Election 2011 – Winners and Losers

Disclosure: The author is currently an undecided voter, is not affiliated with any political party and has, in the past, voted for candidates of the blue, red and orange stripe.

On Tuesday Canadians were afforded an opportunity to witness a rare event in Canadian politics, a campaigning politician, a party leader no less, being completely factual and honest on the national stage.

For those of you who might have missed this singular event or who were unfortunate enough to have witnessed the political spin that quickly followed, let me bring you up to speed.

During a one on one interview with the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was asked about the possibility that a party forming government without gaining the most seats during an election.

The Liberal leader’s response was a rather lengthy, though timely civics lesson that went something like this.

“… (paraphrasing) The party winning the most seats will have an opportunity to form government and seek the confidence of the House of Commons. If the leader of that party is not able to gain this confidence he must visit the Governor General and, if the GG decides to approach another leader, should it be me, I would be prepared to…”

“ (direct quote) talk to Mr. Layton and or Mr. Duceppe -- or even Mr. Harper -- and say we have an issue and here's the plan that I want to put before Parliament, uh you know, this is the budget I would bring in and then we take it from there."

Mr. Ignatieff went on to affirm his earlier statements that under such circumstances, should he gain the confidence of the House he would not enter into any sort of formal coalition that would see members of another party sitting in government but would instead cooperate with the other parties as necessary going forward.

While potentially damaging for him politically, Mr. Ignatieff deserves a pat on the back for both is honesty and clear understanding of the Canadian Parliament.

This is precisely the way the system, developed over hundreds of years, is designed to work.

Unfortunately the incessant Conservative demonization of the word “coalition” in attack ad after attack ad, and directly by Mr. Harper, has led to self serving and baseless fear among a Canadian public largely ignorant of the rules of their own democracy.

For many months Mr. Harper and his Conservative party have been demonizing all opposition parties and doing a grave disservice to the Canadian public by misleading them about how their government actually functions.

With the campaign steaming ahead Mr. Harper’s latest message seems predicated on the belief that his party must form a majority or, should they gain a minority, it would lead to an “reckless coalition” seizing power in Ottawa. This is a position that flies in the face of a truly democratic process - a government chosen by the majority of a nation’s citizens.

If, as most of us have been taught, that the majority of the people should choose their government then which is more valid, a Conservative government supported by a minority of the voting public or a working cooperative that represents the choice of a majority of Canadians?

It’s an important question to ask considering that after the last election Mr. Harper formed government even though his members captured less than 40% of voter support.

It’s even more to the point when you factor in the reality that with less than 60% of the public going to the polls, in reality he formed government with the direct support of about 22%, or only 1 in 5, eligible voters.

Mr. Harper’s position is not only self serving but more than just a little presumptive.

Yes, the polls currently favor the Conservatives, but no matter what the polls or pundits might say, there is no guarantee that following the election the Conservatives will form a government at all.

During an election almost anything can happen, so why has the media bought into Conservative spin with story after story about coalitions? Why haven’t they instead asked Mr. Harper some very salient questions?

What will he do if his party fails win enough seats to form a minority, much less a majority government?

After the election, if his party fails to capture the most seats, and the Liberals or NDP form a minority government will he allow that party to govern? If not, and the party is unable to win the confidence of the House, would he, Mr. Harper, force another $300 million dollar election on the public or would he try, if asked by the GG, to work with the other parties to form government?

I ask these questions because I’m wondering if the Conservative’s convenient aversion to “coalitions” applies only to others or to themselves as well.

Since Mr. Harper has made this bogyman a central issue of his campaign it’s only reasonable for the public to know what his position is.

I realize the media is limited to 5 questions a day while following Mr. Harper’s campaign but this subject might be a good one to push. Why hasn’t it been?

A large swath of Canada’s electorate is turning away from their political obligation and becoming more apathetic with each passing campaign cycle. There are many reasons for this, but I believe a primary reason is the well founded belief that nobody can trust anything politicians say, especially during an election campaign. With this in mind, it’s truly sad that when a political leader is willing to speak the unvarnished truth, without spinning it for electoral advantage, he’s attacked and vilified.

In reality the only winners in any election are the 308 individual MPs who gain a seat in Parliament. Some of those will come from the Conservative ranks, others from the NDP, Liberal, Bloc and perhaps even the Green Party. The parties themselves do not win government but must seek the confidence of a majority of those 308 separate winners.

