORTHCOM PRIORITY

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000918

C O R R E C T E D COPY//SUBJECT LINE//////////////////////////////////

NOFORN
SIPDIS

EO 12958 DECL: 07/09/2018
TAGS PREL, PTER, MOPS, IR, PK, AF, CA

SUBJECT: COUNSELOR, CSIS DIRECTOR DISCUSS CT THREATS,
PAKISTAN, AFGHANISTAN, IRAN
REF: A. OTTAWA 360 B. OTTAWA 808 C. OTTAWA 850 D. OTTAWA 878
OTTAWA 00000918 001.2 OF 003

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reasons, 1.4 (b) and (d).

¶1. (S/NF) Summary. Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Director Judd discussed domestic and foreign terror threats with Counselor of the State Department Cohen in Ottawa on July 2. Judd admitted that CSIS was increasingly distracted from its mission by legal challenges that could endanger foreign intelligence-sharing with Canadian agencies. He predicted that the upcoming release of a DVD of Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr’s interrogation by Canadian officials would lead to heightened pressure on the government to press for his return to Canada, which the government would continue to resist. Judd shared Dr. Cohen’s negative assessment of current political, economic, and security trends in Pakistan, and was worried about what it would mean for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. Canada has begun formulating an inter-agency Pakistan strategy, and CSIS had agreed to open a channel to Iran’s intelligence service which Judd has not yet “figured out.” (Septel will cover Dr. Cohen’s discussions regarding Pakistan and the OEF and ISAF missions in Afghanistan.) End summary.

¶2. (S/NF) Counselor of the Department of State Eliot Cohen and CSIS Director Jim Judd in Ottawa on July 2 discussed threats posed by violent Islamist groups in Canada, and recent developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. (CSIS is Canada’s lead agency for national security intelligence.) Director Judd ascribed an “Alice in Wonderland” worldview to Canadians and their courts, whose judges have tied CSIS “in knots,” making it ever more difficult to detect and prevent terror attacks in Canada and abroad. The situation, he commented, left government security agencies on the defensive and losing public support for their effort to protect Canada and its allies.

Legal Wrangling Risks Chill Effect
———————————-

¶3. (S/NF) XXXXXXXXXXXX

¶4. (S/NF) Judd derided recent judgments in Canada’s courts that threaten to undermine foreign government intelligence- Qthat threaten to undermine foreign government intelligence- and information-sharing with Canada. These judgments posit that Canadian authorities cannot use information that “may have been” derived from torture, and that any Canadian public official who conveys such information may be subject to criminal prosecution. This, he commented, put the government in a reverse-onus situation whereby it would have to “prove” the innocence of partner nations in the face of assumed wrongdoing.

¶5. (S/NF) Judd credited Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government for “taking it on the chin and pressing ahead” with common sense measures despite court challenges and political knocks from the opposition and interest groups. When asked to look to the future, Judd predicted that Canada would soon implement UK-like legal procedures that make intelligence available to “vetted defense lawyers who see everything the judge sees.”
OTTAWA 00000918 002.2 OF 003

Terror Cases and Communities Present Mixed Pictures
——————————————— ——

¶6. (C/NF) Judd commented that cherry-picked sections of the court-ordered release of a DVD of Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr (ref D) would likely show three (Canadian) adults interrogating a kid who breaks down in tears. He observed that the images would no doubt trigger “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” and “paroxysms of moral outrage, a Canadian specialty,” as well as lead to a new round of heightened pressure on the government to press for Khadr’s return to Canada. He predicted that PM Harper’s government would nonetheless continue to resist this pressure.

¶7. (C) The Director mentioned other major cases that also presented CSIS with major legal headaches due to the use of intelligence products in their development: Momin Khawaja has been on trial for his role in an Al Qaeda UK bomb plot since June 23 in the first major test of Canada’s 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act, and Canada’s ability to protect intelligence supplied by foreign government sources (ref D); the trial of the first of the home-grown Toronto 11 (down from 18) terror plotters, which is also now underway; and, the prosecution of XXXXXXXXXXXX.

¶8. (C) Judd said he viewed Khawaja and his “ilk” as outliers, due in part to the fact that Canada’s ethnic Pakistani community is unlike its ghettoized and poorly educated UK counterpart. It is largely made up of traders, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and others who see promise for themselves and their children in North America, he observed, so its members are unlikely to engage in domestic terror plots. He said that therefore CSIS main domestic focus is instead on fundraising and procurement, as well as the recruitment of a small number of Canadian “wannabes” of Pakistani origin for mostly overseas operations.

