New
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s unusual decision to allow all six
Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador MPs to break away from the party’s
solidarity and vote against the governing Conservatives’ budget last
week for a “one-time” only protest vote, won’t hurt his leadership
or weaken federalism, says Liberal MP Justin Trudeau, the son of the
Canadian iconic prime minister Pierre Trudeau who strongly fought
for Canadian unity and refused the concept of the federal government
being “the maître d’ of the provinces.”
Trudeau
told The
Hill Times that
Ignatieff’s decision “is largely a symbolic gesture. This is a
Conservative budget and definitely not a Liberal budget and Michael
was first to point out many imperfections with
it.”
Trudeau
said Liberals had to support it because it was “imperative to
getting money out to Canadians quickly and it required that we would
support it and we did it.”
But
he said “one of the imperfections” in the budget specifically
targets Newfoundland and Labrador and said “everyone feels it’s
“revenge against Danny Williams” for Williams’ campaign against the
federal Conservatives during the last election. “On that basis it
was considered to be one of those exceptional
situations.”
Trudeau
said there were many discussions and “Michael listened to his
caucus, he listened to the concerns, particularly to the MPs from
Newfoundland, and he decided that, as a symbolic gesture, they can
vote against the budget on the first large
vote.”
However,
as Trudeau pointed out, “on the subsequent budget implementation
bill they will be voting with the caucus. It is definitely an
exception because of the specific circumstances on a bill that is
not a Liberal bill, but one that we support on the Conservative
side.”
Trudeau
refuted the notion that Ignatieff’s decision will create a dangerous
precedent: “I think that the precedent that is established is about
the strong leadership of Michael Ignatieff who is reasonable and not
rigid. That’s the kind of leadership Canadians are hungry for. That
is a kind of intelligent reflection where you look at the situation,
you reflect on it and you do what’s best for the entire country. In
this case, the entire country was not going to be well-served by
imposing heavy consequences on the MPs from a particular part of the
country, put in an almost impossible
situation.”
Asked
if the Liberals would be in a position today to impose the party
line on votes like same-sex marriage, abortion, or the hepatitis C
bill, Trudeau said he believes it would be no different than in the
past “because this was such an exceptional situation, I do not think
this sets up precedents. I do not think that it would make it
difficult to impose party discipline.” But despite the strong
decision of Trudeau and other MPs to officially support Ignatieff’s
decision, the concern within the party is serious. MPs are hoping to
convince all members of the caucus that these kinds of requests
won’t be entertained in the future and there will be consequences.
In fact, some suspect there will also be consequences for the six
MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador who forced the party to make this
controversial decision. They, contrary to what happened to John
Nunziata and Joe Comuzzi in the past, when they were kicked out of
the Liberal caucus for breaking the party solidarity, have been
allowed to remain in the caucus, but should put aside any other
aspirations within the party and in the government, if it comes.
Basically the message to other MPs could be very simple: if you
believe that the only retribution for breaking the party line is to
be expelled, you’re wrong. So think again. This message, some
Liberal strategists say, might be the only one that could help
Ignatieff’s leadership keep the caucus united in the future. Last
week, Ignatieff hadn’t decided who would be vice-chair of the House
Veterans Affairs Committee, but dropped Newfoundland and Labrador
Liberal MPs Judy Foote and Scott Andrews from the list.
