Election 2007? Not yet.

Dion seems to have figured a way out.

Basically:

Dion said he will introduce an amendment to the speech that criticizes the government for abandoning Canada's Kyoto commitments and asks for combat operations in Afghanistan to end by February 2009.

But the amendment is expected to fail because the New Democrats, who want an immediate troop withdrawal, will be unable to support it. The Liberals would then abstain from the final vote, keeping the government alive.

"Criticizes the government for abandoning Kyoto"? What does that mean? It's all well and good to criticize, but Dion needs to either say "yes, we agree, we can't meet Kyoto", or "no, let's stick with it".

If he says "yes", then he shouldn't be "criticizing" it in the Throne Speech, and it shouldn't affect how he votes on the Throne Speech. If he says "no", then as a matter of principle he should be voting it down.

Then, furthermore, how can he abstain from the final vote on the Afghanistan issue? Either he thinks that Canada should be out by 2009 (and then vote against the Speech) or doesn't care, and then he can let it go.

Perhaps that's his goal (it clearly is): let the government stand for now without actually supporting it. Then, he can pick his battles later on.

However - and this is important - if that's his position, then he all but has to abstain from every vote on issues related to the Throne Speech. The upcoming justice bill, for instance? If he intends to abstain from voting it down now, he should abstain from voting it down later. Will he? Perhaps, but (again), only to save himself from an election he doesn't want.

It's one of the main problems with a minority government - the ability of the opposition to determine when they want to force an election - and on which issue, regardless of their position on the issue as recently as several months prior.