Pakistan and Afghanistan
————————

¶9. (C) Turning to Pakistan, Counselor Cohen briefed his recent trip to Islamabad and Peshawar, noting his alarm at the degrading economic, political, and security situation there, and its implications for Pakistan, Afghan, and regional stability. Judd responded that Dr. Cohen’s sober assessment tracked with CSIS’ own view of Pakistan, and that “it is hard to see a good outcome there” due to that country’s political, economic, and security failures, on top of fast-rising oil and food prices. Canada does not have an explicit strategy for Pakistan, Judd said, but Privy Council Deputy Secretary David Mulroney (who leads the interagency on Afghanistan) now has the lead on developing one (septel). Dr. Cohen remarked, and Judd agreed, that it would be necessary to avoid approaching Pakistan as simply an adjunct to the ISAF and OEF missions in Afghanistan.
¶10. (S/NF) CSIS is far from being “high-five mode” on Q10. (S/NF) CSIS is far from being “high-five mode” on Afghanistan, Judd asserted, due in part to Karzai’s weak leadership, widespread corruption, the lack of will to press ahead on counter-narcotics, limited Afghan security force capability (particularly the police) and, most recently, the Sarpoza prison break. He commented that CSIS had seen Sarpoza coming, and its link to the Quetta Shura in Pakistan, but could not get a handle on the timing.

Iranian Outreach
—————-

¶11. (S/NF) Judd added that he and his colleagues are “very, very worried” about Iran. CSIS recently talked to Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) after that agency requested its own channel of communication to Canada, he said. The Iranians agreed to “help” on Afghan issues, including sharing information regarding potential attacks. However, “we have not figured out what they are up to,” Judd confided, since it is clear that the “Iranians want ISAF to bleed…slowly.”
OTTAWA 00000918 003.2 OF 003

¶12. (U) Dr. Cohen has cleared this message.
Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

***

VZCZCXRO8662
PP RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHMT RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #1258/01 2661859
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 221859Z SEP 08
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8532
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001258

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV CA
SUBJECT: THE U.S. IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL ELECTION — NOT!

REF: OTTAWA 1216

Classified By: PolMinCouns Scott Bellard, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Summary. Despite the overwhelming importance of the
U.S. to Canada for its economy and security, bilateral
relations remain the proverbial 900 pound gorilla that no one
wants to talk about in the 2008 Canadian federal election
campaigns. This likely reflects an almost inherent
inferiority complex of Canadians vis-a-vis their sole
neighbor as well as an underlying assumption that the
fundamentals of the relationship are strong and unchanging
and uncertainty about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential
election. End Summary.

¶2. (C) The United States is overwhelmingly important to
Canada in ways that are unimaginable to Americans. With over
$500 billion in annual trade, the longest unsecured border in
the world, over 200 million border crossings each year, total
investment in each other’s countries of almost $400 billion,
and the unique North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD)
partnership to ensure continental security, excellent
bilateral relations are essential to Canada’s well being.
Canadians are, by and large, obsessed with U.S. politics –
especially in the 2008 Presidential race — and follow them
minutely (with many Canadians even wishing they could vote in
this U.S. election rather than their own, according to a
recent poll). U.S. culture infiltrates Canadian life on
every level. 80 pct of Canadians live within 100 miles of
the border, and Canadians tend to visit the U.S. much more
regularly than their American neighbors come here.

¶3. (C) Logically, the ability of a candidate, or a party,
or most notably the leader of a party successfully to manage
this essential relationship should be a key factor for voters
to judge in casting their ballots. At least so far in the
2008 Canadian federal election campaign, it is not. There
has been almost a deafening silence so far about foreign
affairs in general, apart from Prime Minister Stephen
Harper’s pledge on September 10 that Canadian troops would
indeed leave Afghanistan in 2011 according to the terms of
the March 2008 House of Commons motion, commenting that “you
have to put an end on these things.” The Liberals — and
many media commentators — seized on this as a major
Conservative “flip flop,” with Liberal Party leader Stephane
Dion noting on September 10 that “I have been calling for a
firm end date since February 2007″ and that “the
Conservatives can’t be trusted on Afghanistan; they can’t be
trusted on the climate change crisis; they can’t be trusted
on the economy.” He has returned in subsequent days to the
Conservative record on the environment and the economy, but
has not pursued the Afghan issue further. All three
opposition party leaders joined in calling for the government
to release a Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report on the
full costs of the Afghan mission, which PM Harper agreed to
do, with some apparent hesitation. However, no other foreign
policy issues have yet risen to the surface in the campaigns,
apart from New Democrat Party leader Jack Layton opining on
September 7 that “I believe we can say good-bye to the George
Bush era in our own conduct overseas.”

