Belinda (the gambler!) crosses the floor!

[Cargo Agent]

I had a discussion with some guys at work about this... "Ya, but they're all bad" said a few... Not one of them had even the slight degree of awareness that I do regarding the corruption, and I'm not much for politics at all!

Mitch, I've had the same kind of discussions here with co-workers, and it seems to me that the younger folks just don't give a damn about it all. Apathy reigns supreme. Those that have taken an interest have the "their all crooks" kind of attitude. It certainly is frustrating to me.

If people have no faith in any of the politicians, then just put a new crew in every 4 years. It will limit the amount of damage that they can inflict upon us.

CA

[Steam Driven]

"The media can very likely shoulder a great part of that blame... Yep, they're telling the stories, but you don't see it splashed on the front page in huge bold print that trashes the Liberals in one partial phrase... like you see "Tories unleash attack ads" for instance."

Again Mitch, you've hit the nail on the head.

From yesterday's Post - David Frum

AVERTING THEIR EYES FROM SCANDAL SINCE 1993, OTTAWA'S PRESS CORPS HAS BEEN TAKING A NICE, LONG NAP

May 17, 2005, National Post

Things are looking mighty bleak for the Liberals this week. So naturally, it is the perfect time for the media to open a lengthy discussion of the flaws and foibles of Conservative leader Stephen Harper.

You've been hearing for a week now that Harper is too angry and/or too hesitant, too opportunistic and/or too ideological, that his platform is too right wing and/or too much of a Liberal copy cat. Harper's eyes are too blue, his hair too neatly combed, his skin too white, his style too cerebral.

Some might wonder whether these imperfections in any way compare to the revelation that the Liberal government of the past dozen years was in effect running a political scam in the province of Quebec. Some might note that Harper, icy though his eyes may be, never pressured a government-owned bank to lend money to his business associates. They might observe that he never manipulated government contracts to direct business to a firm run by his chief of staff's boyfriend. They might protest that Harper has never used political connections to enrich himself.

But of course it's precisely because the case against the Liberal government is so black and damning that we are hearing all these petty, peevish criticisms of Harper. It's awfully hard to defend a government as guilty as this one. Those in the press who shudder at the thought of a Conservative prime minister have had no choice but to go on the offensive.

Yet pettiness and peevishness have their uses too. The past year has been educational for Canadians. They are learning a great deal about the real nature of the Liberal Party of Canada, a party they have trusted too much and too long. They are learning the true character of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin and the inner circles of those men. They are learning how recklessly their tax dollars are spent and how selfishly they are used. That's all important information.

Perhaps Canadians will now also learn something important about the way in which political information is reported from Ottawa--and (more important) not reported.

Those of us who were around for the Mulroney years remember how swift and eager the press was to discover and investigate scandals. But since 1993, the Ottawa press corps has taken a nice long nap, and even now, with Gomery on television every day, they are napping still.

Canadians still do not know, for example, the full truth of the Shawinigate story, or the HRDC scandal, in which $2-billion supposedly intended to help the unemployed went AWOL. The Chretien/Martin government insists the money is not missing, but merely misplaced--the same excuse provided at Gomery. Is there anybody in Canada willing to take this excuse at face value? Two billion dollars is a lot of unaccounted money to flow through a bureaucracy. Might not some of it have stuck to somebody's fingers--or been redirected into a party coffer? Isn't it time to take a second look?

Closer to the centre, there are the nagging questions about the connections between Paul Martin's finance department and the Earnscliffe lobbying/research group now being studied by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee. I live hundreds of miles from Ottawa. Even at that distance, I keep hearing troubling stories about the alleged links between the two. Surely those on the scene have heard similar rumors too?

Maybe journalists have painstakingly checked out these rumors and decided there was nothing to them. Or maybe they could not be bothered.

Ottawa, after all, is a very small town. The Ottawa press and the Liberals may not always like each other, but they belong to the same community, attend the same parties, marry each other, and find individual career advancement in similar ways. The media and the Liberals live in Ottawa; the Conservatives are just visiting.

The editors and commentators, by contrast, often live in Toronto, chattering to one another from within an ideological cocoon in which abortion and gay rights matter far, far more than the trifling matter of whether the country is governed by scoundrels.

The Italians have a saying: "Italy is a country of many mysteries, but no secrets." There have been many secrets in Ottawa--but maybe not so many mysteries. The truths revealed by the Gomery inquiry are truths that many Canadians already suspected: that the Liberal government existed to serve itself, not them; that their money is being wasted and stolen; that the press too often reports less than it knows, or anyway, could find out.

