I don't think there's any question about that in terms of public perception. Ultimately, whatever we do is subject to the Canadian voters. They get the final say on that.
You raise an interesting point, because once you try to set down on paper what exactly constitutes confidence, it is very difficult. One of the members suggested to me that it would be very clear. It might include the Speech from the Throne, the budget, and any money bill. Once you say that, you also have to ask, what if this country were deciding to go to war?
I think there is a convention developing now that Parliament will get a say on where we will deploy our troops or engage Canadians overseas in conflict. I would make the argument that once you have the definition, you've left out something else. Deciding whether Canada goes to war or not, for instance, is far more important than many money bills might be in the overall good of this country.
So it's difficult to define and put down on paper, and that's one of the reasons there has been reluctance to do that. You might find yourself in court arguing what does or doesn't come within the constitutional convention of confidence. We want to have a separation of the different areas of government, so it is important to do that.
In terms of electoral reform, Mr. Dewar said he would support it because it's doable and an improvement. It's not an attempt to completely overhaul the whole Canadian parliamentary system, because quite frankly it doesn't need a complete overhaul. We have the best system in the world right here in Canada. The Canadian system that has been adapted over the years is the best, but that doesn't mean it should be static. Nothing should be static. We should always be looking at ways we can improve our system, and I believe this is a step in the right direction.