Thank you, Chair.
Professor Cyr, you made a comment, and if I misunderstood, then obviously please correct me.
Professor Russell said in part, “Such an addition”, meaning a change in the Standing Orders, which is the motion to us sitting here now:
Such an addition...would surely be as binding on the prime minister as all other standing orders. Failure of a prime minister to observe the standing order could result in a ruling of contempt of Parliament and a defeat of the government on a non-confidence motion.
We've also talked about potential disincentives to a Prime Minister: losing the right to second reading for a period of time, introduction of bills, all kinds of things, but you introduced what I thought was a new concept and I wanted to tease it out a bit, if you will. I jotted down that we could word something in such a way that the Standing Orders would say the government would be considered to have lost the confidence of the House if the following, etc. I have never heard of a confidence motion coming in through the back door. Confidence is pretty big. As one professor said—it might have been Professor Russell—the majority vote in the House of Commons is what gives you the licence to be the government.
Do you feel strongly that you could do that? Could you load up a disincentive that says you will have de facto lost the confidence if...and then whatever you say after that? Do you really believe that will work?
First of all, do I have it right? If so, just give me your thoughts on why you think that would work.