And there's one truth more: Canadians have the power to demand better. They have always had it. The question before Canadians today is not whether they like Stephen Harper's haircut. The question is: Will they allow themselves to be bamboozled by those who wish to continue abusing the nation's trust--and distracted from what really matters by journalists willing to tolerate that abuse of trust for dubious motives of their own?

[handyman]

I am more interested in their individual ability to represent the needs and concerns of my riding the best way that they can. Basically, they are applying for a job and before they get it, they need to pass the interview and reference checks. Being an equal opportunity employer, the political affiliation of the candidate is not one of the most important aspects of their background - but their own honesty and integrity are very important and must be demonstrated and maintained.

I understand what you’re saying but I feel too many people vote based on the needs of their riding. So the party that promises the most to your riding you will vote for? The problem with that obviously is the buying of vote with tax-payer dollars. You should look at the party which Canada as a whole could benefit most from regardless of your riding.

In the past 20 years I have voted Liberal, PC and Reform. Each time deciding who I feel would best serve Canadians not just in my riding. Is this not a reasonable way to vote? I suspect most of Ontario voters are bought!

[GDR]

It seems that the problems are in virtually everywhere you look in this administration.

Ex-Canada Post boss can't find receipts

Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Andre Ouellet, the former head of Canada Post, admits he can't back up some of his expense account spending with receipts.

Ouellet told a parliamentary committee he has documentation to cover about 85 per cent of an estimated $1.2 million in travel, hospitality and other expenses he ran up over eight years. That appears to leave about $180,000 that can't be substantiated with receipts.

Ouellet wouldn't be pinned down to a precise figure in his testimony, and refused to answer questions when journalists pressed him later.

His personal spending as head of Canada Post has been an issue since an audit by the private firm Deloitte Touche found a lack of paperwork to back up his expense claims.

Ouellet quit as president of Canada Post in the political furor after the report was released last year and Revenue Canada is auditing his expense claims for tax purposes.

[handyman]

Mitch, I've had the same kind of discussions here with co-workers, and it seems to me that the younger folks just don't give a damn about it all. Apathy reigns supreme. Those that have taken an interest have the "their all crooks" kind of attitude. It certainly is frustrating to me.

If people have no faith in any of the politicians, then just put a new crew in every 4 years. It will limit the amount of damage that they can inflict upon us.

CA

Next time you have this reaction or an individual complains about the Government ask them if they voted.

If not, they have no right to complain.

Yes, we should have term limits too.

[FA@AC]

FA@AC shows it all... "If Gomery ends up in any way tainting the current government with the sponsorship mess[...]"

"If, Cpdude... "IF" ... "in any way"... Obviously some of us have heard enough, and others haven't heard the half of it.

I didn't make my point very well. I didn't mean to suggest that there was any "if" to the question of whether members of the Liberal Party and/or some of their friends were guilty of serious wrong doing. Two prosecutions for fraud are underway and there will probably be more. It looks to me as if Gagliano's ass belongs in jail and that Chretien was probably involved in the thing up to his eyeballs, too. The "if" is about whether Martin or anybody in the current Liberal knew anything about it or had anything to do with it. That's what people are waiting to hear from Gomery about, but the Conservatives are hell-bent on having an election before we do. That leads many in Ontario to wonder what the Conservatives are afraid of.

[Mitch Cronin]

I think it's obvious what they're afraid of... the same thing I'm afraid of... and that would be any further opportunity for the Liberals to screw Canadians!

It can't all have happened inside a tight vacuum. The whole fliipping party is riddled with rot. They've got to go! Right Now wouldn't be soon enough.

[CD]

I understand what you’re saying but I feel too many people vote based on the needs of their riding.  So the party that promises the most to your riding you will vote for?  The problem with that obviously is the buying of vote with tax-payer dollars.  You should look at the party which Canada as a whole could benefit most from regardless of your riding.

In the past 20 years I have voted Liberal, PC and Reform.  Each time deciding who I feel would best serve Canadians not just in my riding.  Is this not a reasonable way to vote?  I suspect most of Ontario voters are bought!

Of course, what you said is what I meant to say but I think that we definately appear to hold a similar view.

It's almost like the, "I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but, I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."

[FA@AC]

I think it's obvious what they're afraid of... the same thing I'm afraid of... and that would be any further opportunity for the Liberals to screw Canadians!

