Coalition Clarity

The more opposition parties point to September 9 2004 the more I feel justified in opposing what they tried to do in December of 2008.

In 2004 it was an agreement to make parliament more democratic and effective for the opposition parties. More democratic, wow, imagine that!

In 2008 it was a power grab by a defeated Liberal leader that couldn't even face his own party and in no way would he ever face voters again.

The sad thing is that the waters have been muddied enough so most voters will be too confused to care.

Moderator: Tonda McCharles, Toronto Star.

Question: Mr. Harper and the other leaders as well if you could address the question, you said you’d be asking the governor general to consult with all of you should the government decide to dissolve Parliament. To what extent have you agreed to ask the governor general to allow you three to form a government if that were the case?

Stephen Harper:
Well, that would be extremely hypothetical. The reason for this letter there’s been some I think informal chitter chatter around the Hill in the last few years that if a prime minister were weakened either by his own party or defeated in the House that he could just automatically call an election. That’s not our understanding of how the constitutional system works. In a minority parliament if the government is defeated because other opposition parties agree on some measures or perhaps even members of the government party agree on some of those measures, the government general should first consult widely before accepting any advice to dissolve Parliament. So I would not want the prime minister to think that he can simply fail in the House of Commons as a route to another general election. That’s not the way our system works.

Gilles Duceppe:
I would say exactly the same and I think that’s exactly what happened in the past also when there’s a minority government. So it’s just the exercise of a democratic rule I will say that the governor general should use before making a decision. But in no way we’re a coalition and we won’t be a coalition very clearly. I think there’s great differences concerning our points of view on a lot of issues but concerning the way those issues should be debated we do agree on that. We agree on how to disagree, to have a very democratic debate in the House instead of having measures imposed by the government without any discussion like it happened to us in the House, concerning, as an example, international treaties.