What I meant was that a prime minister does not call a vote of confidence whenever he feels like it. It is a formal procedure.
One of the rare examples that I cite to students -- I don't know whether you were in the House of Commons then -- is the time in 1988 when Mr. Chrétien called a vote of confidence on the issue of Hepatitis C. The government had a majority, but the Opposition had tabled a motion asking that victims of Hepatitis C receive full compensation. Some Liberal MPs were tempted to support the motion. So, Mr. Chrétien put his head on the block, saying: “That's too bad. Either you like this motion or you don't and, as we say in English, it's: Love me, love my dog, if we end up in an election and I'm defeated.”
For the prime minister, it's a means of applying pressure, but you should never forget one thing, and that is, that it's a dangerous game to play. Parliament may well take you at your word and say no, even on a very minor issue. And having said before the vote that he was putting his head on the block, if Parliament turns around and says no, then he ends up having his head cut off. You have no choice but to follow through on your threat.
So, it's a risky business, but I do think we need to preserve that option, because it's a way for the government to move things forward. The great thing about the parliamentary system, compared to the one our neighbours to the South have -- of which I am quite familiar, even though I don't particularly admire it -- is that our system assumes that the government can do good things for us. It can also do bad things, as I am fully aware, but it is better to have an activist government than one that fails to act. I believe it's one of the advantages that our system offers.