News

A time of economic uncertainty — in which Canadians' jobs, homes and life savings are all in peril — is no time for political games or experiments, The Globe opines today in its lead — and only — editorial Harper, Dion put politics before national interest

"If the Liberals are truly set, however, on defeating Mr. Harper, and every indication suggests they are, then the responsibility for averting this politically illegitimate coalition shifts to the Prime Minister," The Globe's editorial board writes.

"Mr. Harper is ultimately responsible for this unhappy state of affairs. It is the byproduct of his machinations, and the product of a failure of his leadership.

"The opposition parties, especially with the Liberals busy licking their election wounds, were not out to pick a fight in the new Parliament.

"Mr. Harper gave them one anyway, turning his government's economic update into a partisan document aimed less at strengthening Canada's economic position than at undermining their ability to compete in the next election.

"In so doing, he sent the message that even if he backs down in this instance, he has no interest in making the current Parliament work.

"His conduct since then — epitomized by his blustery and provocative statement last Friday, and his party's disturbing act in eavesdropping on a private NDP conference call this past weekend — has only reinforced for the opposition the necessity of defeating him while it has the opportunity.

"If Mr. Harper wishes to act in the best interests of the country, it may be time for him to consider removing that imperative from the table.

"With a different Conservative leader in place, the coalition could lose some of its lustre — or at least its urgency — for the opposition parties.

"For Mr. Harper, who has built his government's image almost entirely around his own and controls nearly every aspect of its operations, relinquishing power would be a terribly bitter pill to swallow. He is the type who would rather fight than switch.

"That is his prerogative.

"But switching to another Conservative leader may at this point be preferable to a legacy as the man who gave Canada Prime Minister Stéphane Dion."

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative editorial, so we at globeandmail.com are pleased that Editorial Board Editor John Geiger will be online today from 2-3 p.m. ET to take your questions.

Join the Conversation at that time or submit a question in advance .

Your questions and Mr. Geiger's answers will appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.

Mr. Geiger is editorial board editor for The Globe and Mail. He studied history and political science at the University of Alberta before joining The Edmonton Journal where he worked as a reporter, columnist and editorial writer.

He is the co-author of the international best-seller Frozen In Time: The Fate of the Franklin Expedition, and has written three other books: Dead Silence, Chapel of Extreme Experience and Nothing is True Everything is Permitted. His books have been published in eight languages.

Mr. Geiger is a Governor of the Royal Canadian Geographical Society, a Member of the Advisory Board of Wings Worldquest, and was 2004-2005 St. Clair Balfour Fellow at Massey College, University of Toronto.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Darren Yourk, editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome Mr. Geiger and thanks very much for taking time to answer questions from our globeandmail.com readers on what has proven to be an extremely interesting set of events in Ottawa. The editorials from the last few days have generated a mountain of discussion from across the country on the website. Before we get started, could you give readers a glimpse at how the editorial process works and some of the things that have been talked about by the editorial board the last few days?

John Geiger: The board meets every morning following the news meeting, which I attend to get a sense of what the days news agenda will be. The board usually meets for about 45 minutes and we have some pretty animated discussions as you can imagine. Each member of the board, and there are currently five of us plus editor-in-chief Edward Greenspon, tosses out ideas, and we try to hammer out a position we can all agree on, always remembering that these are not personal views but the editorials speak for the Globe and Mail. Obviously, given the disappointing performance of our federal party leaders during this time of great economic uncertainty, our attention has been pretty solidly consumed by Ottawa. It is a remarkable achievement by Messrs Harper, Dion, Layton and Duceppe, to trump a major economic crisis, but they've done it.

Darren Yourk, editor, globeandmail.com: On to our reader questions.

Jonathan Earp from Canada writes: Why is the Globe editorial board so convinced that someone from within the Conservative party would be so much better than the coalition? Whoever it is would have to deal with internal factions as divisive as any and representative paradoxes as baffling as any the coalition will have.

