I’m going to write about today’s Chantal Hebert column without taking potshots at her, because she’s actually talking about Dion without taking potshots at him - a rarity since Dion has become leader of the Liberals.

What I’m going to focus on from her column is whether Dion should make a carbon tax a key policy plank in the Liberals campaign or not, and that he needs to decide soon. I do agree with that; if we’re not going to have an election this June (and many of us, even those who are election hawks, are increasingly resigned to that), and Dion is going to go on a summer tour with key Liberals, then this policy needs to be pushed up front and centre and he and his spokespersons and surrogates are going to need to be out there on the circuit explaining what a carbon tax entails, and more specifically what it does NOT entail.

If Dion and the Liberals let this policy sit without proper explanation, that is what you’re going to see from the Conservatives - trying to equate it to a “gasoline tax”, when it is nothing of the sort.  There will not be a direct raise of gasoline prices because of any carbon tax implemented, and it will also involve lowering taxes in other areas; what is known as a tax shift.  But Ms. Hebert is correct when she says policy nuances like this get lost in the middle of an election campaign.

Start promoting it and explaining it now, or risk losing the spin war.  Choose BC and Quebec as the first 2 places to do the explaining too; both have implemented versions of it, both (if Ms. Hebert is accurate) have been well received there, and both are provinces where the Liberals have to win additional seats to win government.  I can’t think of 2 better provinces to start talking about this carbon tax proposal.

Funny, I was just hearing in the news last week that Harper didn’t want to fall on Afghanistan or go to an election on it. Now all of a sudden, he’s threatening to turn this (a non-money, non-supply motion, if true) into a motion of confidence and telling Dion he will cause an election over it?

I see Dion is repeating his stance tonight to the media after his meeting with Harper that the combat mission must end in 2009, and that isn’t changing. I say bravo to him, and I also urge him to call Harper’s bluff - if he wants an election over this, I say bring it on. I also say to the Liberal caucus - or at least those who are nervous Nellies, that now is the time to support the leader. He has made this a firm position, and for you to try to get him to change his mind, or for some who disagree with him to do something like publicly dissent to the media over this position makes everyone in the Liberal Party look incredibly bad and once again give the media the meme of “Liberals weak-kneed and scared to go to electorate”. Enough is enough.

I also say to the Liberals, that this need not be a one issue election, if you’re afraid of Harper focusing totally on Afghanistan (though I don’t particularly fear that issue). My issues list here not too long ago shows there is plenty of things the Cons. and Harper have done wrong that you can campaign on.

Let’s go.

So I was chatting with one of my acquaintances up on the Hill who observes the Parliamentary goings-on for a living, and I asked that person what they made of the Conservatives issuing a press release last evening on Bill C-3 (dealing with the new revised security certificates that the Supreme Court struck down last year), which more or less said the Liberals would be weak on Canadians public safety if they don’t pass the Conservatives version of that bill.  I said it seemed a rather silly move by the PMO to make going after the Liberals when Harper was supposed to be meeting Dion today to try and persuade him to follow his stance on Afghanistan and the Manley Report; I didn’t think it would exactly ease chilly relations with that type of a release.

The response I got from this person was interesting: the opinion given back was that it was that person’s belief that Harper really doesn’t want Dion to agree with him - that he wants to be able to blame Dion and the Liberals for “forcing” him to end the combat mission in Afghanistan, and thus try to neutralize it as an election issue for him.

I said I found that interesting, because of Layton’s press conference yesterday and some NDP bloggers basically now saying to everyone who would listen that Dion was moving closer to Harper’s position (and Layton was being silly I opined, because everyone has predicted, including me, that Dion and the Liberals would never agree to pulling troops out immediately, and that’s been their position for a while).

The reply to that from the observer was equally interesting:  In their opinion, Layton, like Harper  is also playing politics with this issue; the NDP is following their policy of trying to destroy the Liberals in advance of the next election than in — well, pretty much anything else. The opinion ended with the observation that Layton probably would have been horrified if Dion *had* agreed with him.

Take it for what it’s worth, but as I said, it’s from an observer on the Hill… and it means Dion and the Liberals will have to tread very carefully. If the NDP want to end the combat portion of the mission, they will have to quit playing politics (if that is indeed what they’re up to) acknowledge that they and the Liberals have differences on when the combat portion ends, and then ask the Liberals to help defeat the Cons version of wanting to stay.

As for Harper, I don’t trust him more then I can throw him. Dion has made his position clear that the combat portion of this mission will end in 2009 if the Liberals have their way, so I don’t see what Harper will offer to Dion to get him to agree to an extension. If Harper comes out of his meeting with guns ablazing about how the Liberals and Dion are being inflexible or won’t support a Liberal-led panel recommendation, I suspect my observer friend’s opinions on this will be proven right.

Well now, this is an interesting turn of events. Rather then bash the Liberals over their Afghanistan position, Jack Layton and the NDP have decided diplomacy is the better way to go, and are making overtures to Dion and appealing to him to support their opposition to not extend the Afghanistan mission:

NDP Leader Jack Layton made a personal appeal to the federal Liberals on Wednesday, urging them to accept his proposal to put an end to Canada’s military combat mission in Afghanistan. Layton spoke briefly to Liberal Leader Stephane Dion outside the Commons to convince him not to support Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s efforts to extend the mission beyond its current deadline of 2009. “Just as Mr. Harper has extended a hand to Mr. Dion for his approach, so too am I extending a hand to Mr. Dion to embrace our approach,” Layton (said) during a speech the University of Ottawa on Wednesday evening. “Mr. Dion has some decisions to make and I look forward to a continued dialogue over the coming days and weeks.” An NDP official described the meeting as a cordial exchange in which the two leaders agreed to continue their dialogue in the future.

Dion and the Liberals will probably never agree to Layton and the NDP’s position on “Canadian troops out of Afghanistan now” stance. That being said, I would assert that Dion’s views on the mission are a lot closer to Layton’s then they are to Stephen Harper (or Harper’s proxy guy John Manley). In light of what I just highlighted in my previous blogpost about Dion flatly stating there was no change in the Liberal position about removing Cdn troops from a combat role once 2009 rolls around, I believe there is room there for the 2 parties to agree that THIS extension is cause for common ground to reject both the Conservatives stance as well as the Manley report.

My kudos to Layton and the NDP for looking at what Harper was doing in trying to publicly appeal to Dion and to do the same thing. It goes without saying I am one of those who support the end of the mission as it currently stands once 2009 rolls around, and if the NDP and the Liberals can make common ground here in rejecting a Harper/Conservative extension, even though they disagree on the exact date of the troops withdrawal, I’m all for it.

(H/T to Mushroom for finding this)