VZCZCXRO0477
OO RUEHGA RUEHHA RUEHIK RUEHPOD RUEHPW RUEHQU RUEHVC RUEHYG
DE RUEHOT #0124/01 0242110
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 242110Z JAN 08 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY OTTAWA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7191
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNCAN/ALL CANADIAN POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 0158
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0115
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 0869

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 OTTAWA 000124 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR WHA/CAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL MOPS AF CA
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION REACTION TO MANLEY REPORT PREDICTABLE 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: The New Democratic Party (NDP) and the Bloc 
Quebecois moved quickly, and predictably, on January 22 to 
reject the central recommendation of the Manley panel to 
extend Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan. Their decision 
puts the onus on the official opposition Liberals to clarify 
their position.  The Liberals, however, appear to be keeping 
their powder dry and have yet to respond officially to the 
report.  PM Harper welcomed the report as "substantive and 
thoughtful" and promised to give it careful consideration, 
but did not indicate how he will deal with the issue when 
Parliament returns on January 28.  The NDP and Bloc have now 
ruled themselves out of any part in the parliamentary 
"consensus" PM Harper has said he is seeking on the future of 
the mission, perhaps leaving the Liberals to determine its 
future.  End summary 
 
BLOC: "OUT OF THE QUESTION" 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe was unequivocal 
in rejecting the Manley report as giving the Harper 
government "carte blanche" to continue the Afghan war 
indefinitely.  Duceppe said the report's refusal to state an 
end-date for the mission is unacceptable, and that his party 
is in "complete disagreement" with the Harper government over 
the extension of the combat mission beyond February 2009.  He 
called on the government to advise its allies of Canada's 
decision and to shift its focus in Afghanistan to 
reconstruction, humanitarian aid and development.  He urged 
the government to hold a promised vote in the House of 
Commons on the future of the mission as early as possible. 
 
NDP: "WRONG FOR CANADA" 
----------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) Similarly, NDP leader Jack Layton rejected any 
extension of the combat mission as "the wrong role for 
Canada" and contrary to "Canadian values."  After six years 
of counter-insurgency warfare, Layton said, Canada should be 
"drastically changing course" to help the Afghan people build 
a lasting peace in the region.  NDP defense critic Dawn Black 
questioned the independence of the Manley panel, saying the 
participants were chosen to give the PM the recommendations 
he wanted. 
 
LIBERALS: MUM 
------------- 
 
¶4. (U) In contrast, Liberal leader Stphane Dion declined to 
comment despite being peppered with questions at a January 22 
press conference.  He said he had not yet read the report, 
but reiterated his party's long-standing position that the 
combat mission should end in February 2009 and argued that 
his party has "strong reasons" for Canada to switch to a 
non-combat role.  "We have carried this mission during three 
years and it's time for Canada to do something else in 
Afghanistan," he remarked.  Dion repeated the Liberals' three 
conditions for extending the mission: an end to the combat 
role, more training of Afghan forces, and a greater emphasis 
on development assistance.  He refused, however, to say 
whether Liberals are prepared to defeat the government should 
Harper make the extension of the mission a matter of 
confidence. 
 
KEEP OPTIONS OPEN? 
------------------ 
 
¶5. (U) The Liberals appear to be keeping their options open. 
Foreign affairs critic and former leadership candidate Bob 
Rae (who is currently running for a federal seat in a March 
QRae (who is currently running for a federal seat in a March 
17 by-election) hinted the party might be able to live with 
the recommendations in the report.  Rae argued that there is 
no need for Liberals immediately to take a hard position 
until they see how the Harper government and NATO partners 
respond.  Manley recommended delaying a parliamentary vote 
until after the April NATO summit.  Rae said much will depend 
on whether the government allows a full debate or attempts to 
"politicize" the issue with a snap vote as in 2006: "Let's 
see what the government puts up and whether it's compatible 
with our position."  Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale 
agreed the party might let the government make the first 
move.  "We'll see how it's handled and managed... we'll see 
how they play it," he said. 
 
OTTAWA 00000124  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) John Manley's elevated stature among Liberals, and 
Manley's explicit references to Canada's assumption of a 
robust international role under a series of previous Liberal 
leaders, puts Dion in the awkward position of having to 
either reject the advice of one of the party's most respected 
stalwarts or backtrack on his own position.  The Liberals 
split over Afghanistan in the midst of a leadership race in 
¶2006.  Currently all Liberal MPs are publicly onside to end 
the combat mission in 2009, but doubts remain over the 
position of deputy leader Michael Ignatieff and other 
Liberals who supported a continued combat role in 2006, and 
probably still do today.  Dion promised on January 23 to 
"consider the options with an open mind."  In the party's 
submission to the Manley panel earlier this month, Dion had 
made it clear the future of the Afghan mission is ultimately 
an executive decision, thus potentially leaving the door open 
to alternatives to a confrontation, including the Liberal 
opposition collectively abstaining from a vote, or other 
means to allow the government to decide the issue on its own. 
 
Visit Canada,s Economy and Environment Forum at 
http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/can ada 
 
WILKINS