¶4. (C) The U.S. market meltdown has provided some fodder
for campaign rhetoric, with the Conservatives claiming their
earlier fiscal and monetary actions had insulated Canada from
much of the economic problems seen across the border.
(Comment: there is probably more truth in the fact that the
Canadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
QCanadian financial sector does not have a large presence in
U.S. and other foreign markets, and instead concentrates on
the domestic market. The Canadian financial sector has also
been quite conservative in its lending and investment
choices. End comment.) PM Harper has insisted that the
“core” Canadian economy and institutions were sound, while
promising to work closely with “other international players”
(i.e., not specifically the U.S.) to deal with the current
problems. He warned on September 19 that “voters will have
to decide who is best to govern in this period of economic
uncertainty — do you want to pay the new Liberal tax? Do
you want the Liberals to bring the GST back to 7%?” The
Liberals have counter-claimed that Canada is now the “worst
performing economy in the G8,” while noting earlier Liberal
governments had produced eight consecutive balanced budgets
and created about 300,000 new jobs annually between 1993 and
¶2005. The NDP’s Layton argued on September 16 that these
economic woes are “the clearest possible warning that North
American economies under conservative governments, in both
Canada and the United States, are on the wrong track,” but
promised only that an NDP government would institute a
“top-to-bottom” review of Canada’s regulatory system — not
delving into bilateral policy territory.

¶5. (C) On the environment, Liberal leader Dion, in
defending his “Green Shift” plan on September 11, noted that

OTTAWA 00001258 002 OF 002

“both Barack Obama and John McCain are in favor of putting a
price on carbon. Our biggest trading partner is moving
toward a greener future and we need to do so too.” PM Harper
has stuck to the standard Conservative references to the
Liberal plan as a “carbon tax, which will hit every consumer
in every sector” and claimed on September 16 that, under
earlier Liberal governments, “greenhouse gas emissions
increased by more than 30 percent, one of the worst records
of industrialized countries.” NDP leader Layton argued
that, on the environment, PM Harper “has no plan” while
“Dion’s plan is wrong and won’t work,” unlike the NDP plan to
reward polluters who “clean up their act and imposing
penalties on those that don’t,” which he said had also been
“proposed by both U.S. Presidential candidates, Barack Obama
and John McCain.”

¶6. (C) NAFTA? Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative?
Border crossing times? The future of NORAD? Canada’s role
in NATO? Protection of Canadian water reserves? Canadian
sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage? At
least among the leaders of the major parties, these issues
have not come up so far in the campaigns, although they seize
much public attention in normal times. Even in Ontario and
Quebec, with their long and important borders with the U.S.,
the leadership candidates apparently so far have not ventured
to make promises to woo voters who might be disgruntled with
U.S. policies and practices. However, these may still emerge
as more salient issues at the riding level as individual
candidates press the flesh door to door, and may also then
percolate up to the leadership formal debates on October 1
and 2.

¶7. (C) Why the U.S. relationship appears off the table, at
least so far, is probably be due to several key factors. An
almost inherent Canadian inferiority complex may disincline
Canadian political leaders from making this election about
the U.S. (unlike in the 1988 free trade campaigns) instead of
sticking to domestic topics of bread-and-butter interest to
voters. The leaders may also recognize that bilateral
relations are simply too important — and successful — to
turn into political campaign fodder that could backfire.
They may also be viewing the poll numbers in the U.S. and
recognizing that the results are too close to call. Had the
Canadian campaign taken place after the U.S. election, the
Conservatives might have been tempted to claim they could
work more effectively with a President McCain, or the
Liberals with a President Obama. Even this could be a risky
strategy, as perceptions of being too close to the U.S.
leader are often distasteful to Canadian voters; one
recurrent jibe about PM Harper is that he is a “clone of
George W. Bush.” Ultimately, the U.S. is like the proverbial
900 pound gorilla in the midst of the Canadian federal
election: overwhelming but too potentially menacing to
acknowledge.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

WILKINS

***

VZCZCXRO2711
OO RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHMT RUEHQU RUEHVC
DE RUEHOT #0064/01 0221635
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 221635Z JAN 09
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9010

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000064

SIPDIS

FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM CHARGE D’AFFAIRES BREESE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/22/2019
TAGS: PREL ETRD ECON MARR SENV AF CA
SUBJECT: SCENESETTER FOR THE PRESIDENT’S TRIP TO OTTAWA

Classified By: Charge d’Affaires Terry A. Breese, reason 1.4 (d)

¶1. (C) Mr. President, Mission Canada warmly welcomes you
and the First Lady to Ottawa. We and Canadians alike are
thrilled that your first foreign trip as President will be to
Canada, which Canadians claim as a long-standing tradition
reflecting the vital importance of this bilateral
relationship between two democratic neighbors.