John Geiger: Such a change at the top of the Conservative party might cause the opposition to think again, to allow everyone to step back from the brink. It may seem out of character for the scrapper Stephen Harper, but It would respect the results of the last election, and it would provide for a more stable government. Despite the theatrical signing ceremony yesterday, the proposed coalition is inherently unstable. These three leaders have been at each others throats throughout their political lives. They have no common policies, only a common interest in attaining power through the back door. No matter what their agreement states, it seems highly doubtful that a Prime Minister Dion could keep this together for long, nor is there much hope that Mr. Dion could deliver the kind of leadership required during such uncertain times. That's the point: it's time for leadership in Ottawa, and since the incumbent prime minister and opposition leader are incapable of providing it, we need look elsewhere.

Robert Lepage from Canada writes: Can you please explain how this is a 'politically illegitimate coalition'?

John Geiger: Thanks for the question Robert, but isn't it obvious? The Liberals are led by a lame duck who took his party to record lows in terms of popular vote and who currently has a little more than half as many seats as the Conservatives. The Liberals are not a government in waiting, they are a trainwreck. Even if Mr. Dion becomes prime minister, he's only going to be there for a few months. And to accomplish that, he has had to enter a pact with union-beholden social democrats and separatists. Mr. Dion lacks the moral authority to form a government. In fact, truth be known he lacks the authority to be Liberal leader during such a time, and the party should have taken the tough decision to deal with that problem. It all seems illegitimate to me.

Thierry Ntumba from Toronto Canada writes: Why does the Editorial Board seem to suggest that Stephane Dion is bad? Ok, he is a little bit awkward but Stephane appears to be a very smart leader and a smart person is one a country may need right now. Don't you think that with the current economic turmoil, more smart less politics would be needed?

John Geiger: Hi Thierry. It's a good question, especially as you are asking it of a group of people who two years ago endorsed Mr. Dion for the Liberal leadership. We thought we saw qualities of leadership in Mr. Dion, a brave man who had gone nose to nose with separatists as a federal minister. Apparently the Liberal delegates felt the same way. But much has changed in the last two years to discourage the idea of Mr. Dion ever serving in any leadership role. He is, as you say, a bright man, he is a decent man, he has the right to our respect — but he does not have the right to lead a government. Here's a guy who could not control his own party, pretending that he can now control a government populated with his former political enemies in the NDP, propped up by separatists — the very people that Mr. Dion entered public life to defeat. Now he's going to give them legitimacy, he's going to also give them more power in Ottawa than they have ever enjoyed. More smart, yes. But this isn't smart. This is dumb.

North Star from Canada writes: While certainly no PM has prorogued the House mere weeks after taking government and only delivering a throne speech, has any PM before prorogued Parliament successfully when it was clear that proroguing is only a manoeuvre to stave off a defeat of non-confidence? The usual precedent is for the GG to accept the PM's advice but Harper's request only weeks after taking government is also unprecedented, so one wonders then, that if precedent is already broken, if the GG is bound to convention? Thanks

John Geiger: This is the dilemma that the Governor-General must face when she returns from Europe. You are quite right, this function of the Queen's representative has been treated as a rubber stamp, and the current practice is for all requests to prorogue to be granted, but you are right also that the circumstances here are very unusual. This is a case not of a government establishing its schedule for Parliament, but of a government trying to avoid Parliament, in effect trying to hide from Parliament, lest it be defeated. Constitutional scholars are divided on the question, and it is this issue, more than the question of dissolution, which has the potential to blow up in the face of the G-G. In a perfect world, Mr. Harper would not run scared in this way, and the viceroy would not be forced to wade into such waters. But if he does and if she has to, then Ms. Jean must weigh carefully the impact of denying the request not only on the government but on her office.

Bruce Smith from Canada writes: Only a few months ago, Mr. Harper announced that, despite having passed a law fixing the date of the next election, he was forced to call one early because Parliament was not functional. He won the election, although only with a minority and promptly demonstrated that the new parliament was far less functional than the last one. On what possible basis does he have for seeking a new election? He has clearly failed to achieve what he set as his goal for the prior election. What logical or honourable argument does he have for remaining leader of the Conservative Party?

