This is news to me- apparently a vote of no-confidence is non-binding in Canada:
Parliament narrowly voted Tuesday to force Prime Minister Paul Martin to resign but the governing Liberals said they would not accept the no-confidence vote as binding.
The 153-to-150 vote made for a rancorous spectacle as opposition leaders claimed a decisive victory over the Liberal government, which has been limping since its narrow victory in June’s election.
The Liberals claimed that the opposition could not overthrow a government on a mere procedural motion requesting that a parliamentary committee recommend that the government resign. But even government officials conceded that the vote was a dress rehearsal for another showdown, perhaps next week, that Mr. Martin would have to recognize if the Liberals lost.
“In my opinion Mr. Martin’s behavior has gone from dithering to desperate to dangerous,” said Stephen Harper, the Conservative Party leader, who said the government was acting against the Constitution to stay in power. “This government does not have the moral authority to govern this country.”
Mr. Martin refused to take questions from reporters but said several constitutional experts had agreed that the motion voted on could not be considered a binding confidence vote. Tony Valeri, the Liberal House leader, said, “We will continue to govern on behalf of Canadians.”
Ed Morrisey has more (two links there), but if someone has an idea how to explain why they can just reject this vote (this goes a long way), please explain it to me.
As a Canadian, I’ll field this one.
To put it simply, the reason is that a “request that a parliamentary committee recommend that the government resign” ISN’T a non-confidence vote. It’s a symbolic gesture with no more legal meaning than when the Congressional Black Caucus (was it?) stood up and “challenged” the 2000 presidential election without the support of a Senator, as depicted in Fahrenheit 9/11. Its only purpose was and is for the Conservative Party to score media talking points, and possibly to “test the waters” for the real non-confidence motion which is sure to come up later this month. But mostly for the talking points.
Well, what AWJ said and the fact that the current Canadian administration is (seemingly) completely corrupt.
Anybody see Steyn’s take?
Creeping socialism anybody>
And for the part that isn’t corrupt (I think we can grant that much) isn’t thinking very clearly–they’re certainly doing their best to come across as panicked, weak and scared. They may be technically correct, but a razor thin legal technicality isn’t going to gain any actual credit with anyone.
For all you laissez faire types who are preoccupied with creeping socialism as opposed to creepy capitalism, after the world hits the top of Hubberts peak oil curve capitalism and socialism will be a thing of the past. They will both be short lived economic experiments which on the the spectrum of history will rank up there with feudalism. Barter anybody?
Just proves to me that Canada has been a one party state for some time. All must kneel to Otawa’s dicktat.
Because as the first commenter said, it’s not a non-confidence vote.
The Conservative and Bloc Parties are trying to find politically moral high ground for forcing an election before its time but don’t have the poll numbers they need to be certain they won’t be smacked by the voters for doing so.