That's one school of thought. The other is that the Conservatives know that they have overplayed their hand on this one and that they fear that they're going to look silly if Gomery ends up exonerating Martin--hence the urgent need to have an election now rather than after Gomery has reported.

There's also the matter of what the Conservatives have to offer as an alternative. Rahim Jaffer isn't exactly a person of integrity. Do we want him as Minister of something? Stockwell day? How about Diane Ablonczy? After the vitriol she spewed at Judy Sgro (who had done nothing wrong), she refuses to retract anything she said or to apologise. Do you fancy having that nasty piece of work as Minister of Justice? How about Harper trumpeting that Martin supported child pornography? Giving US media interviews in which he claimed to represent the majority of Canadians who thought that we ought to have gone to war in Iraq with Bush? If the Conservatives didn't look so much like a bunch of clowns they could have cleaned the Liberal's clock in the last election. If a number of them don't think before they open their traps about the Belinda thing, they probably won't do much better in this one. It's unfortunate, really, because there are a lot of very good MPs in the party. Somebody should tell Stephen to get them in front of the microphones and to shove the numpties out of prominence.

[handyman]

If the Conservatives didn't look so much like a bunch of clowns they could have cleaned the Liberal's clock in the last election.

So crooks it is over clowns!

[Cargo Agent]

That's one school of thought. The other is that the Conservatives know that they have overplayed their hand on this one and that they fear that they're going to look silly if Gomery ends up exonerating Martin--hence the urgent need to have an election now rather than after Gomery has reported.

There's also the matter of what the Conservatives have to offer as an alternative. Rahim Jaffer isn't exactly a person of integrity. Do we want him as Minister of something? Stockwell day? How about Diane Ablonczy? After the vitriol she spewed at Judy Sgro (who had done nothing wrong), she refuses to retract anything she said or to apologise. Do you fancy having that nasty piece of work as Minister of Justice? How about Harper trumpeting that Martin supported child pornography? Giving US media interviews in which he claimed to represent the majority of Canadians who thought that we ought to have gone to war in Iraq with Bush? If the Conservatives didn't look so much like a bunch of clowns they could have cleaned the Liberal's clock in the last election. If a number of them don't think before they open their traps about the Belinda thing, they probably won't do much better in this one. It's unfortunate, really, because there are a lot of very good MPs in the party. Somebody should tell Stephen to get them in front of the microphones and to shove the numpties out of prominence.

I see that you would rather have the group responsible for adscam, the runaway spending on the gun registry, the HRDC fiasco, and so many more examples of waste, than let anyone else have a chance to prove themselves.

I have had enough of the Liberals and all their lies, all the abuses of power, and all their thievry. It is time for someone else to be in charge in this country. If they do not perform well, in 4 years we can get rid of them as well.

[GDR]

That's one school of thought.  The other is that the Conservatives know that they have overplayed their hand on this one and that they fear that they're going to look silly if Gomery ends up exonerating Martin--hence the urgent need to have an election now rather than after Gomery has reported.

I don't think it is about whether Paul Martin knew what was going on or not. This has been going on in the Liberal party for over ten years. Paul Martin was a part of all of that. There will never be a complete review of all government dept's or a proper accounting as long as the Liberal's stay in government.

There's also the matter of what the Conservatives have to offer as an alternative. Rahim Jaffer isn't exactly a person of integrity. Do we want him as Minister of something?

Rahim Jaffer is a bright young guy who tried to cover up for his aide for going on the radio in Jaffer's place. It seems that if you are a Conservative if you screw up once you're tarnished for life.

Stockwell day?

As I said before as a leader Day was out of his depth and an abysmal failure. I've watched him during TV discussions in his role a Foreign Affairs critic. Frankly I expected the worst but in each case he was the most knowledgeable and best spoken politician on the panel. It seems that once he gets away from being the front man he is very competent.

How about Diane Ablonczy? After the vitriol she spewed at Judy Sgro (who had done nothing wrong), she refuses to retract anything she said or to apologise. Do you fancy having that nasty piece of work as Minister of Justice? How about Harper trumpeting that Martin supported child pornography?

I don't like the rhetoric that we put up with in the H of C either, but that comes from all parties. (I don't hear you complaining about Joe Volpe) Incidentally, Judy Sgro was found to be in a conflict of interest though not knowingly so. At the time Paul Martin found the allegations serious enough to remove her from her portfolio.

