The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Zifnab.

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

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by lucky760.

What does liberalism have to do with aploligizing for abuses by local police departments? Absolutely nothing. If anything, people like Rush Limbaugh are the ones on the side of the cops when the cops fuck up, like at the G8 protests.

g8/g20 summits are fucking sham/show. the real decisions have already been made else were. waste of money as far as i'm concerned and an ironic one at that seeing as how the stated purpose of this summit was deficit reduction.

i'm all for black blocs and the destruction of property, but there are standards. you don't cause physical harm to anyone, and you don't destroy personal property (there's a difference between private property and personal property... like, it's great to throw bricks at banks but you don't spray paint an innocent civilians house).

i am totally unconcerned with the "destructive minority" "ruining it" for "peaceful protesters". you're "right" to protest is bullshit, "you can say whatever you like as long as you don't disrupt business as usual", if you don't disrupt business as usual then what is the point??? there is a time for direct action and i'm pretty sure now is as urgent a time as any.

as far as agent provocateur's are concerned, SOAR and infoshop are saying no evidence of agent provocateur's this time around as far as they see.
here is the statement from SOAR.
there's more articles about it from the anarchists but i'm too lazy and hurty right now, you can find some on infoshop.org if you care to search.

oh i'd like to see the g8/g20 focus on fucking itself.

i'd go about solving the worlds problems by eliminating the "state" and posing an alternative to rampant capitalism and rejecting authoritarianism and oppression in all forms.

Taken from LiveLeak...

War with Iran has already been decided by the powers that be and the modern-day quasi-declaration happened last Thursday. Using the same legislative and propaganda playbook that led to the Iraq War, the U.S. Government has just officially declared War on Iran. Reuters reported "Congress on Thursday approved tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, whic More..h could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran. The House of Representatives passed the bill 408-8 and sent it to President Barack Obama for signing into law. The Senate had approved it 99-0 earlier in the day."


Congress hasn't officially voted for a Declaration of War since World War II. In modern times they use creative wording in bills that authorize the broad use of force across borders in the sweeping "War on Terror." The Bush Doctrine of preemptively attacking countries because they may pose a threat to America in the future was universally trashed by progressives, but is alive and well under Obama, the Prince of Peace, without one dissenting vote in the Senate. This authority is what the Obama Administration claims also gives them the legal argument to bomb sovereign countries like Pakistan.

This unilateral decision by the United States Congress comes on the heels of a 12-2 U.N. Security Council vote on June 8th to impose a "modest tightening of sanctions" against Iran. Of course, Russia and China have been assured that sanctions won't apply to their energy needs in order to secure their votes. After the vote President Obama asserted that, "these sanctions do not close the door on diplomacy."

However, the United States preempted this embargo vote in Congress by taking up an aggressive posture in tandem with Israel by deploying an Armada of Battleships to the Red Sea. There are now reports from the Israeli National News that, "The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran."

Now, it seems that the United States is working overtime to sell their war plans to potential allies. CIA chief, Leon Panetta appeared on ABC's This Week and announced that the Iranians, "have enough low-enriched uranium right now for two weapons. They do have to enrich it, fully, in order to get there. And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapon delivery system in order to make that viable."

While world leaders negotiate their piece of the Iranian pie in G8 negotiations, the multinational fear campaign has begun. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday that a CIA warning that Iran has enough uranium to build two atomic bombs was "worrying," and criticized Tehran's secrecy over its nuclear program. Gathered at the G8 Summit in Ottawa, world leaders now "fully believe" and are "worried" that a preemptive attack by Israel on Iran is inevitable. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told reporters that "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."


Enforcing an unprovoked embargo on a sovereign nation has been historically defined as an act of war. Unfortunately, very few of our elected officials know or understand history and therefore overwhelmingly voted for the new sanctions. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), an outspoken critic of Iran sanctions, was one of the eight house members to vote against the measure. Here is Ron Paul from a few months ago comparing sanctions to an Act of War while discussing this bill; H.R. 2194 Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010.

The Bush-Obama Doctrine is the rule of tyrants. Clearly it looks like Israel and America are determined to preemptively strike Iran even though Iran has always maintained that their nuclear program is for peaceful energy production only. America has once again engaged in an Act of War on a sovereign nation that has not harmed, or even threatened to harm her. Iran's biggest crime appears to be sitting on a sea of crude at a time when oil-thirsty Neo-cons, who penned the Doctrine, rule the world. The coming war with Iran will not be pretty.

I'm not so sure these folks can afford to do that. I've never heard of this duo before, and I probably never will again. If they did manage to travel to Toronto from elsewhere, chances are they had to scrape and save to do so. Native political rappers are not celebrities up here, and often make little to no income from their music.>> ^Kreegath:

I have a hard time sympathizing with these tourist rioters who seem to do nothing else but fly around the world to these meetings to torch cars, smash windows and throw rocks at the police. They're the reason peaceful protesters have such a hard time in these situations, no the police.

