The Martin-Clinton Photo-Op Kyoto Fiasco

I have been asking people in the past couple days about this very matter, and my question is this: which is worse, the state that does not sign an international treaty, or the one that does and then systemically flouts its provisions? The state that participates in voluntary defection/cheats is always the answer I have received.
On the bigger picture of Canada/US relations, I am thoroughly disappointed in Martin's performance as PM. He came into office pledging to thaw the chill between Ottawa and Washington, and, if anything, he has made matters worse. The BMD decision was a public embarrassment for the Bush administration, as Bush had every reason to believe that Canada would participate when he asked Martin to join in his Halifax visit last year. The dithering was probably what infuriated the Americans most; having made every concession Canada requested and been assured only two days prior to the decision by Frank McKenna that Canada was on board, the Bush administration had every right to be angry at the rebuke.
Then came the Martin-Clinton photo-op. Why is our country one president behind? I just completed a comparative IR paper on Australia and Canada's respective BMD decisions, and I found that Canberra has a PM who is a "close friend" with Bush, who has secured an FTA with the US, and these are all contributing factors to Australia being seen as a legitimate regional power with good relations with Washington. Meanwhile, our PM is shaking hands with the previous POTUS and wondering why the current one is angry about such an occurrence. It also completely overlooks the fact that it was Clinton, not Bush, who rejected Kyoto for the United States.
Foreign policy is my primary area of interest and goes further than anything else in determining my vote. Barring a massive Harper failure in FP or other major area, I will not be putting my confidence in Paul Martin again in this election.