CANADA-IRAQ: PUBLIC OPINION MORE FAVORABLE;

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 001014

SIPDIS

NOFORN

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (TAGS ADDED)

C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (PARA 1 AND 5 CHANGED MONTH TO APRIL)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/08/2013
TAGS: PREL MOPS IZ MOPS IZ CA CA PREL
SUBJECT: CANADA-IRAQ: PUBLIC OPINION MORE FAVORABLE;
GOVERNMENT TRYING TO REPAIR DAMAGE

REF: OTTAWA 917

Classified by Charge Stephen R. Kelly. Reason: 1.5 (b) and
(d).


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: In his first comprehensive statement on
Canada's Iraq policy, and an effort to make amends with the
U.S., Prime Minister Chretien urged the House of Commons
April 8 to vote for a resolution supporting "our friends in
battle" and hoping "for a quick victory with minimum
casualties." The PM prefaced his statement by noting that he
strongly disagreed with statements made by Members of his
Caucus, "which we all wish had not been said." He also
commended President Bush for his continued dedication to
poverty eradication, combating AIDS and improving trade and
development in Africa. END SUMMARY.

A wake-up call for ordinary Canadians
--------------

2. (U) In the 10 days since Ambassador Cellucci voiced U.S.
disappointment with Canada's posture on Iraq (reftel),the
business community and Canada's "silent majority" have taken
to the streets and sought opportunities to demonstrate
solidarity with America. New poll results indicate that a
majority (54 percent) of Anglophone Canadians currently
"approves" of military action in Iraq, with a conservative
poll specifically indicating that 72 percent believe Canada
"should have" supported the U.S. at the start of the war.
The weekend following the Ambassador's speech, a gathering of
nearly 4,000 - the largest of any group to demonstrate in
Ottawa since the start of military action - assembled at
Parliament Hill in a show of support for the U.S. and for
coalition forces. Similar events have taken place in other
Canadian metropolises.


3. (U) Fears of an economic backlash against Canadian
business interests prompted Liberal backbench MP Dennis Mills
to invite U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue to
meet with a group of 200 Canadian business leaders. Donahue
reportedly proved effective in delivering reassurances that
business relations would continue to remain on track. At the
same time, however, he did not shrink from conveying the
message that "many Americans ... found personal attacks on
President Bush ... offensive and hurtful," and reiterating
that "the U.S. agenda was profoundly reshaped by 9/11." In a
separate interview with journalists, Mr. Donahue debunked the
widely held notion that the U.S. is in Iraq for the oil,
noting that the major supplier of energy to the U.S. is
Canada.

The Government tries to make amends
--------------

4. (SBU) Meanwhile, in the House of Commons the government
has had its back against the wall, consistently drawing fire
from the entire spectrum of opposition parties for its
waffling position on various aspects of the war in Iraq.
Ministerial testiness has become increasingly apparent in the
daily Question Period, as embattled Cabinet Members have
parried NDP (left-leaning) and Bloc Quebecois criticism of
Canadian soldiers being "embedded" with U.S. and U.K. troops
in Iraq under routine exchange programs, while the Canadian
Alliance (right) has nailed the government for failing to
adequately support such personnel.


5. (SBU) The Liberals moved swiftly to counter a Canadian
Alliance motion calling on the House to regret and apologize
for "offensive and inappropriate statements" against the U.S.
by Members of the House, and wishing the U.S. success in
removing Saddam Hussein from power. In a special session on
April 8, Prime Minister Chretien urged the House to support a
government counter-motion calling for the coalition to "be
successful" in its mission in Iraq, and pledging the
government's readiness to participate "as soon as possible"
in the reconstruction of Iraq. He said the government cared
"about the outcome even if we are not participants in the
war. This means that we should not say things that could
give comfort to Saddam Hussein and this means that we should
not do things that would create real difficulties for the
coalition." Turning to the longer-term requirements of peace
and security throughout the troubled regions of the world,
the PM went on to praise President Bush's leadership in and
commitment to combating aids in Africa and his recognition of
the importance of poverty, trade and development, even in the
face of the terrorist threat.

...But Can Go Only So Far
--------------
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/08/2013
TAGS: PREL MOPS IZ MOPS IZ CA CA PREL
SUBJECT: CANADA-IRAQ: PUBLIC OPINION MORE FAVORABLE;
GOVERNMENT TRYING TO REPAIR DAMAGE


6. (SBU) In his speech, the PM criticized the Canadian
Alliance's call for a House apology as an assault on Members'
rights of free speech, noting that it would "cast a chill" on
the rights and privileges of MPs that are fundamental to
Canada's democracy. He defended the government's "decision
of principle" not to support the coalition, stressing the
consistency of its position from the beginning, and invoking
his oft-repeated phrase that "close friends can disagree at
times and can still remain close friends." By way of example,
Chretien alluded to how Canada's opposition to the war in
Vietnam did not damage its friendship with America and he
recalled with pride the heroic role, 23 years ago, of
Canada's Ambassador to Iran in rescuing U.S. Embassy
personnel in Tehran. He went on to commend Canada's show of
solidarity with the U.S. in the wake of the September 11
terrorist attacks.


7. (C) COMMENT: The Prime Minister's remarks reflect the
Liberal Party's awareness of the damage to its image
inflicted by the government's haphazard and clumsy approach
to policy on Iraq. The fact that Chretien read a prepared
text - rather than speaking extemporaneously as is his habit
- was no accident. As a close adviser of the PM confided to
Charge, the message was painstakingly choreographed to mend
fences with the U.S., while trying to balancing the broadly
divergent views within the Liberal Caucus. END COMMENT.