The saddest result of this utter disregard for the truth is that while no political party actually wins or loses the Canadian public most surely stands to lose the most.

Better a Broken Promise than None at All

Mark Twain once said, “Better a broken promise than none at all.”

I wonder about his philosophy.

With a federal election again sullying the picturesque landscape of Newfoundland & Labrador those promises are flying around faster than a poorly discarded grocery bag in a force 5 hurricane.

After decades of living under the thumb of Hydro Quebec (thanks to the now infamous Upper Churchill Power contract) and after being denied access on Quebec’s grid in an effort to market Lower Churchill power, Canada’s political Czars have finally seen fit to “promise” Newfoundland & Labrador a loan guarantee for development of a portion of the Lower Churchill river in partnership with Nova Scotia.

Or have they?

Let me start by apologizing for the length of the following but as much as the various political machines would like everyone to believe this is a simple matter, it most assuredly isn’t, thus the need to use far more than the 50 words or less the leaders of the parties are so expert at casting out.

To begin, just what have Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Harper actually promised?

After piecing together various comments from both men, their statements differ depending on where they’re campaigning and in which official language being used, here’s the result.

Michael Ignatieff likes the idea of co-operation between provinces and regions but… since he hasn’t seen all the details he’s only willing to say he stands behind the project and would likely support a loan guarantee.

This may be seen by devout Liberals as a promise but it’s a little too ambiguous to truly pass the smell test.

Speaking of undesirable odors, Mr. Ignatieff also said he would like to see the entire Lower Churchill project developed in future, not just the currently planned Muskrat Falls section. His belief is that other provinces, he specifically identified Quebec, should play a part in developing the remaining, and much more valuable, Gull Island portion of the river.

On this point I smell something very fishy indeed and not at all in Newfoundland & Labrador’s favor.

The question then becomes: After the election, should he win, do Michael Ignatieff’s words indicate that he might try to tie a possible loan guarantee to some form of agreement with Quebec on development of the Gull Island generating station?

After living with the fallout of the existing Upper Churchill contract nearly my entire life (with thirty years to go if I live well into my seventies) I have to wonder about statements like that. Remember it was Ottawa’s refusal to defend the Constitutional right of provinces to access markets that played such a big part in the existence of that one sided contract in the first place.

I shudder consider a scenario where Newfoundland and Labrador is locked into an arrangement that only permits hydro development on terms agreeable to Hydro Quebec and the Quebec government.

As for Mr. Harper, he’s said he’ll provide a loan guarantee, or equivalent funding, as long as the development meets certain criteria.

If (and only if) the project meets a test for financial feasibility, regional development value and greenhouse gas reductions will a loan guarantee be put forward.

On the surface those criterion sound perfectly reasonable but what exactly are the measurements of each and what constitutes a pass or a fail?

These non-specific criteria, though mana from Heaven to Conservative followers, are in fact an off ramp a two year old could drive an eighteen wheeler down.

Repeatedly when speaking about his “promise” Mr. Harper has also crowed about how much the project will mean for regional co-operation and for reducing Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. He’s even spoken of the virtues of power produced in Newfoundland and Labrador serving as a replacement for dirty power generated in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m quite struck and very concerned by something he has, almost intentionally it seems, not said.

Not once has Mr. Harper made any mention of Newfoundland & Labrador’s intention to sell excess power into the lucrative U.S. market.

The ability to reach those markets is what Quebec has denied to Newfoundland and Labrador for generations and it’s exactly what every politician in Quebec is railing against ever since Mr. Harper’s “promise” hit the news wires.

Could it be that the Harper Conservatives plan to use, as part of his mysterious approval criteria, the caveat that power generated by the Lower Churchill project, with federal assistance, can only be used to benefit Canada as a whole (read: only sold and used within Canada)?

Such a move would, of course, destroy Newfoundland and Labrador’s energy and financial aspirations and would guarantee that any power not purchased in the Atlantic region would inevitably flow to the end of the line, so to speak. Not into the U.S. at all, but into Quebec.

In such a scenario, any energy not required by the region and locked out of the U.S. market would be virtually worthless to everyone, with the exception of Quebec. A move like this would allow Hydro Quebec to scoop that power up at fire sale prices and re-sell it, inside Quebec boundaries of course, thus freeing up more of Hydro Quebec’s own power for sale elsewhere at a staggering profit.

There is no doubt any conditions of this sort would mean the law of supply and demand will benefit Quebec alone, certainly not Newfoundland & Labrador.

