But as a general rule, anytime that you need to use the safeguards of a system – and I agree that it is needed at this point – it isn’t a product of success at the political level. As a Liberal, I think we need to be clear that the coalition proposal is being put forward out of necessity and a sense of responsibility.

John Diefenbaker, a former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, said ,

If Parliament is to be preserved as a living institution His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition must fearlessly perform its functions. When it properly discharges them the preservation of our freedom is assured. The reading of history proves that freedom always dies when criticism ends. It upholds and maintains the rights of minorities against majorities. It must be vigilant against oppression and unjust invasions by the Cabinet of the rights of the people. It should supervise all expenditures and prevent over-expenditure by exposing to the light of public opinion wasteful expenditures or worse. It finds fault; it suggests amendments; it asks questions and elicits information; it arouses, educates and molds public opinion by voice and vote. It must scrutinize every action by the government and in doing so prevents the short-cuts through democratic procedure that governments like to make.

- Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, “The Role of the Opposition in Parliament,” Address to the Empire Club of Canada, Toronto, 27 October 1949.

I’d say our system is working just fine.

My thoughts exactly. A couple of days ago, I wrote that, if this coalition comes to fruition, and much of me hopes that it does, it it is a sign if FAILURE. It is not a day for celebration. I am thankful I live in a country that has this kind if safeguard against abject failures in leadership. But I never ever want the safeguard employed by a person or people who do not understand the very seriousness of what they are proposing.

I’m glad you pointed it out …