The question isn't whether a coalition would be acceptable now that Canadians have gotten used to the idea. No.
The question is whether a coalition which excludes the largest party in parliament, the party which wins the largest plurality of seats in the next parliament, likely by a factor of 1.5 to 2 will be allowed to lead the coalition.
THAT is the question which should be answered. People have brought up that the United Kingdom now has a coalition government, but the fact of the matter is that the coalition government INCLUDES the party with the plurality of seats in parliament. The discussion began with Labour (which lost the election to the Conservatives but retained the right to continue governing through a coalition by right of incumbency) and ended with the Conservatives leading the coalition after a revolt of Labour MPs over the thought of a coalition.
So, I have a humble suggestion. If the media are going to speak of a coalition of losers, they should at least cite the situation where the incumbent wins a minority in an election and is refused the opportunity to honestly form government through the actions of the losing parties (King-Byng was about the incumbent losing the plurality and attempting to govern without a coalition). THIS is the true use of a coalition. Anything else would and should be considered illegitimate.