Let’s get this caveat out of the way first: As of right now, there’s no evidence — although no shortage of speculation — that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may be facing a full-scale caucus revolt over the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

But it’s equally fair to say that even amongst those Liberals who are determined to reserve judgment on whether the prime minister, his staff or anyone else crossed the line in attempting to talk then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould into overruling the public prosecution director’s refusal to offer to negotiate a remediation agreement with the embattled Quebec engineering giant, there is widespread dismay over Team Trudeau’s apparent incapacity to present a compelling defence.

Whether or not that lack of confidence in the government’s ability to extract itself from the controversy eventually turns into a lack of confidence in the government, period, remains to be seen.

But for the purpose of this purely hypothetical, not-at-all-meant-to-be-taken-as-a-prediction-or-suggested-course-of-action overview of how it might play out, let’s say that it does, and that when the Chamber reopens for business following the two-week March hiatus, a critical mass of Liberal MPs has officially hit the point where they’re just not sure they can continue to support the prime minister or his cabinet.

How, then, can they formally serve notice of their collective change of heart?

Why, vote against that same government on a confidence matter, of course — and, thanks to a serendipitous twist of parliamentary timing, they’ll get the opportunity to do just that within the next two weeks, courtesy of the upcoming budget, which is automatically considered a vote of confidence.

Technically, that vote is on the budget motion, which simply expresses the general support of the House for the fiscal plan laid out by the finance minister, which traditionally serves as a platform for the opposition to propose amendments — or, to be scrupulously accurate, an amendment and a sub-amendment — in which they can outline exactly why, in their view, the House should not give its approval of the budget.

Depending on how quickly the latest batch of by-elected MPs can claim their new seats, the Liberals have a working majority of just 13 seats, which means that it would only take a handful of Liberals voting in favour of one of those amendments to effectively signal that the government no longer enjoys the support of the House.

At that point, the prime minister would have little choice but to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and draw up the writs for a general election.

In theory, the Governor General could consult with the leaders of the other parties to determine if either (or, if a coalition were suddenly in the cards, both) could make the case for being given the chance to demonstrate that they could command the confidence of the House.

But with an election already on deck for this fall, it’s hard to imagine that either Andrew Scheer or Jagmeet Singh would attempt to persuade her to give them a shot at governing for the next three months.

In any case, having duly exercised their ancient privilege to oust a sitting government, the Liberals — or, at least, those who still intend to carry the party banner onto the hustings, albeit a bit earlier than expected — would be confronted with a new dilemma: namely, how do they work around the fact that Trudeau is, at least on paper, still their leader?

There is, of course, no shortage of precedent for sticking with a current leader even after he loses the confidence of the House, although it’s not quite as clear-cut when members of his own caucus voted against him.

Alternately, if Trudeau were to follow his trip to Rideau Hall with the submission of his own resignation, Liberal candidates would, at least, be able to skip that question and move to the next one: If not Trudeau, who will lead them onto the electoral battlefield?

It’s hard to imagine a more logistically — and politically — challenging process than running a leadership race in the midst of an election campaign, but it would be similarly tricky for a party to run a full slate of candidates without a permanent leader in place, on the proviso that they’d pick one after the ballots had been counted.

Given all that, it seems unlikely that a sufficient number of Liberal MPs will be so rattled by the SNC-Lavalin allegations as to plunge their party — and, at least in the short-term, the country — into such uncharted democratic waters.

It is, however, a testament to the preternatural resilience of the parliamentary system that such a move is entirely within the rules of engagement, even if no one ever gets up the nerve to actually test it.