SOME HOME TRUTHS
—————-

¶2. (C) Your enormous popularity among Canadians (an 81 pct
approval rating) is to Conservative Prime Minister Stephen
Harper both a blessing — because he can for the first time
since taking office in 2006 gain politically from public and
policy association with the U.S. President — and a curse –
because no Canadian politician of any stripe is nearly as
popular, respected, or inspiring as you are to Canadian
voters, a genuine factor in the historically low turnout in
the October 2008 Canadian federal election. Many Canadians,
especially university students, volunteered on your campaign,
and busloads traveled to Washington for your inauguration.

¶3. (C) Your decision to make Ottawa your first foreign
destination as President will do much to diminish –
temporarily, at least — Canada’s habitual inferiority
complex vis-a-vis the U.S. and its chronic but accurate
complaint that the U.S. pays far less attention to Canada
than Canada does to us.

¶4. (C) The minority status in Parliament of Harper’s
Conservative Party means that it and all other parties now
remain in almost permanent campaign mode; there have been
three successive minority governments (one Liberal, two
Conservative). The bottom line questions remain when the
government will fall and on what issue. Your trip will help
to ensure that the government will survive an early February
vote of confidence on the federal budget, in which Canada
will post its first deficit in more than a decade as it
provides a stimulus package of $30-40 billion.

¶5. (C) The U.S. and Canada enjoy the world’s largest
trading relationship, with more than $1.5 billion in two-way
trade crossing the border each day, including 77 pct of all
Canadian exports. With the border central to Canada’s
economic well being, Canadians chafe about what they see as a
“thickening of the border” caused by U.S. actions to
strengthen homeland security since 9/11. Canadians claim
that these measures have driven up business costs and delayed
border crossers. The business and trade communities in the
U.S. and Canada both believe that the “balance” between trade
and security has been tilted too far toward security, and are
hopeful that your administration will tilt that balance back.
Canada may argue for a new mechanism (separate from the
trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership) to address
bilateral concerns.

¶6. (C) Canadians wish that more Americans would recognize
that Canada is the largest source of imported energy for the
U.S. (including for both oil and natural gas), although there
is also keen sensitivity over the higher environmental
footprint of oil from western Canada’s oil sands and concern
about the implications for Canada of your energetic calls to
develop renewable energies and reduce our reliance on
imported oil. Canada is also rich in hydroelectric power,
has similar objectives for developing renewables, and is
working strenuously to improve the environmental impact of
production from the oil sands and to expand its own wind
Qproduction from the oil sands and to expand its own wind
power capacity.

¶7. (C) Given the high integration of our two economies,
Canada will hope for a truly North American discussion of
economic stimulus, job creation, and sectoral support, as in
coordinated bilateral measures on the auto sector (for which
Canada promised a $3.4 billion assistance plan — 20 pct of
what the U.S. offered, matching a pledge that PM Harper made
to then-President Bush in December) and in the G-20
commitments on financial sector regulation. We should ensure
that both nations continue to design complementary packages
to revive our economies.

¶8. (C) Although the climate change issue has largely been
the province of the official opposition Liberal Party, the
Conservative government now seeks to set in place measures to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and advocates a coordinated
policy with the U.S. on expanded efforts to protect our
shared environment. They hope and expect this will be a
central theme of your visit.

OTTAWA 00000064 002 OF 002

¶9. (C) Arctic sovereignty is a motherhood-and-apple-pie
issue for Canadians of all political persuasions, and they
are deeply suspicious of assertions by the U.S. (and most
other concerned nations) that the Northwest Passage is a
strait for international navigation, not Canada’s territorial
sea. The new Arctic policy issued at the end of the Bush
Administration, which reasserted our views on the Northwest
Passage and emphasized cooperation among Arctic nations, has
re-ignited these suspicions.

¶10. (C) Canada declined to join the U.S. in the invasion of
Iraq and instead concentrated its global counterterrorism
efforts on Afghanistan, including 2500 troops in Kandahar
Province and its largest bilateral donor program worldwide.
With the highest casualty rate among NATO partners and only
about 65,000 Canadian Forces overall, there is virtually zero
willingness across the Canadian political spectrum to extend
the current Parliamentary mandate for these forces in
Afghanistan beyond 2011, but Canada could offer up
significant new funding to strengthen the Afghan National
Army and Afghan National Police. Much will depend upon
convincing Canada that its continued contributions to the
Afghanistan effort are a critical component of your strategy
for success in Afghanistan.

