Tweet
CanPol - Do we have our election issue?
OTTAWA - The stage is set for a showdown - and possibly an election - over Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan.
The minority Conservative government has turned up the heat, announcing it will introduce a motion by Friday on extending the mission, with a vote on the matter in late March.
The move appears designed to ensure one of two outcomes this spring: parliamentary approval to extend the mission indefinitely, or a federal election on the issue.
But Liberal Leader Stephane Dion isn't budging on his position that the combat component of the mission must end on schedule next February, with Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to help with reconstruction and training of Afghan security forces.
He emerged from a caucus meeting Wednesday saying he's not afraid of an election and it's up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to compromise.
"I'm never afraid of anything," Dion said when asked if he's prepared to trigger an election over the issue.
Dion said the Liberals will offer amendments to the government motion, to bring it in line with the Grit position.
"We'll do our best to convince the other colleagues in the House to come to our position," he said. "We don't want the extension of the combat mission after February 2009. . . . The timeline must be respected."
Dion conceded it's unlikely that Harper will agree to a strictly non-combat role after next February: "On that we have a big difference."
The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have said flatly that they will vote against any extension of the mission.
Dion, briefed in a short meeting with Harper on Tuesday, said the prime minister told him he doesn't want a vote on the motion until after the budget and that it will be a matter of confidence.
A spokeswoman for Harper said the government has not yet declared it a confidence vote but hinted that could change.
Carolyn Stewart Olsen emphasized that the prime minister has called the Afghan issue a matter of grave importance.
"We expect debate to begin next week," she said. "We have time and are willing to be patient while the Liberals sort out their position."
Olsen said the motion will be based on recommendations of the panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.
Manley called for an extension of the mission beyond February 2009 - but only if Canada gets 1,000 NATO reinforcements and secures helicopters for its troops.
But one opposition source characterized the wording of the motion as "Manley-minus" - meaning that it will not mention some of the other recommendations made by the Manley panel on humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and more open communications by the federal government.
The Manley panel said Dion's insistence on a strictly non-combat role after next February is not viable. It argued that providing security for reconstruction and training of Afghan forces would inevitably involve Canadian soldiers in combat.
The Conservatives appear to hope that the Manley report will compel Dion to drop his insistence on a non-combat role. But Dion has so far only clarified his position, not changed it.
"You need to be prepared to fight but the combat role is when you are proactively seeking the engagement with the enemy. It's something I have said that we will interrupt in February 2009."
The minority Conservative government has turned up the heat, announcing it will introduce a motion by Friday on extending the mission, with a vote on the matter in late March.
The move appears designed to ensure one of two outcomes this spring: parliamentary approval to extend the mission indefinitely, or a federal election on the issue.
But Liberal Leader Stephane Dion isn't budging on his position that the combat component of the mission must end on schedule next February, with Canadian troops remaining in Afghanistan to help with reconstruction and training of Afghan security forces.
He emerged from a caucus meeting Wednesday saying he's not afraid of an election and it's up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to compromise.
"I'm never afraid of anything," Dion said when asked if he's prepared to trigger an election over the issue.
Dion said the Liberals will offer amendments to the government motion, to bring it in line with the Grit position.
"We'll do our best to convince the other colleagues in the House to come to our position," he said. "We don't want the extension of the combat mission after February 2009. . . . The timeline must be respected."
Dion conceded it's unlikely that Harper will agree to a strictly non-combat role after next February: "On that we have a big difference."
The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois have said flatly that they will vote against any extension of the mission.
Dion, briefed in a short meeting with Harper on Tuesday, said the prime minister told him he doesn't want a vote on the motion until after the budget and that it will be a matter of confidence.
A spokeswoman for Harper said the government has not yet declared it a confidence vote but hinted that could change.
Carolyn Stewart Olsen emphasized that the prime minister has called the Afghan issue a matter of grave importance.
"We expect debate to begin next week," she said. "We have time and are willing to be patient while the Liberals sort out their position."
Olsen said the motion will be based on recommendations of the panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.
Manley called for an extension of the mission beyond February 2009 - but only if Canada gets 1,000 NATO reinforcements and secures helicopters for its troops.
But one opposition source characterized the wording of the motion as "Manley-minus" - meaning that it will not mention some of the other recommendations made by the Manley panel on humanitarian aid, diplomacy, and more open communications by the federal government.
The Manley panel said Dion's insistence on a strictly non-combat role after next February is not viable. It argued that providing security for reconstruction and training of Afghan forces would inevitably involve Canadian soldiers in combat.
The Conservatives appear to hope that the Manley report will compel Dion to drop his insistence on a non-combat role. But Dion has so far only clarified his position, not changed it.
"You need to be prepared to fight but the combat role is when you are proactively seeking the engagement with the enemy. It's something I have said that we will interrupt in February 2009."
Depending how the issue is ultimately framed this could be an interesting showdown.
Comment