And to think that just four days ago you were hypothesizing that it should be like a confidence measure.

I was four days ahead of you all as it is now being made a confidence matter as it should be:<blockquote class="smalltext">The House of Commons is expected to vote as early as tomorrow on a budget motion that includes a new clause aimed at embarrassing the Liberals.</blockquote>Will the DND budget be in the same bill?

If it _is_ a confidence matter (subjunctive case) _then_ it should never been brought to Parliament, as only the government can introduce money bills (that make it a confidence matter).

"Suez Jan" - Indiana Jones' new female archenemy?

Could not the government have made it a confidence matter on the day. I am pretty sure they could have. By not doing so they have created the heat, especially seeing as the private member had been trying for something like ten years to get this through.

I think the current notion is that it is up to the PM to make anything a matter of confidnece:<blockquote class="smalltext"> A leading constitutional expert says Harper's gambit is unprecedented – but not unconstitutional. C.E.S. Franks says the prime minister is allowed to declare confidence matters as he sees fit, and he's also allowed to demand an election if he wants to. But Franks said the current situation – Harper making the opposition ask senators to pass a crime bill, and then threaten to call an election even if they do – is without precedent in Canadian history.</blockquote>

Yet this sort of Dickensian fiscal stinginess is acceptable.

Ah, you should have done a logic course in University. That a PM can make any matter a confidence vote !=> all confidence votes were made by the PM. But if you think about it, he doesn't even have to go through all that trouble, except for the fun. He can just show up at the Michelle-Jean's and saying Parliament is packing it in, thank you very much.

But what's this about the stinginess? Harper's responsible for the ill-effect of laws passed in the 1960's now?

You should have taken a class in logic...no, that is <i>too mean</i> ;-)

The specific point is the private member's bill, not all of history. The PM had the power to make it a matter of confidence and did not. He likely missed it (bad) but may have decided (again) to manufacture a crisis because of his understanding that being Prime Minister is the equivalent of being a rural PEI Tory poll captain in 1952.

The Liberals could gain by all this (if they had half a clue) by pointing it out but they appear to only be letting the Tories slide down the slide of their own making. I am starting to think that Harper is the PM most ripe for picking than any I have seen in my lifetime but faces such pure incompetence that we are likely better off as we are.

Is it actually a constitutional convention that money bills must originate with the government (i.e cabinet)? I could see it being the case, however, the only firm convention was that money bills must originate in the Commons. For example, Senator Fortier, though a member of the cabinet, could not introduce a money bill.

Is there any precedent of a private member, or the opposition introducing (never mind passing) a money bill - or is this really the first time ever?

Second clause, second sentence should be "only firm convention (I am aware of)..."

I read somewhere today that there was a ruling from the Speaker on this one when it was introduced...where is it...

Here it is. Today's <i>Ottawa Citizen</i>. The Speaker held it was not a money bill:<blockquote class="smalltext">...on Nov. 1, 2006, Speaker of the House Peter Milliken ruled the bill was permissible since it was effectively a tax deferral that did not result in an increased tax burden. Since a private member can initiate legislation that introduces a tax exemption, Mr. Milliken said, he allowed the bill to proceed through the House.</blockquote>Still, that does not mean it could not have been a matter of confidence.