Dion Threatens to force election on federal budget.

This is from the Globe and Mail. We know now that the budget will be tabled on Feb. 26.
Harper will not be able to offer too many goodies since the cupboard is more or less bare but perhaps he will include enough that Liberals may think twice before defeating the government. If the Liberals are ready to defeat the Conservative government it would make sense to vote against the budget. The Liberals are split on Afghanistan and their position is rather nuanced (or unclear!) and might be difficult to "sell" during a campaign. Anyway, both major parties want to avoid an election on the issue. Questions might get out of control. Even so it will no doubt come up during any campaign. I hope that Ignatieff and Rae agree that there should be an election on the budget so that Dion can have a united party to vote against the budget.


Dion threatens to force election on federal budget
Ottawa to table plan as early as Feb. 25
GLORIA GALLOWAY
Globe and Mail Update
February 11, 2008 at 4:45 AM EST
OTTAWA — Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said yesterday that his party is prepared to vote against the Conservative government's upcoming federal budget - a move that could push the country into an election within weeks.
The minority Conservatives have provided the opposition with a series of potential triggers to take the country to the polls, including anti-crime legislation and the future of Canada's military mission in Afghanistan.
While the Liberals say they profoundly disagree with the Conservative plan to continue the combat role in Kandahar to the end of 2011, Mr. Dion suggested it would be the budget that spells the end of Stephen Harper's first term as Prime Minister.
"We will look at the budget and, if we conclude that the budget is unacceptable for Canadians - not putting our country in the good direction - we will take our responsibilities," Mr. Dion told CTV's Question Period.
"If the budget is wrong for the country, we will not support this budget, you may be sure," the Liberal Leader said. "We will see the budget and we will make our decision at that time."
The opposition routinely pans the government's fiscal plan. And, because there is little cash left for the Conservatives to spread around, this budget, expected as early as the week of Feb. 25, is expected to offer little in the way of stimulus for a sagging economy. Mr. Dion could seize upon that if he is looking for a way to defeat the government.
Although either the Bloc Québécois or the New Democrats could prop up the Conservatives by themselves, NDP Leader Jack Layton has called for an early election and Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe has spelled out a $15-billion list of demands required for his party's support.
Mr. Dion is said to have been eager to defeat the Conservatives last fall but was persuaded by Liberal party officials that the time was not right. That led to a series of Liberal abstentions on confidence votes. But his comments yesterday suggest his caucus will no longer sit on its hands.
Last week, the Harper government introduced two motions they said would be considered votes of confidence in the government: one would extend the military mission in Afghanistan for another two years; the other would force the Liberal-dominated Senate to speed passage of anti-crime legislation.
Mr. Dion discounted the anti-crime motion as "juvenile."
As for Afghanistan, Liberal MPs will meet tonight to discuss the Conservative motion and the party will introduce its own amendments later this week.
"Canada, as a good partner, wants to help for the reconstruction, for development in Afghanistan, for the tasks of security and training," Mr. Dion said yesterday. So, although the Liberals would end the combat role, "maybe the government will want to explore with us if there is a compatibility of our views about what may be done after February, 2009."
It is unclear how many troops the Liberals would keep on the ground or how soldiers would train the Afghan military without being involved in combat.
Mr. Dion's spokeswoman, Leslie Swartman, said yesterday it was ludicrous to suggest that troops in a war zone would be prevented from engaging with the enemy if they come under attack. "But the specifics that you are asking for with respect to numbers of troops posted where after February, 2009, won't come this week," Ms. Swartman said in an e-mail. "First the government has to agree that our country has done its fair share, and then it can begin negotiations with ISAF [International Assistance Security Force]...."
Liberal sources said their amendments, which must be approved by caucus, will focus on the themes the party has been stressing for some time, including the end of combat in one year's time. They will propose that the military restrict itself to training and security. That would mean the end of operations in which troops are sent out to actively engage the Taliban in battle.
NATO would be told immediately that Canada can no longer perform the combat role in dangerous Kandahar province and that all Canadian troops will leave the country by the end of 2011. In addition, the Liberals say they will ask that the motion commit Canada to providing humanitarian assistance and economic development, and they will demand the safe transfer of prisoners to Afghan authorities.
The Conservatives would extend the combat role on the condition that NATO sends 1,000 more troops to help fight the Taliban in Kandahar and helps Canada obtain helicopters and unmanned drones.
A delegation that included Ian Brodie, Mr. Harper's chief of staff, met with French officials in Paris on the weekend after France hinted that it might find the additional combat troops. The Canadian officials returned home without definitive answers.
"The French are looking to take on a bigger role in Afghanistan. They have several options for doing that - moving south with Canada is only one of them," Sandra Buckler, Mr. Harper's spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.
Editor's Note: The version of this story that appeared in today's Globe mistakenly said the Liberals had introduced two motions last week they said would be considered votes of confidence in the government. That sentence should have read that Conservatives introduced those motions. The sentence has been fixed in this online version.