The reason Monsieur Proulx doesn't want any reference to the Senate holding up our bill is because that's a sore point in the Liberal caucus. It's certainly an issue that will come up during the election, and they don't want to discuss that. Not only do they not want to discuss it during an election campaign, it appears they don't want to discuss it here. They don't want any reference to the fact of the Senate...but it goes back to the point that there's a political motivation behind this, Chair.
If that's the case, Chair, if we have three major issues before us right now that are all potentially confidence issues—two are definitely confidence issues and one may be a confidence issue—that's three opportunities where the government may fall if the Liberals choose to vote against the government. Out of those three potential confidence issues—tackling violent crime, Afghanistan, and the budget—only the budget gives them an opportunity, Chair, to go into an election without having the albatross of their divided position on Afghanistan hanging around their necks, and only that has given them an opportunity to go into an election with the albatross of being soft on crime hanging around their necks.
Whether or not, Chair, we will have an election after the budget, I don't know. No one here truly knows. I suppose the only people who have an inkling of whether or not there will be an election, based on a non-confidence vote on the budget, the only people who would have any semblance of knowledge of this, would be members of the Liberal Party themselves and the Liberal caucus, and I don't even know if they've come to a firm decision on that.
Again, I refer back to all of the political commentators and observers who are suggesting that is the most likely scenario. If that is the case, if we were for a moment just to go down that path and accept that rationale as being true and likely, then one can start to see more clearly what's happening here and the motivation these individuals have.
We saw an example yesterday when the opposition held a joint news conference to try to criticize the government for its handling of this issue. That's the first time we saw the collective voices of the opposition in any formal manner, and it leads one to suspect again that this is a coordinated plan. In other words, this isn't something the opposition just decided to do. This is something they determined to do by design and in a strategic fashion. They undoubtedly—let's break it down even more than that, Chair. I know my colleagues opposite will not want to hear any of this. They want to try to inhibit debate and discussion on this matter, but it is entirely germane to the discussion we have before us.
We know that the New Democratic Party is on record.... Several times in the last number of months they've stated that they would be willing to take down the government at any opportunity, that they would be willing to vote against the government at any opportunity, and in fact they have. At least I give them credit for that. They certainly have. They have stood up and voted. The Bloc Québécois, similarly, have also indicated quite clearly that they will be voting against the government in any confidence measure. It doesn't matter whether it's a private member's bill, a motion, or a confidence vote. The Bloc Québécois have stated that they will be attempting to bring down the government, so we know that. We know the motivation has been there, but the dynamic that has been missing, until now, Chair, is the position of the Liberal Party of Canada.
While at times they have stated—these are their terms I think—that this government is going down the wrong path and taking the country in a wrong direction, they haven't actually been able to back up their words with action, because as we and all Canadians know, they have abstained on several occasions on critical confidence votes. In other words, they have not seen the need, nor did they have any political desire, to force an election over the course of the past few months, but it appears that now the situation may be changing. It may be changing, Chair, not of their own volition, not because they want an election, but because they feel they may be forced into an election.
My comments on the Afghanistan mission are most relevant to that because, regardless of what they say publicly, privately there is an incredible division within their own party on that issue. How can any political party go into a federal election and have a chance of being successful if they are divided—publicly divided—on one of the most crucial issues we have seen in this country in the last two decades. I would suggest to you, Chair, that the Afghanistan mission is that very issue. So again, that's what's happening here. They do not want to deal with Afghanistan. They are afraid that if the budget passes there will be a confidence vote on Afghanistan. Monsieur Dion has already stated his preference. He has said that this will be a whipped vote by the Liberal Party. We also know that if you were to believe reports coming from some media members, there are members in their own party—