CANADA: CONSERVATIVES DIVIDED ON MISSILE DEFENSE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 003027

SIPDIS

NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/05/2014
TAGS: MARR PGOV PREL CA
SUBJECT: CANADA: CONSERVATIVES DIVIDED ON MISSILE DEFENSE
FOR CANADA; GOVERNMENT LIKELY TO AVOID DECISION IN NEAR
FUTURE

REF: OTTAWA 2990 (NOTAL)

Classified By: POL MC Brian Flora. Reason 1.4 (b),(d),(e).


1. (C/NF) SUMMARY: Despite broad speculation in media and
academic circles that the government was poised to take a
(positive) decision on Canada's participation in missile
defense, PCO Clerk Alex Himelfarb indicated to the Ambassador
that the government would seek to avoid a debate and vote on
MD anytime soon (reftel/NOTAL). Coincidentally, in a
separate meeting the same day (November 8),Conservative
Defense Critic Gordon O'Connor voiced his party's
(unexpected) reservations on MD to poloffs and DATT; he
shared privately his assessment that missile defense is so
politically divisive that the minority government will not
risk bringing it to a vote. Discussions with House Foreign
Affairs Committee Chair Bernard Patry, and FAC Assistant
Deputy Minister (ADM) Jim Wright's comments on his MD
briefing to the Liberal Caucus bear out the judgment that
Parliamentary ignorance and misinformation about missile
defense are key factors in Canadian reluctance to make a
decision about the program. END SUMMARY.

OFFICIAL OPPOSITION (CONSERVATIVE) NOT CONVINCED MD IS FOR
CANADA
-------------- --------------

2. (C/NF) At Ambassador's request, Poloffs and DATT met with
Conservative M.P. Gordon O'Connor, Opposition defense critic,
ostensibly to help fill the Opposition's knowledge gap on
missile defense. Elected to the Commons for the first time,
O'Connor is a retired Army Brigadier General who also worked
as a consultant for the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. O'Connor
spoke candidly, noting at the outset that he was less
concerned with technical details (obtainable from web sites,
he said),than with what role the Liberal government is
considering for Canada in the missile defense framework. The
Opposition wanted to know "what" the government would be
signing up for, and "what" will be debated when the issue
comes to the Commons floor. In light of the five years the
government had worked the issue, O'Connor said, there must be
"some kind of arrangement" that the U.S. and Canada had
discussed. He added that while he fully appreciates the
American view that the threat is increasing over time and the
U.S. needs to be prepared, at present he doesn't see a clear
benefit to Canada. O'Connor reflected that Canada might be
better off sitting it out for now and, if the threat became
compelling, perhaps "re-engaging" with the U.S. five or ten
years hence.


3. (C/NF) Polmiloff responded that there is no "Agreement"
per se at this time. Rather, the Embassy's understanding
drawn from the public debate was that in putting missile
defense to a vote, the government would seek Parliament's
blessing to commit to and negotiate Canadian terms of
participation in the program. O'Connor said that the
government possesses full authority to negotiate and sign
treaties; therefore, in his view, it does not need
"permission" to negotiate MD participation. Rather, he
agreed with what Defense Minister Graham had said on public
radio -- that the government should negotiate a package with
the U.S. and present the terms to Parliament for
ratification. On delayed Canadian participation, DATT
acknowledged that while it was clearly Canada's prerogative,
Canadians should be made aware of the opportunity cost of
waiting, as the program continues to evolve independently of
and without consideration for issues of potential
interest/concern to Canada.


4. (C/NF) O'Connor added that he believes there is no/no
incentive for the government to bring the issue to a vote at
this time. In his estimation, the anti-federalist Bloc
Quebecois (54 votes) and left-of-center NDP (19 votes) would
"absolutely oppose" any missile defense proposal, and a
considerable number of Liberal MPs clearly would like to
follow suit. He believes that the Liberals, knowing that a
missile defense vote will expose the rifts in the Party, will
simply push it further down the road, perhaps even to the
next election. Politically, O'Connor said, the issue also
was tricky for the Opposition. In essence the Conservatives
would like to continue opposing the government without
betraying their basic advocacy for strong defense. They see
four options if and when the issue comes to the floor:
Support, Oppose, Abstain, Allow the caucus to vote its
conscience (a free vote).


