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

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

Let's see... there's the easy way to have this discussion
Q: "Do you think the Civil Rights Act and the ADA are overreaches in government?/ Would you have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964?"
A: "I support the Civil Rights Act and believe that America still has a way to come for true social justice"

Then there's the way that isn't a canned politician response, and actually shows independent thinking.

Q: "Would you allow a private business to have a "No Blacks Allowed" sign?"
A: "I would be insulted to even see such a sign at an establishment, but the freedom of speech alotted to us by the constitution and bill of rights protects the rights of all people, even bigots and racists, and we must respect that."

I found some videos by the ADA that also promote the use of fluoride. Although they also don't show any empirical data, they advocate seeking additional fluoride intake if you drink bottled water that is not fluoridated or if you live in an area that is not fluoridated.

http://www.ada.org/public/media/videos/minute/index.asp#fluoridation

One strange arugument they pose is that fluoride is a naturally occurring element in water. I find this strange because there are many naturally occurring elements in water that I wouldn't want to increase my intake of.. such as arsenic,lead,magnesium and radon. While fluoride is helping my teeth, I wonder if it could be harming my other organs and bones based on all the products that use fluoridated water and the fluoride in the public water supply (it seems like it might be too easy to inadvertently take in too much). After all, it's more toxic than lead - which has been banned in the use of products. I've also learned that if the fluoride is unrefined from it's capture process in fertilizer plant smoke stacks then it also contains lead and radons. This doesn't necessarily make me refute the use of mass non-consentual fluoridation. It only makes me question the quality of fluoride that is being used.

The ADA, NSL and CDC all state that flouride is not harmful to us and advocate it's use in our water supply to help prevent tooth decay. It's GOOD for you!

Ok.. fine what's a little bit of extra toxin in our daily diet... it's not like we're getting this fluoride from a dictatorship-style run country with a health violation record regarding it's products exported.

I mean, we're getting top-grade pharmaceutical quality fluoride from nature (according to the ADA). Our politicians and corporate CEOs overseeing the process would have nothing less because they care for their end users.

I mean, it's not like they're siphoning these toxic chemicals (complete with arsenic, lead and radons) in an unrefined and unprocessed state directly from fertilizer plant smoke-stacks. The same ones where they used to emit these fluorides as gasses into the environment and kill off the animal and plant life in the township near the plants (until regulation prohibited them from this process). Now we have an effective method of discarding these toxic chemicals - by putting it in our drinking water.

Absolutely Genius!!!

We should be thankful they're giving us fluoride. According to the Health Science Channel our daily fluoride dosage is what is keeping our tooth enamel from falling apart. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKgZeeBpBQc

I do find it strange though that this water treatment facility has turned off their fluoride integration and have still yet to investigate why this Chinese fluoride is clogging up their system. The CDC and NSL says it's safe though so we can put away any fears of contamination. Why would they lie to us? That would be scandalous would only serve to harm their reputation on the subject of fluoride. Still, how long would a spectroscopic test take? I don't understand why they haven't shown proof of it being safe. Some empirical data on this batch of fluoride might reassure the public.

I got your back, kir_mokum: *cañada!

>> ^wagthedog1:
I was kind of waiting for the telling of this guys moment of reform, but it never arrived. Is he still a practicing KKK member or not?
Read the rest of the interview transcript and see for yourself. There is also a Rev Wade Watts tribute on Johnny's website.


From the tribute page:

"On another occasion, he went into a cafe in Ada, Oklahoma with his friend, Oklahoma State Senator Gene Stipe, where he was stopped at the door by the waitress. She proceeded to tell them they did not serve Negroes there! Wade told the woman, "Ma'am, I don't eat Negroes anyway, just give me some ham and some eggs!""

:} Sounded like a real genuine, loving, funny guy.