John Geiger: Hi Bruce, these are good questions, and in fact the powers invested with Governor-General are there for a very good constitutional reason: to prevent politicians from abusing the electorate by going back to voters time and again trying to get the right answer from them. Canadians have twice refused to give Mr. Harper a majority government. To me, that means only one thing: That Canadians don't want Mr. Harper to have a majority government. Mr. Harper needed to conduct himself accordingly. Instead, he chose to largely ignore the dark economic clouds gathering, and instead use the government's fiscal update to take some partisan pokes at the opposition and the public service. I'm sure this seemed like great sport at first for at least some of Mr. Harper's conservative 'base', but Mr. Harper's real base consists of the people of Canada. He has failed to act like a prime minister. This is the side of the Conservative party that produced the defecating puffin. Mr. Harper has not only sent the country into political turmoil, but has invited a political crisis, one he now hopes to stoke through radio ads and public rallies. The question surely must have entered the minds of many Tories as to whether Mr. Harper is not now a serious liability for his party. It's a shame really, he has accomplished a great deal in terms of providing Canada with an alternative from the centre-right. His policy instincts have been remarkably moderate. There was some promise there...

incognito k from Canada writes: If Harper were to resign as PM who are the front runners as PM from the Conservatives? Furthermore would this be enough to soothe the opposition into not forming a coalition government?

John Geiger: It's not really the Globe's job to pick the next Conservative leader when the job hasn't even been posted, but the Tories have some strong potential candidates from within the caucus. Mr. Harper likes to centralize power around himself. He has kept his ministers on a tight leash. They actually have little power, and for that reason have been made to look sort of silly upon occasion. That has limited the ability of any to emerge as natural successors. Constraining the front bench in such a way has created a public impression that the government's bench strength is weak. That is not the case. You have probably heard the same names being thrown around as we have.

Adam Pringle from Ste. Anne writes: What can Canadians do to stop the Coalition from governing? WE DID NOT VOTE FOR THE COALITION

John Geiger: There is nothing Canadians really can or should do to prevent the proposed coalition from forming, other than to let coalition MPs know the idea is unacceptable to them. The fact remains that if the Conservatives are defeated on a confidence vote, it's then a decision that will properly rest with the Governor-General, who acts for Canada's head of state. You are right, we did not vote for such a coalition, but nor did we vote for a majority Conservative government, and these parties are legitimate, duly-elected representatives of Canadians too. Mr. Harper thought he could behave like he had a majority. He thought he could kick the opposition, especially the Liberals, when they were down, but it seems he was mistaken. He is learning some important lessons about parliamentary institutions and the role of a minority government. But the three opposition leaders may yet receive some lessons of their own. There will be an election, sooner or later, and Canadians will have an opportunity to pass judgment on this idea, and it may prove harsh. Sooner or later, the people of Canada will speak.

Richard Stanczak from Corunna, Ontario Canada writes: Mr. Geiger, there has been much bashing of the potential support of the coalition by the Bloc in the media. Some of the imagery used, by the Globe and Mail in particular, is outright fear mongering. The Bloc MPs have been elected by Canadian citizens who felt they were the best representatives to serve their interests. I believe they are required to take an oath of office which [must] require allegiance to the country and its institutions. My question is, why is the media so bent on attacking the Bloc MPs and assigning the worse possible motives for their support of the coalition? Do you not think it is possible that they see their constituents in trouble and are trying to act in their best interests? Would you not expect all MPs, no matter what party, to act that way?

John Geiger: Perhaps. But at the end of the day the Bloc MPs are committed to the destruction of Canada. We cannot escape that fact, nor can we gloss over it. Mr. Duceppe is an effective politician, and he clearly satisfies some constituency within Quebec, but lets not pretend that he has the interests of the country at heart. He is not the man we should turn to as the saviour of Canada. He sincerely believes he has the interests of Quebec at heart. That is where the matter ends.

Jose Jimenez: Now that we Canadians have had the opportunity to see how our politicians really are, we should be given the opportunity to choose again rather than to give any politicians a second chance by the constitutional grace of the Governor-General.

John Geiger: Thanks, Jose. The point is we will have the opportunity to choose again under either scenario, sooner or later, and when we do vote we also have to be prepared for the possibility that Canadians will once again elect a minority government. I think that's a good thought to end on