Ignatieff: The Liberal position on Afghanistan has been clear for over a year. We want to continue with a development, security and military role in Afghanistan. But we think the mission has to change. And we're going to come forward early next week — now that we've got the motio — we're going to come forward early next week with a very detailed, very comprehensive set of amendments to the motion.
Let me react to the government's motion because you will notice that it mentions February 2011. The question all Canadians have to ask is: Is that a withdrawal date or a renewal date? Legitimate question. We don't know the answer. There's ambiguity there and Canadians need to have a clear answer to that question.
We also notice that there's a great deal, if it's based on Manley, there's a great deal in the Manley Report criticizing the management of the mission, criticizing the way development it's done. That’s not in the motion and we think that we're going to put amendments in that area.
And finally: Look, this is a national question, okay? This is the most important thing Canada's done in 50 years. We are anxious to work with the government to find a respectable, honourable compromise that serves the national interest. But you can't go into the House of Commons and be told you're the Taliban information service and [because] that doesn't exactly create the atmosphere for a proper dialogue.
The final point I'd make in terms of how we're doing it as a party, Mr. Dion has made it very clear, we don't want to do secret negotiations behind closed doors. There's too much secrecy already in the way the government's handling this mission. So we have not responded to their motion earlier. We've decided the right thing to do is to put it out in the public and have the public look at what we're saying and I think the public will be surprised and I'll bet you, the government's going to be surprised.
Reporter: Quelle sort d'amendements allez-vous proposé?
Ignatieff: Vous allez voir. Nous aurons, nous allons nous donner, et je dois noter aussi, nous devons consulter avec le caucus, je pense lundi. J'envisage après une discussion au sein du caucus, il faut noter bien, M. Harper consulte personne dans son parti. Nous, au contraire, nous devons consulter tout le parti. Après cette consultation qui, qui va, qui va se poursuivre lundi, je crois, lundi soir ou mardi matin, vous allez voir une motion très détaillée, très concrète, très précise sur l'avenir que nous proposons pour les citoyens sur la mission en Afghanistan.
Reporter: Is it on this reduced combat role, an end date of some kind? Is that where you see the need for compromise?
Ignatieff: The caucus has to consult, but it's clear that were the government seriously interested in stopping all this posturing and puffering and labelling us Taliban sympathizers, were they seriously interested in serving the national interest, there are things that we can talk about. I do not want to prejudge the discussion we'll have in caucus. But it is my view that there are things to talk about here. Canadians I think have said this for weeks. They don't want an election on Afghanistan. We don't either because I feel, as a patriotic Canadian, very uneasy about going to the country while we've got troops in the field. And I implore the government to reflect and understand that. I've heard some Ministers on the other side say that. I urge us to work that way.
But don't mishear what I'm saying. I am not overly optimistic that we are going to get a reasonable bipartisan approach here because they're so unbelievably partisan. Therefore, we'll just have to see how they react to what we, I think, are going to propose. I think they'll be surprised.
Reporter: If there's an election while the (NATO Heads of State) Bucharest meeting comes around and this issue hasn't been resolved, does [the Canadian government] have a mandate to do anything under those circumstances?
Ignatieff: Well, that's an excellent question, and Canadians ought to reflect on the management of this that leads us into the very likely prospect of an election while all our NATO allies are sitting there in Bucharest saying what's the position of Canada? Ask the Prime Minister to explain how he's manoeuvred and levered us into a situation which it is possible — I don't hope this, I wish it weren't the case, but it is possible — that we'll be in Bucharest without a Canadian government. And who's responsible for that? Stephen Harper.
Reporter: When you were in Afghanistan, you spoke glowingly about the police training and the army training that was going on there. Do you think that this is an area where compromise might be possible, bringing the two parties closer together?
Ignatieff: We've been saying for more than a year that I was very impressed with what I saw of the police and army training. Any Canadian looking at that up close is proud of what we're trying to do. We probably are as good at that as anybody in the world, and there may be areas there— you put your finger on the right issue — where there's stuff to discuss. But again, we don't negotiate through the press. I mean, I love talking to the press but we can't negotiate this through the press. The caucus has to be consulted and then it seems to me if, if we're going to take this further, the leader of my party and the Prime Minister have to sit down and look at the distance that remains between our positions and decide really is it in the national interest for us to plunge the country into a bitter election on an issue where Canadians I think desperately, right across the partisan divide, want us to pull together and do our jobs as politicians.
As Liberal leader Stephane Dion is travelling today and was in Vancouver when the Government House Leader Peter Van Loan tabled