"It's Dr.William Birkin's final form! Ada?! AAAAAAAAAAAADA!" *Self destruct sequence initiated*

Favourites

1) Season - Fall, when Delta Burke comes out to see her shadow.
2) Place in the world - In the bushes outside of KP's house, watching him watch me on his live-feed broadcast.
3) Children's book - Encyclopedia Brown or George W. Bush's biography
4) TV Series - South Park and the episode of To Catch a Predator with blankfist.
5) Word - scrumdiddlyumptious
6) Film - American History X
7) Curse - FUCKING COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING BITCH ASS CUNTLICKING SONOFABITCH
Creature - duck-billed platypus
9) Past time - Trivial Pursuit
10) Person - My best friend, who continues to lurk, without joining VS.

Which one?

11) Dog or cat - Tiger
12) Sweet or savoury - This would be a great question for Jeffrey Dahmer.
13) Cereal or Toast - Apple Cinnamon Oatmeal
14) Tan or pale - Fluorescent
15) Shoes or barefoot - Socks
16) Desktop or laptop - special underwater goggles with high-speed wireless Internet
17) Drive or walk - bicycle
18) Drama or comedy - dramedy
19) Sex or food - Why can't we combine them?
20) Futurama or Simpsons - Futurama

The Sift

21) Your fave personal submission - McCain's Press Conference in Front of a Cheese Case, or Tool's Sober
22) A great comment on one of your vids - "More proof god hates orphans." From blankfist, on my post about the orphans.
23) Most off the wall member - QM, if that wall is made of rationality
24) Favourite user name - schmawy
25) Your most used channel - comedy
26) Personal dumbass moment - I only get one? Hmm. Probably when I mocked the brother of Soulja Girl, and bi-polar sufferers everywhere. Good times.
27) Best avatar - Emperor Blankfist
28) Partner in crime - I have so many circle jerk partners. Where to begin?
29) Do people offline know of your sift problem - my lurking best friend does. And my other friends know I love the site.
30) Idea for the site - Give me a crown, and a jar of marmalade.

About you

31) Where do you live - A decent house in Boise in Ada county in Idaho in the United States of America in North America in the western Hemisphere in Earth in the solar system in the Milky Way galaxy in the universe in God's puckered anus.
32) Smoker/non-smoker - It depends on what we're smoking. I don't smoke cigarettes.
33) Left or right handed - LEFT. You know we're better!
34) Hair colour - Brown, with an ever-growing tinge of grey.
35) Relationship status - Single and stalking. I mean looking.
36) How tall - Taller than Jon Stewart, but shorter than Michael Jordan.
37) Children - Hell no. I can barely take care of myself.
38) Ever had an operation - On my left knee when I was ten. They let me watch. It was AWESOME.
39) Best feature - My ravishing blue eyes, or my tattoos.
40) Use four words to describe yourself - intelligent, sarcastic, procrastinator, under-achiever

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) Bring a famous person back from the dead - Bertrand Russell
42) Give 50 grand to any charity - Nope.
43) Send someone on a one way ticket to the moon - Does the Bush administration count as one person?
44) Relive a moment in your life - [redacted] That is privileged information.
45) Have a superpower - Invisibility
46) Find out one thing you've always wanted to know - Find out what would happen if Hitler had won World War II.
47) Have the opposite gender deal with something you have to - Getting a boner in public, in the most awkward of situations. Then trying to hide it.
48) Be president for one hour - FIRE ZEE MISSILES!
49) Delete a period in history - The fall of Greece to the beginning of the scientific revolution.
50) Achieve one thing - Write and publish a book.

check out this

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:

One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]

Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.

Just one man's opinion.

Wikipedia is in general a non-optimal resource when it comes to things like this, because the NPOV rules lean to the sort of "teach the controversy" kind of middle-ground bs that lets people get away with framing some things as "issues" that shouldn't be. I looked up but couldn't read the 2nd citation because it's in German. If you can find a translation of the entire paper, rather than just the abstract, I'll take a swing at it.