Harper did not trumpet that Martin supported child pornography. That was a headline that some clever young guy in the Conservative war room came up with in the last election and put out as a press release. The first Harper heard of it was when a reporter asked him about it. As soon as Harper found out about it he had it pulled, which was about 2 hours after it had been released. (Having said that, it was the lowest point on the campaign for me.)

JMHO

Greg

[Guest rattler]

This is the new "dance" craze in Ottawa.

You start off slight left of center without a partner and one step slowly to the right. As you cross center, you attract a partner who dances with you until the time comes to turn back to back, as you continue to the right you shake your head and do a rapid two step back to the left. As the dance comes to the end, you turn to face your original direction and at that point your partner comes to understand that he no longer has a partner.

The next dance will be........

[FA@AC]

Rahim Jaffer is a bright young guy who tried to cover up for his aide for going on the radio in Jaffer's place. It seems that if you are a Conservative if you screw up once you're tarnished for life.

Greg

Tried to cover for his aide going on the radio in Jaffer's place? Jaffer had his aide impersonate him. When he got caught, he lied through his teeth about it. Cabinet matierial? I don't think so.

[FA@AC]

I don't like the rhetoric that we put up with in the H of C either, but that comes from all parties. (I don't hear you complaining about Joe Volpe) Incidentally, Judy Sgro was found to be in a conflict of interest though not knowingly so. At the time Paul Martin found the allegations serious enough to remove her from her portfolio.

One does indeed hear nasty rhetoric from all parties, but for the Conservative would be Minister of Justice (Justice!!!!!?!?!?!?!) to stand up and fling the kind of basless, unsubstantiated accusations she did against Judy Sgro is just wildly irreponsible. That she'll neither apoligise for or retract anything she said makes it even worse. Someone who fancies herself Minister of Justice ought to know something about habeous corpous (sp?).

[GDR]

Tried to cover for his aide going on the radio in Jaffer's place? Jaffer had his aide impersonate him. When he got caught, he lied through his teeth about it. Cabinet matierial? I don't think so.

He did a stupid thing when he was about thirty years old. I wouldn't want to look at the list of stupid things I did at that age. Most MPs aren't elected until they are a lot older. I doubt that there is an MP in the house that didn't do something equally stupid at that age, but he/she wasn't an MP so nobody cared.

You might want to cut the guy a little slack. It was wrong but it wasn't fraud or theft.

[GDR]

One does indeed hear nasty rhetoric from all parties, but for the Conservative would be Minister of Justice (Justice!!!!!?!?!?!?!) to stand up and fling the kind of basless, unsubstantiated accusations she did against Judy Sgro is just wildly irreponsible. That she'll neither apoligise for or retract anything she said makes it even worse. Someone who fancies herself Minister of Justice ought to know something about habeous corpous (sp?).

At the time they accusations weren't unsubstantiated or baseless. They were substantial enough that she was removed from her portfolio. Fortunately she has subsquently been fully vindicated.

[FA@AC]

Fortunately she has subsquently been fully vindicated.

Not in the eyes of our possible future Minister of Justice, she hasn't.

[FA@AC]

I doubt that there is an MP in the house that didn't do something equally stupid at that age, but he/she wasn't an MP so nobody cared.

You might want to cut the guy a little slack. It was wrong but it wasn't fraud or theft.

And neither should Jaffer be an MP. He certainly shouldn't be a Cabinet Minister. It was "wrong, but not theft or fraud"? It was downright dishonest just as theft and fraud are. And the guy now stands up in the H of C and flings wild accusations at Judy Sgro and questions her integrity. C'mon, Greg! He doesn't make your party look good.

[Mitch Cronin]

FA@AC...

I'm the last guy on the planet to be defending the conservatives for anything... but I think you may have forgotten that an MP in opposition has to try to make the incumbents look bad... capitalize on their errors... fling any mud that's flingable, or even appears to be so. And unless I'm out to lunch, habeas corpus means squat in the house.

In any case... these nasty deeds you're upset with the Conservatives about sure look mighty pale in comparison to what our Liberals have been up to!

How could you consider supporting a party that's been commiting the crimes these thugs have been getting away with, while claiming that slinging mud unjustly will prevent you from supporting the other guys? Evidently you think the Gomery inquiry might clear Martin... Yep, it might, but so what if it does? It's the Liberal party that he's the head donkley of that rots... Several of 'em... how thick the rot is we'll NEVER know, certainly not as long as the Liberals retain power... Do you just assume it must only be the ones Martin's gotten rid of? You don't think there might be one or two beurocrats left within the party that haven't had their particular part in this scandal found out yet?... or maybe some other scandal?...

