Canadians, and Stephen Harper's Conservatives in particular, have to be careful that they do not talk their country into a genuine, and deep, political crisis that leads to long-term instability. What is being faced now is really uncertainty, that is being frothed into something else.

Two months ago, Canadians voted in a general election and, as with the previous vote in 2006, the outcome was inconclusive. Mr Harper's party improved its number of seats in the Commons, but the 143 it won, with 37.63 per cent of the popular vote, were insufficient for them to govern without the tacit support of the Opposition. So, as it was before, Mr Harper's administration would continue to be a minority government.

Significantly, Mr Harper not only called that vote two years ahead of schedule, but in breach of his own philosophy of having a fixed election date in Canada, for which he passed legislation. Mr Harper was clearly driven by political calculation, if not opportunism. But such, sometimes, is the way of competitive politics in Westminster-style parliamentary democracies.

Fiscal debate

This week, with the Tories having stated a fiscal outlook that lacks a substantial stimulus package and with a threat to end political party financing, the Opposition parties in the Commons revolted and agreed to oust Harper's government in a no-confidence vote.

The Liberals and the New Democrats, which between them have 114 votes in Parliament, would form a coalition government without the backing of a Bloc Quebecois, the party (with 49 Commons votes) that advocates the secession of French-speaking Quebec from the rest of Canada.

Mr Harper and his Conservatives have described the move as an attempt at an undemocratic coup and the prime minister has suggested that he would seek to avoid the no-confidence vote, planned for Monday. Instead, he would ask Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until the government presents its budget in January. She should do no such thing.

Confidence vote

First, it is legal and constitutional for the Liberal leader, Stephane Dione, to call for and for Parliament to have a confidence vote on a government. Moreover, it is the person who commands the support of a majority of the members of Parliament who is to be named prime minister and asked to form the government. That used to be Mr Harper.

The greater tragedy and deeper crisis would be to overturn these constitutional norms, rather than the possibility of having the Parti Quebecois in the Cabinet. The responsibility of government might begin to change the perspective of this party.

In any event, a coalition government, as Mr Harper well knows, is not an alien construct, but is one that is practised in even well-developed and stable democracies. He would have understood, too, the vulnerability of a minority government, which was a defect he hoped to cure with the calculated gamble of an early election. He fell short of an absolute majority.

The better response to the Opposition's move would be political negotiation rather than an attempted end-run around the constitution. Canada is mature and politically resilient, capable of enduring stresses such as have emerged. But stresses are not of themselves crises, although they can be made to be.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.