¶11. (C) No matter which political party forms the Canadian
government during your Administration, Canada will remain one
of our staunchest and most like-minded of allies, our largest
trading and energy partner, and our most reliable neighbor
and friend.

KEY THEMES
———-

¶12. (SBU) In your public remarks and media availability,
these points would be most useful from Mission Canada’s
perspective:

– Canada is a true friend, trusted ally, valued trading
partner, and democratic model for the world;
– around the world, the U.S. and Canada are working
together to defeat terrorism, promote economic development
through trade and investment, prevent the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and advance the cause of human
freedom and dignity;
– Canada and the U.S. are blessed to share the beauties and
riches of North America, and will strive individually and
jointly to protect and preserve its environment, while
ensuring that our nations and the world benefit from its
extensive natural and human resources;
– our highly integrated economies are now facing enormous
challenges, but with our traditional resilience, creativity,
sacrifice, and cooperation, our two countries will emerge
from this crisis stronger than ever;
– while we share the prosperity that comes with the world’s
largest bilateral trade relationship, we also share the
threats to that prosperity from international terrorism;
– 21st century technology can help ensure ever more safe
and efficient transit of goods and people across this longest
undefended border in the world, and we need to work together
more fully to understand each other’s security and trade
needs and to build a shared vision for the security of our
two nations from new threats while investing in technology
and infrastructure that can secure, support, and expand the
benefits of our trade;
– the U.S. and Canada maintain extensive cooperation in the
Arctic. The U.S. views the Northwest Passage as a strait
used for international navigation — not Canada’s territorial
sea — but does not dispute Canada’s sovereignty over its
Arctic islands;
– Canada has paid a disproportionately high price in human
Q– Canada has paid a disproportionately high price in human
life to help the people of Afghanistan emerge from their dark
era under the Taliban, and the U.S. salutes these Canadian
contributions to the building of a democratic and successful
society in that troubled land and counts on continued
Canadian cooperation to achieve this goal;
– U.S. Presidents and Canadian Prime Ministers come and go,
but our shared values and aspirations will continue to
underpin a robust, mutually respectful, and hugely successful
friendship and partnership that benefits not only our two
peoples but the world.

Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada

BREESE

Time to update our 9/11 Honour and Dishonour Roll. Some fine qualifees have presented themselves in recent months.

The original idea of the list was to record for posterity those news organizations that have or haven’t done their job in covering 9/11. You’ll find that roster here. For this iteration, I’m expanding it to include individual media types — columnists, hosts — as  they’ve been the busiest truthers or obscurantists of late.

As noted before, entrants may appear on both lists. And, as always, suggestions for additions are invited.

The 9/11 Media Honour Roll

Geraldo Rivera (Fox News). After walking in lockstep with his fellow Fox News hosts for years (see Dishonour Roll below), Geraldo recently allowed as how “the most obnoxious protestors in recent years may be right.” Welcome to the right side of history, buddy. Hope you stick around.

Eric Margolis. In an entry on his website, the former Sun Newspapers columnist calmly laid out some facts and asked some questions about 9/11, for which he received a sweaty attack from the National Post‘s Jonathan Kay (see Dishonour Roll below). Perhaps notably, Margolis did not speak out about 9/11 until after he was fired by the Sun chain, but better late than etc., etc.

The 9/11 Media Dishonour Roll

Geraldo Rivera (Fox News). Having given Rivera his props, we may as well show you his “Oh get a life” moment with those “obnoxious” protestors back in 2007.

Jonathan Kay (The National Post): Kay puts on a good show of objectively contemplating the 9/11 Truth movement for purposes of a forthcoming book, but Margolis’s column (see above) caused him to drop the pretense. Kay has also averred that he “just can’t get [his] head around the possibility of any kind of 9/11 truth conspiracy being true,” which is about as pathetic a starting point for a journalist as can be imagined.

Evan Solomon (CBC): Back when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the UN a simple truth — that there are numerous theories out there about what happened on 9/11 — Solomon followed-up by asking a guest on his “Power & Politics” chatfest whether there was any point in trying to reason with a guy like that. (I paraphrase from memory; sorry, the podcast is long gone.) Apparently, Evan is still stuck back in Geraldo-pre-2010 mode: don’t bother with facts; just go straight for the conventional wisdom.

We liked him better doing arts news.