Yeah, they may have been stealing our money, but I'm sure glad they're not slinging mud at their opponents unjustly, eh?

I shoulda quit while I was ahead... two nails in one day had me feeling pretty good.

[ccairspace]

Unfortunately, this conversation may turn out to be academic. The news report that I just heard stated that Cadman is considering voting in favour of the budget and the ammendment because 60% of his constituents who were recently polled (presumably by his own people) were adamant that they DID NOT want an election this summer. Here is a Member of Parliament who may respond to the will of his constituents... as many here feel he should, as their elected representative... and yet will undoubtedly be vilified if he does and if the Liberal government remains in power.

My question, to anyone who may know their federal legislative SOPs better than I, is what kind of parliamentary vote can be interpreted as a vote of non-confidence other than the budget? (I can't remember what vote brought Joe Clark's PC government down.)

Interesting times indeed.

ccairspace

[FA@AC]

FA@AC...

I'm the last guy on the planet to be defending the conservatives for anything... but I think you may have forgotten that an MP in opposition has to try to make the incumbents look bad... capitalize on their errors... fling any mud that's flingable, or even appears to be so.

But the more mud they fling without justification, the worse they look. Stephen continues to have near-hissyfits on TV, and the Liberals calmly respond that they acknowledge that there were some very corrupt individuals in the previous Liberal government, that two of the individuals who did wrong already face prosecution, that further prosecutions are likely once Gomery has gotten to the bottom of things, and that the voters will then have their say. Their move to shut government down didn't go very well, either. (Didn't they see what happened to Newt when he tried it?)

You might be happy with the way some of the Conservatives are acting, but it isn't doing them any good in Ontario. The mad as hell routine probably plays well in Conservative ridings, but so what? They already hold those ridings and they'll hold them after the next election. If they want to form a government, they need to focus on ridings that they don't yet hold, and if the polls are any indication, they aren't doing much of a job at it. People in Ontario would probably give more thought to voting for them if they'd give us just one reason other than sponsorship that we ought to vote for them. Sponsorship is their entire platform. Yes, I'm aware that they have a policy document, but they never talk about anything that's in it. Do they have a policy on healthcare? Is it better than the Liberal one? I suspect that it is. Might we hear it sometime? Surely the Conservatives have a health critic. Where is he or she? Shoved out of the way, I guess, so that Diane can fling the accusations she bought from that lying sack of c**p who was eventually deported. Speaking of which, do the Conservatives have an immigration policy? Aren't the Liberals vulnerable there? Couldn't Stephen or one of his people talk just for a minute or two about the red tape that a lot of immigrants have to go through in order to practice in professions for which they're already highly qualified or something like that? Maybe just even for a minute? Nope. Sponsorship, sponsorship, sponsorship. How about the budget? What is their economic platform? (Please don't refer me to the website, Greg. I'm wondering if anyone from the party might sometime talk about how they'd stimulate the economy, their tax policies and that sort of thing. Probably not, since there are only so many hours in the day, and they consider it essential to fill them by talking about sponsorship. Constantly.)

Earth to Stephen! We want an election after Gomery reports, but we don't want one now. If Gomery finds that any of the Liberals in the present government had anything to do with sponsorship, the Liberal party will be wiped out and rightly. Meantime, talk at least occasionally about the economy, healthcare, education, the environment and other things that matter to voters, or sink even further in Ontario.

[Guest rattler]

Seems that there is no price too great for the Liberals to pay to retain power.

PMO negotiates with two more Tory MPs to miss vote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 23:23 on May 18, 2005, EST.

By ALEXANDER PANETTA

Conservative Members of Parliament Nina Grewal and her husband Gurmant Grewal in this 2004 file photo. (CP Archive/Fred Chartrand)

OTTAWA (CP) - A Tory MP says secretly recorded conversations with Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff prove the Liberals offered him a plum patronage position for his co-operation during a confidence vote Thursday that will determine the fate of the government.

But the audio recording suggests Tim Murphy, Martin's top aide, urged Tory MP Gurmant Grewal and his wife and fellow Conservative MP Nina to abstain during the vote for an unspecified reward down the road.

The recording, released late Wednesday in the final hours before the vote, was the latest turn in what has been a tumultuous few weeks that has made predicting the outcome of Thursday's balloting perilous folly.