Do such scenarios sound a bit too dastardly for Michael Ignatieff or even for Stephen Harper to consider? Perhaps, but a similar approach isn’t without precedent.

A number of years back Ottawa pulled the same stunt when they sold the then bankrupt Come by Chance oil refinery, also situated in Newfoundland & Labrador. The people of the Province wanted the refinery back online and access to the jobs that would come with the sale. Ever the fair bunch that they are the feds agreed to a sale under the condition that beyond what oil would be produced for use in Newfoundland and Labrador, not one single solitary barrel would ever, ever, be sold inside Canada’s border. It never has and never can be.

At that time it was the Irving family screaming and being placated by Ottawa. What’s to stop Hydro Quebec from doing it this time around?

Adding to the mass confusion around these so called “promises” are statements made by characters other than the federal candidates themselves.

Bloc leader, Gilles Duceppe, has called these “promises” a slap in the face for Quebec and said Ottawa is using Quebec tax dollars to help Newfoundland and Labrador unfairly compete with Hydro Quebec.

Quebec Premier, Jean Charest, has said that it isn’t right for Ottawa to subsidize power rates in Newfoundland and Labrador since Ottawa never helped Quebec develop its power grid.

Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, is screaming blue murder that Ontario tax dollars are being used to support Newfoundland and Labrador. As a result, he says, Ontario wants support from the feds for its projects, the price of which McGuinty will, “…determine later”.

As they say, never let the truth get in the way of a good lie.

Suppose for a moment that which ever party forms the next government actually keeps their promise to Newfoundland & Labrador, without locking the Province into a catastrophic agreement, what would that actually mean?

It means that regardless of what Mr. Duceppe, Charest or McGuinty say, a loan guarantee doesn’t actually require money from any federal taxpayers, no matter where they live. It's like a co-signature on a loan, nothing more.

Consider as well that while crying about subsidization more than 70% of the profits of Hydro Quebec (a provincial corporation) are a direct result of locked in 1960’s prices for energy Quebec resells at a monumental profit thanks to the afore mentioned Upper Churchill contract.

Even developed at the kind of lower interest rates a loan guarantee would bring Newfoundland and Labrador's Lower Churchill project could never come anywhere close to producing power as cheaply as Quebec is getting power from the Upper Churchill, so who is subsidizing whom?

Never mind as well that Quebec’s & Ontario’s grids are fully inside their respective Provinces while the proposed transmission system for the Lower Churchill would cross provincial boundaries and travel under the ocean, which is within federal jurisdiction. Ottawa should play a role.

Let’s also ignore the fact that with the borrowing power of both Ontario and Quebec, at least in the past, has been similar to that of the Federal government meaning loan guarantees of any kind would have had little if any benefit to either Province.


Add it all up and it’s one heck of a situation isn’t it?

So far Newfoundland and Labrador has received little more than weak election promises, no contract has been drafted and no passing or failing grades have been given to the project by Ottawa, yet look at the fuss.

If, even after all the concerns I’ve expressed so far, these promises are actually fulfilled in the end, Newfoundland and Labrador will only receive a loan guarantee which actually costs taxpayers nothing, zip, zero.

Well…

It’s here that I have to also admit to being guilty of not letting the truth get in the way of a good lie since I’m willing to wager my substantial penny collection that these “promises” will actually cost taxpayers a great deal, though they shouldn’t.

Just days after the “promises” were made, in order to placate the complainers, agreements have been made on the $2.2 billion dollars (of real taxpayer money) Quebec wants for introducing the HST decades ago.

It’s also been reported that Ottawa will help Quebec with building a new bridge. It’s not yet clear if this will be in the form of a loan guarantee or actual tax dollars but coincidentally the bridge project is valued at almost exactly the same $6 billion dollars or so the Lower Churchill project is expected to come in at.

I can’t wait to see what kind of goodies the Ontario government will milk the situation for over the coming weeks, especially after Mr. McGuinty’s statement that he’ll determine the value of what he wants later.

As I said at the start of this lengthy commentary, nothing is as simple as the political parties would have us believe.

In the end Newfoundland and Labrador may actually end up with nothing from the federal government, not even a simple signature, or perhaps worse, find itself locked into an agreement that destroys its financial future. Either way, you can hang your hat on the fact that Ontario and Quebec will surely benefit from the carrot now being dangled in front of voters in the Province.

As McGuinty, Charest and Duceppe have said in the past few days, this promise will cost a great deal of taxpayer dollars, but they failed to mention that Ontario and Quebec are the provinces that will receive those dollars, not Newfoundland and Labrador.

