The Liberals can whine that this was not a confidence motion and is only procedural, and they might even find support in their newfound conspirators, the NDP (has Jack Layton commented on this yet?), but the House asking a committee to recommend the Executive resign is a clear indication that the House wants the Executive to resign. And that is a clear indication of no confidence. Moreso than a defeat on a budget or supply motion: those only show disagreement with certain policy decisions and don't indicate that the House wants the Executive to resign. A motion explicity stating no confidence might be more direct. But is there really any significant difference between we don't have confidence in you any more and we want you to resign? The former might more directly indicate no confidence, but the latter more directly indicates what you want done about the lack of confidence. On balance, I think everyone would agree the latter is the more harsh judgement.

Yet the government of Paul Martin disagrees. And worse, disagrees that there is any implication of no confidence. In doing so, Paul Martin and his government, possibly in concert with Jack Layton and the NDP, have eroded the only meaningful constraint on Executive power in Canada. An unbridled Executive is characteristic of dictatorships and single-party states; not parliamentary democracies.

Responsible government died today and it took democracy with it. This is not a trivial matter.