For Canadians, the good news, it now appears, is that we've been spared an election. For the parties - particularly the Liberals - the good news is that they have time to rethink the campaign that will be upon us soon enough.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's biggest mistake has been to confuse what "confidence" means in Parliament with what Canadians understand it to mean. It's safe to say that Liberal MPs who have been voting with the government have not had confidence in the Conservatives since election night. Voters, on the other hand, see no pressing need to change the government right now.
As Senator David Smith advised before Mr. Ignatieff decided otherwise, not every disagreement merits a trip to the polls. Had he adopted that line, the Liberals could have voted with the government until a major issue arose and then Mr. Ignatieff could have explained why we needed an election and how he would do better.
He could have spared us September's psychodrama and himself a serious hit in public opinion. The disarray within the Quebec wing of his party, and the challenge to his leadership by forces loyal to Jean Chrétien, might never have eventuated. And Mr. Ignatieff would not be in the absurd position, heretofore occupied by Jack Layton, of opposing measures he has not seen.
Mr. Ignatieff must also find a better response to the Conservatives' "just visiting" message. Telling us that he has met many Canadians abroad who think we can do better sounds patronizing. Why not propose reforms based on his considerable experience abroad? How the Brits do Question Period, for example. Or the U.S. legislative process, with its well-staffed committees and independent Congressional Budget Office.
Mr. Ignatieff's most urgent need, however, is to find a better line to counter the allegation of a hidden coalition agenda. Saying he could have been prime minister but turned it down is unpersuasive - it being widely known that he changed his mind for fear that the Governor-General could call an election.
As to his second attempt to parry Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he notably did not use the formulation circulated widely in Liberal ranks, according to which the party that wins the most seats has the right to form the government after the next election.
His failure leaves the Conservatives with an inviting campaign issue, but Mr. Harper also has some serious problems, primarily in Quebec.
He must assure Quebeckers that he respects their right to vote for whomever they like and that he welcomes Bloc Québécois MPs supporting his government's legislation.
At the same time, he should explain that no government of Canada can be beholden to a party committed to secession and that the Bloc's acknowledged strategy of thwarting the formation of a majority government of any stripe is unacceptable in these uncertain times. In this regard, in light of concerns surrounding electoral redistribution, Mr. Harper should emphasize that Quebeckers will have time to adjust to the new reality, as one or possibly two elections will pass before any seats are added to the House of Commons.
After the Montreal celebration of the Conservatives' 1984 election victory, Mr. Harper should no longer be under any illusion that reconciling with Brian Mulroney will yield Premier Jean Charest's endorsement or the loan of his political machine. With polls showing at least half the Conservative seats in jeopardy, he must craft a direct message to Quebec voters - not just to realize his long-sought majority government, but, more important, in the interest of national unity.
While Mr. Harper's values are at odds with those of Quebeckers in many respects, he once was able to speak to their pride and strong sense of identity. As a Conservative, he does not share the Liberals' propensity, evident in Mr. Ignatieff's proposals, to intrude into areas of provincial jurisdiction. On federal securities regulation - which many Quebeckers may appreciate in light of recent financial losses - he is prepared to allow the province to opt in.
Finally, on language issues, Mr. Harper need not line up with devotees of Pierre Trudeau who insist that Montreal's mayor must be bilingual but that Ottawa's need not be. Instead, he should propose measures to strengthen the French character of Quebec, starting with subjecting federally regulated companies to the province's language laws.