Okay. I'll express myself in English because I just want to make sure this will be correctly understood by everyone. I fully trust the translators, but maybe this time I'll just say it directly in my own words.
I do believe that you understood correctly what I suggested. In recent times it has often been suggested that it is up to the government to decide whether something is an issue of confidence or not. It is not up to the government to say so. When there is a majority in Parliament, there is no issue. When the government says it is a confidence issue, because the government has a majority of the seats, then obviously it is a confidence issue. Otherwise, it is up to Parliament to decide whether something is a confidence issue or not.
I do believe it would be possible to say in advance what would be considered a non-confidence vote. If I had suggested that a failed attempt to introduce a financial bill would be considered a confidence issue, I don't think that would have raised that many eyebrows. Of course, in itself, failing to pass a financial bill is not necessarily a non-confidence vote, as we have seen in the past. It has happened that the Liberals suggested a money bill, it didn't pass, and very quickly they were able to garner the Social Credit vote to make sure Parliament would not fall. In my view, there is no reason why we cannot set in advance what would be considered an issue that would raise non-confidence by Parliament in the government, similar to stating in advance that not passing a money bill would be considered a confidence issue. I would suggest that you could set any other suspensive conditions for the equivalent of a non-confidence vote.