The latest allegation came a day after Belinda Stronach shocked her Tory caucus colleagues by jumping to the Liberal cabinet.

Grewal said he was offered an ambassadorship and a Senate posting was put forward for his wife. But the audio tape captures Murphy refusing to make such an offer.

"No offer was made to Mr. Gurmant Grewal," Murphy said in a news release.

On the tape, Murphy is overheard discussing confidence-vote strategy with Grewal.

He tells Grewal that he and Nina could miss several votes this spring, and says he's willing to negotiate something later.

"We'll have much more detailed . . . discussions after that with some freedom," Murphy is overheard saying.

"Explicit discussions about Senate, not Senate, I don't think are very helpful and I don't think, frankly, can be had (now) in advance of an abstention. . .

"I think it's a bad idea, truthfully, to have any kind of commitment that involved a specific trade."

[GDR]

I'm wondering if anyone from the party might sometime talk about how they'd stimulate the economy, their tax policies and that sort of thing. Probably not, since there are only so many hours in the day, and they consider it essential to fill them by talking about sponsorship. Constantly.)

Hi FA

Parties do not come out with their platform prior to an election. The policies will give you an idea what the platform will look like, but the actual platform won't be released until the campaign starts. That is normal for all parties.

[IFG]

My question, to anyone who may know their federal legislative SOPs better than I, is what kind of parliamentary vote can be interpreted as a vote of non-confidence other than the budget?  (I can't remember what vote brought Joe Clark's PC government down.)

Hi, cc' - Not sure that my grasp of parliamentary SOP's is a whit better than yours, but here's a stab (powered by dusty recollection and a little googling ). You are asking about the terms of a constitutional convention, with unwritten rules, rather than any published statute. A brief explanation (courtesy of UofA):

• A ‘convention’ is an uncodified rule of a constitution considered binding on political actors but not enforceable by the courts. The constitution of a country is comprised of both written or codified rules enforced by courts, and ‘unwritten’ rules or principles necessary for constitutional government. While conventions are more binding upon political actors than mere usages, it is not true that they are less binding than constitutional law. There is no particular hierarchy of types of constitutional rules. In many cases, constitutional conventions are more important than written constitutional provisions. What separates a convention from constitutional law is that the former is not judicially enforceable. Courts may recognize the existence of a ‘convention’, and even help define its nature and scope, but they do not provide remedies for the breach of conventions.

While Canada’s Constitution is most often associated with its ‘written’ documents – chiefly, the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982 – in fact, Canada’s full constitutional framework is unintelligible without reference to a prodigious set of constitutional conventions. Consider two examples: Nowhere in Canada’s constitutional documents is it written that the government of the day must resign when it loses the confidence of the legislative assembly. Yet this central tenet of responsible government is at the core of Canadian constitutionalism, and a political crisis would ensue were its principles ignored by political actors. Similarly, while in a strictly legal sense the Governor General may refuse his or her assent to a Bill duly passed by both houses of Parliament, a constitutional convention has developed whereby the withholding of assent would be unconstitutional (see reservation and disallowance).

Conventions arise when there are precedents for a particular principle or practice; when political actors consider themselves or ought to consider themselves bound to follow the principle or practice; and when there are good reasons for the existence of the principle or practice. While the core meaning of a ‘convention’ may be clear, questions of application frequently arise, and political actors may heatedly dispute what precedents apply and what reasons are legitimate. While political actors, for example, are agreed on the confidence convention, what sort of measure exactly constitutes a withdrawal of confidence may be controversial

The vote that ended Clarke's tenure as PM was a budgetary vote (remember Crosby's proposed + $0.19/gal budget?). Altho' the central obligation for the government to resign remains, what actually constitutes a motion of non-confidence has been a bit malleable over the years. I would have assumed that any specific non-confidence motion by the loyal opposition would qualify, but apparently the current artful dodgers have taken a novel if arguable interpretation of the rules on Harper's motion last week. Traditionally, any "money bill" was considered a confidence motion, but I recall the Pearson minority government losing a vote on a budget matter while the PM was on holiday. Pearson survived because, since Real Caouette neither wanted an election, nor to lose face by expressing any confidence in the house, the gov't moved a resolution that, without actually expressing any confidence in the government, in all honesty ( ) the Socreds had not meant their vote against the budgetary amendment to be a non-confidence motion at that time.

Cheers, IFG