sigh people really don't understand how parlimentry democracy works. Of course supply & confidence agreements are constitutional. Its not even a coalition gover

sigh people really don't understand how parlimentry democracy works. Of course supply & confidence agreements are constitutional. Its not even a coalition government, which would also be constitutional. sheesh Edit in response to your edit [i did not downvote you] - for starters this is a really common feature of most parlimentary democracy. It helps mitigate some of the downsides of first past the post & vote splitting (NDP+liberals have > 50% of the popular vote. They are fairly simlar politically, agreeing on many things. Why shouldn't they get to do the things they agree on, since a majority of the country voted for them when combined, presumably a majority like the parts of their platform that are the same) The second thing, is that politics involves compromises, generally it is expected some wheeling and dealing might occur. e.g. MPs from alberta might vote for something that benefits fishermen in Nova Scotia in exchange for NS MPs voting for something that benefits alberta. I dont see anything wrong with that, this is just a more formal version. Last of all, the agreement is non-binding. NDP is allowed to pull out any time it wants with no penalty other than the liberals being mad at them. So it is not like it prevents a non-confidence motion if the NDP is unhappy (for that matter, individual MPs do not have to vote with their party on anything, the only penalty is they might get kicked out of their party. If the MPs don't like treadau they can kick him out anytime they want regardless of what party leadership thinks.