Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my speech will be as dramatic as the one we have just heard. Probably not, but I hope it will have some substance.
I am not surprised that members of the opposition are trying these tactics to attack the Prime Minister once again. It is a mystery to me though to see why they would choose such a blatant motion of non-confidence to accomplish the objective.
Marleau and Montpetit tell us, and I quote from pages 36 and 37:
An essential feature of parliamentary government is that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet are responsible to, or must answer to, the House of Commons as a body for their actions and must enjoy the support and the confidence of a majority of the Members of that Chamber... This is commonly referred to as the confidence convention.
I was reading from Marleau and Montpetit. The hon. member opposite has the right to disagree with Marleau and Montpetit, just as she has the right to disagree on other matters. That is her business, but it does not change the truth.
I quote again from Marleau and Montpetit, who say, on page 42:
Resignation may be prompted by a defeat in a general election, [or] by the operation of the confidence convention alone—
Therefore by calling on the Prime Minister to resign, it may be a polite motion to resign, one that is felicitous of the government, such as is the case this morning. The motion is so praising of the Liberal Party that it recognizes that a Liberal prime minister will be succeeded by another Liberal prime minister. On that score, I have no disagreement with the folks across the way that the next prime minister will be another Liberal prime minister and, might I add, will be a prime minister for a very long time as well.