Based on the numbers being bandied about, by the time this election is over what should have been a free promise to provide a free loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill project will assuredly end up costing taxpayers far more than the entire Lower Churchill price tag itself, with not one penny going to the proponents of the project.

So, was Mark Twain correct when he said, “Better a broken promise than none at all.”?

I’m not convinced, but it’s pretty clear Mr. Twain didn’t spend much time in Canada.

How much does a Quebec stadium cost to build these days anway by the way? Hmmmmmm....

Fear and Phobia - The Loblaw Imperitive

Today I’d like to tackle the subject of fear. Not the sort of fear most of us feel when confronted with a life threatening situation. That fear is just our body’s natural survival instinct doing its best to hone our senses and keep us on our toes. The fear I speak of today is a phobia, Aquaphobia or, to be more precise in this case, (I’ve had to define a term to fit the situation) Salt-Aquaphobia.

Definition: The fear of traveling over salt water.

It’s clearly not a well known phobia (thus the need to coin a new term to describe it) and it’s certainly not something that’s often spoken of in the general population, but my instincts tell me it’s far more prevalent in Canadian society than most of us realize.

So called “mainland” Canadians may never recognize the problem but living on the island of Newfoundland it’s something I’ve seen first hand on countless occasions.

There is no scientific proof of the existence of the disorder but I know it must exist.

What else could account for the number of times Newfoundland is excluded from so called “Cross Canada” activities.

The latest example is the case of Loblaw’s which is promoting a “Cross Canada BBQ” this summer but, while holding events in more than 50 locations in Canada, will not be conducting even one such event in Newfoundland and Labrador or in PEI?

Just one isolated (and perhaps unthinking) case you say? Not so. It happens all the time.

I’ve lost track of how many companies have ignored Newfoundland and Labrador (I’ll let the PE Islanders speak to their own situation) over the years. Everything from Tim Horton’s promotions to Air Canada abandonment and even walks for charitable causes, and it isn’t just private companies or NGOs that suffer as a result.

How many of you remember the widely publicized “Cross Canada - Town Hall Tour” conducted by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a year or so ago, a tour that brought him from BC to Nova Scotia, but not to Newfoundland and Labrador (and I don’t believe to PEI but I stand to be corrected).

I know the people planning tours for these politicians, companies and charities must have a psychological issue with traveling over salt water. What else can explain it? I mean they wouldn’t intentionally ignore the donors, voters and product consumers in an entire province and still expect those same donors, voters and consumers to support THEM would they?

This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed so I put out the call today to the general public, if you or someone you know suffers from Salt-Aquaphobia please come forward and speak out so we can get this problem out in the open.

Don’t hide in the shadows. A treatment will never be found if we don’t shine the light of day on this clearly debilitating mental problem.

As for Loblaws management (and others with this chronic condition) please bare in mind that the Labrador portion of the province is situated on the mainland of Canada. It’s a beautiful place and well worth visiting (no travel over salt water required.)

Has Stephen Harper Outwitted Himself?

With an electoral axe about to fall in the Nation’s capital, or more accurately upon Stephen Harper’s political neck, Conservative strategists may have finally outwitted themselves in their hunger for national domination.

Faced with the prospect of a Liberal sponsored non-confidence vote the Conservatives are floating the idea of forcing Michael Ignatieff’s hand. They hope to do this by tabling a confidence bill of their own when the House resumes. The Conservatives believe this will allow them to set the agenda for the election and make it appear that Mr. Ignatieff, should he vote against the bill, is standing in the way of Canada's economic recovery.

Here’s how the diabolical plan is supposed to play out.

The Liberal party plans to table a non-confidence motion at their first opportunity – an opposition day in early October – the Conservatives on the other hand plan to table a ways and means bill on the first day the Commons reopens, September 15th. That bill would officially implement the hugely popular and much publicized “Home Renovation Tax Credit”, so many Canadians have already bought into spending countless millions in the process.

Conservative strategists believe that by forcing the Liberals to vote against that particular bill they can paint the opposition as killing the stimulus program, of damaging the economy and of costing individual taxpayers up to $1,300 in rebates many are counting on this spring.

As a purely political move it’s ingenious. The question is whether it will backfire.

Clearly Prime Minister Harper has no inhibitions when it comes to his political ambitions. This is nothing new. In previous years Mr. Harper has shown that he’s willing to ignore signed agreements by stripping money away from provincial coffers without so much as a second thought (consider the Atlantic Accord contract as an example).