5. (C/NF) O'Connor concluded that he did not want to leave
the impression that he and the Conservatives do not
understand the nature of the post-9/11 threat and the need
for a strong, united defense. They take the issue very
seriously, he said, and are committed to improving Canada's
defenses. But they cannot just fall into line without knowing
precisely what the government is proposing and how MD fits in
the overall defense picture.

HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIR UNSURE WHAT MISSILE
DEFENSE IS ABOUT
-------------- --------------

6. (C/NF) In a meeting on November 4, House Foreign Affairs
Committee Chairman Bernard Patry told poloff and visiting
WHA/CAN desk officer that he "expected" the missile defense
debate to take place in December, with Parliament adjourning
on December 12th. Patry said the vote would be non-binding
and that the government would brief Parliamentarians in the
lead-up to the vote. He added that the likelihood was high
that it would be a "free" vote for the Liberal Caucus and
that, regardless of the outcome, the government would proceed
with the program.


7. (C/NF) Patry said the key concern for him was the
potential for "weaponization of space." (NOTE: Rather
tellingly, on at least one occasion Patry called the missile
defense program the "space weapons program"). He did not
know what the involvement of Canada would be, the cost, nor
the impact of Canadian participation on NORAD. Patry said
that Canada accepts that the U.S. has a clear vision and
rationale for the missile defense program and will proceed
with it regardless of others' participation: But that
doesn't answer the question of whether MD is a "good idea"
for Canada.

FAC BRIEFING TO THE LIBERAL CAUCUS FURTHER REVEALS KNOWLEDGE
GAP
-------------- --------------

8. (C/NF) Assistant Deputy Minister for Global and Security
Policy Jim Wright provided a readout to DCM of his November
30 briefing on missile defense to about 50 Liberal MPs.
Wright, whose expertise and grasp of the issue are well known
to USG interlocutors at post and in Washington, shared the
key points he made:

-- Regarding sovereignty: This is a Canadian decision and
always has been; there is no pressure from the U.S. to sign
onto missile defense. He argued that "it is an exercise of
sovereignty to decide to participate" and it was difficult to
imagine Canada not participating on an issue related to North
American security.

-- Regarding cost: Level of participation is a matter of
choice. Wright said he went into some detail about different
levels opted by other countries in response to one MP's
rejoinder that Japan had contributed $25 billion "but they
got something for that".

-- Regarding national security interests: Canada's decision
should be part of a bigger strategy of prevention (consistent
with involvement in PSI and Global Partnership) as well as
protection (missile defense). Moreover, MD should be seen as
part of a comprehensive security package that includes smart
borders, NORAD renewal, and BPG renewal.


9. (C/NF) Wright told DCM that a minority of MPs want it
"both ways": protection without paying, and command and
control input but no assets on Canada territory. He said he
was careful not to raise expectations on industrial
opportunities and notions of influence over the U.S. Wright
assesses the way ahead to be blurry. The FAC bureaucracy
needs a political green light that will only happen once the
politicians are comfortable that this is really "their"
sovereign decision. Wright said he took some criticism that
this briefing was long in coming. He confided that FAC has
done "preliminary thinking" of what a framework might look
like based on the US-UK agreement. Finally, while there was
no green light on briefing other parties yet, Wright thought
a decision to go ahead and offer briefings to the opposition
caucuses might be made next week.

COMMENT
--------------

10. (C/NF) From our collective discussions with Canadian
interlocutors it is clear that misinformation and plain
ignorance about missile defense are factors in the
government's inability to move the issue forward. While
parliamentary briefings by credible professionals such as Jim
Wright can help to de-mystify MD, at this point the issue is
so starkly politicized that only time--and perhaps a stronger
government--may enable common sense to prevail.

Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa
CELLUCCI