I’ll be honest. The greater part of me didn’t like the budget and wanted to vote against it. There wasn’t one particular aspect, just the overall sense that we were throwing money all around but not really connecting the dots that would lead to long-term growth. There was the need to balance what I was hearing from my local friends in the unions and anti-poverty groups with that of the London Chamber of Commerce and the City Council – both of which favored the budget.

It was 24 hours of struggle in my mind and the movement towards the eventual conclusion that I was against that kind of irresponsible spending.

And then I listened to Michael Ignatieff. That he’s remarkably eloquent speaks for itself, but it was actually his greater rationale that eventually brought me to the point of supporting the budget. To be clear, I wasn’t whipped into it or threatened with punishment. It wasn’t required – reason was enough.

He argued that if he brought down the government by voting down the budget, certain short-term goals would be achieved. We would be government. He would be Prime Minister. We would be able to more correctly invest those kind of monies. All of this is true.

Then he challenged us to think of a larger dynamic, one that eventually won the day. A coalition, he offered, would be the final nail in the coffin for any hopes of national unity. The West would want out. Quebec would be an unknown factor. And Canadians as a whole, excepting those constituency groups that would have been served by the coalition, would be ushered into an era of great national uncertainty again. The markets, so requiring of stability right now, would respond with alarm and alacrity. His arguments continued for a time yet.

I realized in an instant that he was correct, and powerfully so. We all recalled what the threat of coalition did to the emotional state of the country back in December – remarkable division and alarm. “I didn’t sign on to this job to split this country,” he stressed. “We are the party of national unity and we break our vow with Canadians as Liberals if we ruin our cohesiveness by grasping at immediate power.” This was totally absent in the rationale of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe – and, sad to say, in me.

Wherever we go from here, Parliament has the responsibility to hold the entire country carefully in its thoughts, actions and spending. In his argument, Mr. Ignatieff displayed why he is qualified to lead at this level. By refusing the crown in such a haphazard fashion, he put the country first and foremost and in the process assisted many struggling with this budget, including yours truly.