Mr. Harper is now proving his willingness to not only pull a fast one when it comes to cryptic programs like equalization that are outside the understanding of the average voter but to reach directly into voter's pockets by gambling with tax refunds which many taxpayers have already spent thousands of dollars in the expectation of receiving.

I’m not so sure that’s a wise move on his part.

There’s an old saying that “all politics is local” and you can’t get much more local than a voter's back pocket.

The question for voters to ask themselves, should an election come to pass, is which political leader is truly the most harmful to the economy?

Think about it. If you’ve already spent thousands of dollars, believing that you would get a sizeable portion of that money back, are you more or less likely to curb your spending over the coming months now that you have been told you may never see a dime of what you were promised?

On the other hand, if you’ve yet to spend a penny on home renovations are you more or less likely to do so now that Mr. Harper has put the “Home Renovation Tax Credit” up for grabs in a self serving political game?

For most Canadians the answer to both of those questions is pretty clear.

So which leader is the most harmful to the economy?

Is it really, as Mr. Harper would have us to believe, Michael Ignatieff, a man most of us know very little about? Possibly.

Or is it the current Prime Minister, a man who, by using the “Home Renovation Tax Credit” as a self-serving political hammer may well have single handedly done more to stifle discretionary consumer spending than the economic downturn itself?

Remember, even if the opposition parties rise to the bait and kill the rebate bill, if even temporarily, it was Mr. Harper who self servingly put that program on the chopping block and raised the axe high into the air.

NL MPs Ordered to Support Budget Implementation Bill

Well folks, it looks like Liberal Leader, Michael Ignatieff, has decided to whip his MPs back into toeing the party line and selling out their Province. I guess Ignatieff, and likely the NL MPs, figure that since the publicity has died down a little since the budget vote on tuesday nobody will notice that they are planning to turn their backs on their Province this Friday.

Get ready folks, it looks like this Friday they'll all fall in line and sell us out again.

The following is from the Canadian Press:

OTTAWA — Michael Ignatieff allowed his Newfoundland MPs to register a symbolic protest against the federal budget but he's insisting they now support legislation that will actually implement the measures they find so offensive.

The newly minted Liberal leader gave his six MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador special dispensation to break ranks and vote against a motion Tuesday night which conferred approval in principle on the budget.

...

Having cast their protest vote Tuesday, a spokesperson confirmed that Ignatieff now expects the Newfoundland MPs to support the budget on all subsequent votes, including the budget implementation bill.

Moreover, he's told the MPs they can't attempt to amend the bill, which is to be introduced this week.

...

During a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday, sources said Ignatieff chided the Newfoundland MPs for speaking out publicly against the budget before consulting with him.

Four of the six had already announced their intention to vote against the budget by the time Ignatieff gave them dispensation to do so.

Moreover, sources said Ignatieff warned caucus he doesn't intend to relax discipline again in future.
"He said it was a one-time thing, alone, period, full stop, and for us not to get our hopes up too high because it would not happen again," said one caucus member.

...Scott Andrews said he has no problem dropping the issue after getting the chance to stand up for his province in Tuesday's vote - the only budget vote that matters, as far as he's concerned.
"To me, this is over now," Andrews said in an interview.

"As far as people back home are concerned, we've made our stand on the budget and I'm moving on . . . We could keep reliving things and reliving things but I don't think that's very productive for anybody."

Here we go again folks, it's up to all of us in this Province "help" NL's MPs understand what that this is not just a "protest".

Here's how they can be reached:

NL MP Andrews - Andrews.S@parl.gc.ca

NL MP Byrne - Byrne.G@parl.gc.ca

NL MP Coady - Coady.S@parl.gc.ca

NL MP Foote - Foote.J@parl.gc.ca

NL MP Russell - Russell.T@parl.gc.ca

NL MP Simms - Simms.S@parl.gc.ca

I don't doubt for a minute that history will repeat itself with these MPs selling out their Province like others before them did (read Hearn, Manning, Efford, et al) but there's always a chance.

There is one thing that I know for sure.

You'd better think again Scott. All of you better think again.

Ignatieff Puts Ambition Ahead of National Unity - Todd Russell Toes Party Line

UPDATE 5:15 PM - Although he is turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador, Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, announced today that is willing to make a token gesture by giving a one time only "free pass" to the NL MPs so they can vote with their constituents.

