To start with, a Process Nerd confession: It wasn’t until iPolitics editor Marco Vigliotti and I sat down to plot out just when the newly re-elected Liberal government will get its first chance to show that it has the confidence of the House that I realized just how complicated the opening days of the 43rd parliament might be — and not because of the shift to a minority setting.

Under normal circumstances, the first confidence vote of a freshly installed parliament would take place as part of the procedural rites and ritual surrounding the Speech from the Throne, which basically serves as the starter’s pistol for the opening session. (It’s also required to restart proceedings after a prorogation.)

In a majority parliament, it’s all very pro forma: After the governor-general delivers the speech — which is written by the government as an overview of its agenda for the new session — it is put before the House via a motion and debated for up to six days. There is, however, no requirement that the government designate so much as single day for its consideration, and while the motion itself can ultimately go to a vote, that, too, is optional, and rarely takes place in a majority setting. (Six days is, after all, a sizable chunk of House time to spend on a motion that is virtually guaranteed to pass.)

In a minority scenario, however, the question of whether the government can actually secure the necessary support to start implementing that agenda is, both literally and metaphorically, up for debate.

Given that uncertainty, it’s traditional — although not mandatory under House rules — to schedule at least two days of debate before moving on to any other legislative business.

Why two days? That’s how much time is required to give both the Official Opposition and the second-largest opposition party the opportunity to propose amendments (and subamendments) to the motion, in which they can outline exactly why they can’t endorse the speech and, in some cases, offering their own suggestions as to what should have been included.

(Scroll down for an example of what that might look like, courtesy of the 2008 minority parliament.)

While the opposition parties are welcome to introduce such amendments in a majority setting — and frequently do so to get their objections on the record — in a minority House, those amendments and the motion itself are automatically considered questions of confidence, which makes perfect sense because the speech is, after all, intended to outline what the government intends to do if permitted to remain in power.

This time around, it looks like the throne speech debate may be effectively superseded by another, even more mission-critical deadline: Dec. 10, which is the last day of the current supply cycle and, as such, the final day for MPs to sign off on the supplementary estimates, which include any planned spending not included in the main estimates, which were tabled before the election.

The estimates and the associated appropriations bills are also automatically considered to be confidence votes, as money is involved, and when you get down to it, that’s the ultimate parliamentary check on executive power: Being able to deny the government’s request to spend more money.

The upshot: MPs will have to vote on whether or not they have confidence in the government’s capacity to, well, govern the country, at least in the short term, no later than Tuesday evening, even if they haven’t yet decided whether or not to endorse the throne speech as delivered.

That, however, is what happens when a government decides to wait until three sitting days before the end of the supply cycle to open a new session.

It’s worth noting that, in either or both cases, one or more opposition parties could choose to abstain from the vote, which would allow them to avoid bringing down the government without actively supporting its agenda or spending plans — a strategy deployed by the Liberals repeatedly during their stint on the opposition benches, although not without consequence, as it allowed the New Democrats to present themselves as the only federal party in the House willing to vote against the Conservatives.

Finally, as pointed out in yesterday’s rundown, a successful opposition-driven change to the throne speech motion isn’t necessarily fatal to the government — it’s only considered a show of non-confidence if the government doesn’t support it, which Team Trudeau may be willing to do as a sign of good faith.

The government can also bring in its own subamendment, which could also allow them to negotiate a compromise with one of the other parties.

So, given all that, what’s the prognosis for the short-term survival of the reinstalled Liberal government?

As it stands, it’s hard to see how any party would benefit from a snap return to the campaign trail — they’re all dealing with various logistic and morale challenges, and let’s face it, no one wants to go doorknocking over the holidays.

Still, given how many confidence votes may have to be taken as part of the estimates review process, it’s a good bet that the new Liberal House management team will be micromanaging MPs’ attendance in order to ensure they don’t inadvertently bring about their own demise.

Example of a throne speech motion, which is moved by an MP in the governing party caucus:

That the following Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada: To Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada. MAY IT PLEASE YOUR EXCELLENCY We, Her Majesty’s most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Main amendment (moved by the Official Opposition):

That the motion be amended by adding the following: “and we urge Your Excellency’s advisors to respect the results of the election in which more than 60 percent of voters supported Members of Parliament in the opposition; to bear in mind that people express their wishes as much through the opposition as through the government; to recognize that Canadians rightfully expect the House of Commons they just elected to function in a less partisan, more constructive and collaborative manner, with the first responsibility for setting a better tone being that of the government which requires the government to be more forthcoming than it has been up to now; and to that end, given the crucial nature of the up-coming economic and fiscal update, to provide representatives of opposition parties with a detailed briefing by appropriate senior officials at least three hours in advance of the public presentation of the update, so all Members of Parliament can be properly equipped to deal with the serious economic difficulties confronting Canadians”.

Subamendment (moved by the second-largest opposition party):

— That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “in the opposition” the following: “and that the House recognize that the Speech from the Throne is unanimously decried in Quebec because it reflects a Conservative ideology that was rejected by 78 percent of the Quebec nation on October 14 and that as a result the House denounce the fact that it does not respond to the consensus in Quebec respecting, for instance, the legislation on young offenders, the repatriation to Quebec of powers over culture and communications, the elimination of the federal spending power and the maintenance of the existing system of securities regulation”.