Yes, the media has been fair in the aftermath of the G8/G20, but what about the rest of the time? Watching The National or CTV News is a combination of 1 or 2 deep, penetrating stories interspersed with 'human interest' stories about some teenager somewhere who won a science fair or something. Much goes unreported in our national media.>> ^Krupo:

Funny they call the Canadian media a source of propaganda - they've been remarkably fair and balanced - in the sense that they've clearly shown the police abuses and hammered after the police in press conferences.

>> ^Krupo:

There are widespread reports of gross human rights violations in what people are calling "Torontonamo Bay" - way too many independent stories for this to be waved off by anyone. I fear for my Canada.


People are stupid and easily manipulated.

Remember that.

Remember that it's not only the 'man' that exploits that weakness, but also all the opportunists out there, like the black bloc.

The G20/G8 are always magnets for violent groups that want to sow dissension between the people and the government. From all the Toronto coverage it looks like the stereotypical mess. Swarms of peaceful and respectful protesters assemble. A few people wanting to create tension between those protesters and the police start smashing stuff and setting it on fire using the protesters as cover. The police are thus forced into the impossible situation of separating the few bad apples out from the protesters, all the while private property is being destroyed and set ablaze.

It's small scale guerrilla warfare between the violent protesters and the police, with the protesters caught in the middle.

The G7, G8, G20 etc. aren't held in cities so that world leaders can get together and work out a strategy for solving the problems nations face. They are simply training exercises for the militarized police forces. Giving them much needed real world practice. When the protests step up a notch and full scale armies of protesters start marching against governments the lessons learned from these events will come in mighty handy.

The NWO has already plotted out the course of international affairs this year. Bilderberg was in Spain this year.

I think they're referring to Warriors as in The Mohawk Warriors.>> ^NetRunner:

I like the slogan "Another world is possible" about a million times better than "Warriors unite".
money

>> ^Throbbin:

I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

I think the real problem with the austerity decision is that the EU really needs to either put up or shut up about its existence. Either it needs to let member nations ditch the euro, or it needs to have the low-debt nations bail out the high-debt nations.

Keeping people on the euro, tightening monetary policy on the euro, and demanding austerity everywhere is going to give them a Great Depression that will make our economic troubles look like a walk in the park.

As for us, we seem to be good (but not great) shape on monetary policy, and have the right idea on fiscal policy, but we're being stymied on fiscal policy by domestic extremists. <godwin>You know, the Nazis used the Great Depression to come to power, apparently the Republicans want to create one so they can come to power!</godwin>

I think the debt reduction is valid for some members. Canada didn't get hit nearly as hard as Americans or Icelanders did, so from our PM's perspective, debt reduction makes sense (I have political disagreements with the guy, but Canadians are generally proud of our Governments' fiscal responsibility - fake lake notwithstanding).

However, you guys could definitely use some more stimulus (and not to the banks). I hear Krugman warning against a relapse into recession and maybe even depression, and that is the last thing America needs right now (imagine what the Republicans would do with that?)

Environmental regulation would be nice - but Harper is a Calgary Tory, which means he eats crude oil for breakfast. Remember, he was the one who called Kyoto a Socialist Scheme to re-distribute wealth. I was frankly surprised Obama didn't go after him a little bit on that, but I have been hearing that the Americans are reluctant to criticize Canada too much on the oil sands fearing we may just say 'fuck it' and export to China instead. Even the European countries didn't really mention it too much - I figured Germany or France would at least bring it up.

Some would say that violent protest is the only way to make them notice - that they don't listen the other 900 days between G8/G20 meetings, and this is an opportunity to get their attention. After Montebello, I think it's safe to assume the cops wanted to bump some heads, and as agents of state authority who are funded by my tax dollars, it's our duty to oblige.

It does water down the message a bit - it is hard to discern their purpose or motivations sometimes. I think the purpose it does serve is reminding people that they are not alone in their disgust with 'The Man'. It's like what they say about France being the last place where Governments are still afraid of the people. >> ^NetRunner:

Apparently, the big theme for the meetings is Debt Reduction. Whaddya think?
What do you think the G8/G20 leaders should be focusing on? How would you go about solving the world's problems?
I think the Debt Reduction part of it is crazy stupid. I'm glad the US delegation is arguing for more fiscal stimulus, though I'm sad to say we seem to be the only ones.
What should they be focusing on? Fiscal stimulus, environmental regulation, and making the Chinese stop manipulating their currency.
Human rights would be nice too, but they're an economic group, they don't do the human rights thing. That's the UN's impotent jurisdiction.
How do you see the protests that have been taking place? Is violence ever justified? Pics.
Do the minority of the protesters who vandalize and attack security folks have just cause? Are they ruining it for the peaceful demonstrators? Do they only serve to tarnish the many causes of other protesters and groups?
I think the protests are totally ineffective. The G20 members don't give a shit, and regular joes don't ever hear what they have to say. Hell, even political junkies like me would be hard pressed to say who's doing the protesting, beyond the anarchists who seem to only exist to protest G8/G20 meetings.
There's no point in violence committed against security forces at the G20. People who do it tarnish the reputation of the protesters, and give any jackbooted statists (real or imagined) good propaganda to use to dismiss the protests.