In a clearly opportunistic move, Todd Russell immediately announced that he is now willing to vote against the federal budget along with the other party MPs who made their decisions before being given the nod and wink of their federalist leader.

It seems Todd Russell believes he can have his cake and eat it to by happily toeing the party line until his federal handlers approved of him voting in support of his constituents.

One can only hope the people of Labrador will not fall for his self serving actions and take him to task when the next federal election rolls around.

In offering this meaningless gesture to Newfoundland and Labrador Mr. Ignatieff said he is doing so because of the "radical unprecedented" cut to transfer payments by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He noted that the move "weakens the federation" which can only mean he supporting it for political and personal gain rather than in the best interest of Canada.

END UPDATE


The federal budget, which was intentionally designed to single out Newfoundland and Labrador in retaliation for not electing any Conservatives in the last election, will be passed in the Commons this evening with the support of the Liberal Party.

In a move that can only be seen as an attack by Stephen Harper, new measures will be introduced to remove $1.6 Billion in offshore oil transfers to Newfoundland and Labrador. This has been estimated as an amount equivalent to the Province of Ontario suddenly being stripped of $22 Billion dollars a year.

The move comes at a time when the economy is staggering, unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador is over 13% and is part of a so called “fiscal stimulus” budget.

When challenged over the issue Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty said in the House of Commons recently that, “…one of the principles involved in equalization is that all provinces should be treated equally."

He used that arguement as the reason he does not intend to change the legislation for Newfoundland and Labrador.

What he didn’t say was that this has nothing to do with equalization and is not directly impacted by the new cap being introduced.

Newfoundland and Labrador no longer receives equalization payments, however the formula used to calculate equalization itself is also a determining factor in calculating offshore oil revenue transfers which are intended to ensure that the province is the primary beneficiary of its offshore oil production rather than Ottawa.

Mr. Flaherty’s position that “…all provinces should be treated equally” has since been shown to have no merit.

On Tuesday Finance officials confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador will be the only Province in the federation to lose revenue because of the specific changes that will be put in place.

It was also confirmed that two other provinces, specifically Nova Scotia and Manitoba, would also have been affected by the change however the Harper government have decided to provide those Provinces with one time payments to shelter them from the economic impact.

No such arrangement was put in place, or even offered, to Newfoundland and Labrador leaving it the only jurisdiction in Canada to be impacted.

This “poison pill” for Newfoundland and Labrador may have been an intentional act of the Conservative government but it is being abetted and supported in its implementation by the Liberal Party.

In his post budget address to the media Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff, said that one of the “tests” he will be conducting in order to permit the Conservatives to remain in power is ensuring that the budget “addresses the needs of all regions of Canada”.

Since the financial attack on Newfoundland and Labrador was identified Mr. Ignatieff has lobbied the Prime Minister over the issue but is not willing to take away his support of the budget regardless of the damage it will cause.

The fact that the Liberal party intends to pass the budget and allow the Conservatives to remain in power even after failing on a Liberal imposed test calls into question the ethics of the Liberal leader himself and whether he is truly acting in the best interests of “…all regions of Canada” or simply serving his own political ambitions.

The singling out of Newfoundland and Labrador for punitive actions by the Harper government, with the support of the Liberal caucus, has resulted in an internal challenge to Mr. Ignatieff’s leadership abilities.

Confidence votes, such as this budget vote is, are generally considered a “Party” rather than a “free” vote in the Commons. This means the entire party is expected to vote in unison at the direction of their leader. In this case however 5 of the 6 Liberal MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador have decided they will defy their leader, refuse to toe the party line, and instead support their constituents by voting against the budget.

The only hold out is Liberal MP Todd Russell, from the Labrador riding, who, in spite of the serious impact to his province, has been quoted as saying he will “…vote for the budget to promote party unity”.

It’s a move that may ingratiate him to his Mr. Ignatieff but will almost surely make it impossible for him to gain re-election in the future.

A similar situation occurred a few years ago when Newfoundland and Labrador Conservative MP Fabian Manning supported his party over his constituents.

Manning was defeated by Liberal Scott Andrews in the most recent election however he was given a special thank-you gift for his actions by Stephen Harper this past Christmas. In return for supporting the Conservative party Mr. Manning was gifted with a Senate seat.

Its likely Mr. Russell, a career politician, arrived at his decision with the Manning experience in mind and that he is also expecting a senate pay off should the Liberals form government during the next election.