The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
The ConservativesÕ reaction was fast and furious to news that the opposition parties have signed off on a historic deal to replace them with a coalition government. Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused Liberal Leader Stphane Dion of relying on ÒsocialistsÓ and ÒseparatistsÓ to vault into power. Tory MPs used language like Òdeal with the devilÓ to describe the arrangement. The suggestion was that the coalition deal was illegitimate and undemocratic. It is nothing of the sort. It is the way our parliamentary system works, especially in the immediate aftermath of the election of a minority Parliament. Furthermore, Harper created an opening for the opposition parties last week by tabling a provocative Òeconomic statementÓ that failed to address the economic crisis but contained poison pills. Harper and his government took some steps away from those toxic measures last weekend, but it was too late. Facing their demise perhaps, the Conservatives are arguing that a change of government at this moment would be Òvery destabilizingÓ for the economy. But consider the alternatives: either there would be another election (which would leave the affairs of state suspended for the duration) or Harper would remain in office with the opposition ready to defeat his government at every opportunity. That is as unstable as it gets. The coalition, meanwhile, has agreed to hold off elections until at least June 30, 2011. (The Bloc has signed on until June 30, 2010.) That should provide the stability needed for the government to grapple with these economic challenges. And grapple they promise to do in their accord, which features an economic stimulus package that includes Òsubstantial new investmentsÓ in infrastructure, support for the forestry and auto sectors, and enhancements in Employment Insurance. All this should have been included in last weekÕs economic statement. To be sure, there are questions to be answered about the coalition. Canadians will want to know whether there are any worrisome side deals with the Bloc. And what about the coalitionÕs foreign policy, notably on Afghanistan, where the Liberals and New Democrats have differed sharply? Also problematic is the fact that Dion, the LiberalsÕ lame-duck leader, would serve as prime minister, at least until the new party leader is chosen next spring. In the Oct. 14 election, Canadians resoundingly rejected Dion, who finished a poor third behind both Harper and Layton as Òbest prime ministerÓ in all the opinion polls. Issues like these could still derail the coalition before it can form government. But the coalition is preferable to a regime led by Harper, who has demonstrated that ideology and partisanship are more important to him than providing good government.