But first, check the paper you linked. So the patients with autoimmune disorders in the study were specifically selected for lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, ok, that's already bringing it out of the original question about general amalgam safety. Then note the discussion, in which it is observed that health worsened for some of the patients in treatment, but this effect was dismissed because of smoking...wonder about the smoking habits for all the rest of the patients? Hmmm..... Then consider the materials and methods where the setup for determining whether a patient was getting better or worse was described. Any good, quantitative analysis there? Oh, and then there's the fact that the study had a sample of 35 people, of which four diseases were represented, and of which the maximum number of people in one disease category was 15.

....hm. I mean, there's some shaky ground, and that's even for their very specific case of people suffering from immune disorders with high lymphocyte reactivity to mercury, who, it does seem reasonable, might be better suited for non-mercury treatments. As for the general public...well, there's a reason I don't feel particularly inclined to argue about this "issue".

Oh, and Qruel....lol.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:
One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]
Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.
Just one man's opinion.

I'm lazy, so I just went to Wikipedia to learn about this controversy. If what the article states is true, then it sounds like the scientific jury may still be out on this issue:

One review from the US found little evidence to link mercury fillings to health problems[1] while the other from Germany found that removal of dental amalgam lead to permanent improvement of various chronic complaints in a relevant number of patients in various trials.[2]

Therefore I think it's a legitimate scientific debate, even if the ADA maintains that mercury amalgam is safe. For example, for some people with autoimmune disorders removing mercury amalgam has been beneficial. I don't know where the preponderance of research points for the general public, however, because I am no expert.

Just one man's opinion.

I'd be happy to, Thee. Sorry Ace.

>> ^TheeAlien:
I'd downvote this if I could...Can I do the disabled thing and ask someone to down-vote this for me on my behalf?

I'd downvote this if I could.

I have a neuromuscular disorder that confines me to an electric wheelchair. I've also worked for the disabled in many different ways (I won't post my resume). The percentage of people with disabilities who dislike the ADA is about the same as the percentage of scientists in the proper fields who think Climate Change is bunk or that there jesus was the son of god - but yet, Bullshit with it's Ayn Rand loving dogma would have you believe otherwise.

To be correct; many people with disabilities feel the ADA could be improved, but the "it could be improved" mentality isn't the "because it makes life for us more difficult" kind of improvement... it's the "give me more" type of improvement that Penn & Teller are very much against.

Do Penn & Teller really think Private and Public funding of things like:
- Ramps
- Wider Doors
- Bigger Bathroom Stalls with $20.00 grab bars
- Buses with access ramps for wheelchairs
- Blue Paint on Pavement
- Cuts in curbs so wheelchairs can get on them
- Electric Door Buttons

Shouldn't exist? These type of improvements don't hinder the able-bodied, and their costs in existing constructions are almost negligible.

If we can't access sidewalks because of those little cuts in the sidewalks should we pay ourselves to have it done? Or should we drive in the middle of the road with the cars? Or should we bring a little ramp with us everywhere? Or should we just stay at home and wait to die?

As for the rights issue of handicapped parking, just because the sign has a wheelchair doesn't mean people in wheelchairs use it. In fact, if you have a manual wheelchair or electric wheelchair you're probably pretty good at zooming from the very end of the parking lot where there is tons of space. Most people who use handicapped parking I find aren't visually disabled (unlike the characters in this episode of Bullshit). Handicapped parking is used most by people who can walk, but have troubles walking - thats why they get the close parking dibs. It's not a privilege because we are disabled in general that we get to park close, it's only for people who go to a doctor with a legitimate need to park close who can get the permission - just like only trucks filled with things get the dibs on the "loading and unloading zone only" parking dibs.

Seriously, this episode out of all them (and there are several that are bad) makes me the angriest. Can I do the disabled thing and ask someone to down-vote this for me on my behalf?

thanks for the fluoride video. If fluoride is as harmless as the ADA sez it is, all this will just make us laugh at our silliness.