Jack Layton made a big decision Tuesday. And there is a ring to that sentence that Canadians are getting increasingly comfortable with. Mr. Layton enters this campaign as the most respected, trusted and effective national leader on the opposition bench. It was therefore fitting that the fate of Jim Flaherty's sixth budget ended up in his hands.
What were the issues at play in that decision? We'll get the definite word in Mr. Layton's memoirs, but here is a little speculation.
When you get into the details, most important political and policy decisions are complex, and have to be assessed at several levels. This one was probably no different.
So there was, to begin, the substance of the matter. Which was about whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government should be allowed to continue to govern Canada for another year or two, with the explicit support in Parliament of the New Democratic Party.
Of all the parties, the New Democrats are the least likely partner for Mr. Harper's government. There is little common ground between this ministry and its most effective opposition. So, for example:
» New Democrats fundamentally reject this government's core economic policy, which would have it that spending well in excess of $20-billion a year on passive tax giveaways to the most fortunate among us will lead to prosperity for the rest.
» New Democrats also fundamentally reject this government's fiscal policy, which is (in our mild Canadian way) reckless spendthriftery on the model of American neo-conservatism. This government is simultaneously aggressively cutting taxes for wealthy Canadians and profitable companies, while increasing its spending by 6 per cent a year.
» The federal government will soon re-negotiate the terms under which it will help fund public health care between 2014 and 2024. New Democrats don't trust Stephen Harper with that critical negotiation.
» Mr. Harper's government has walked away from Canada's obligations on climate change, in order to promote the export of raw bitumen from Alberta to Texas. This is environmental madness, and straight economic theft from the children of all Albertan families as their provincial resources are peddled for a fraction of their worth.
» Mr. Harper's government has greatly harmed Canada's good name in the world on many issues.
» And, last but certainly not least, Prime Minister Harper has presided over what Donald Savoie accurately calls a "court government", while attacking Canada's democracy, its system of responsible government and its parliamentary system at their roots. A remarkable descent by a Conservative leader who built his brand in large part by promising to do better.
Not a lot to like there.
It is also true that New Democrats made some important commitments to Canadians in the last three elections that they needed to keep. Mr. Layton's party promised that if given a key role in Parliament, they would try to make Parliament work.
As is well known, Mr. Layton's preferred way to keep that promise was to remove Mr. Harper's government from office, and to replace it with a new progressive government. Michael Ignatieff, unfortunately for Canada, didn't agree.
So what to do then?
Not, as Mr. Ignatieff would have preferred, annual elections. Canadians have been clear -- as evidenced by the Liberals' party and leadership polling numbers -- that they expect better. Mr. Layton therefore set out to make the best of a bad situation, and to see what could be negotiated from Mr. Harper's government.
Mr. Ignatieff's 2008, 2009 (with a blip) and 2010 policy of unconditional support for the Harper government made this extremely difficult, since Mr. Ignatieff left opposition parties with little leverage to negotiate with Mr. Harper. But some important improvements for employment insurance were achieved in the fall of 2009. And, if only out of a sense of responsibility, it was worth investigating to see if some further gains could be made in this budget.
New Democrats told the government and anyone else who asked, publicly or privately, that this was not a discussion about political fig leaves. Mr. Layton was looking for steps forward in the tradition of his party. In other minority parliaments this led to public pensions, public health care, and such steps as the Canadian government has been willing to take to build a more Canadian-owned and higher-value-added economy.
