Haul out those fancy red-letter pens, parliamentary historian. After just 19 sitting days, the Conservatives are ready to bring down the Trudeau government, courtesy of the no-frills motion of non-confidence that appears on the latest notice paper — standing, it’s worth noting, in the name of Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer himself — and could be put before the House as early as tomorrow.

At the same time, it’s probably a bit too soon to sound the snap election klaxon.

For one thing, the Official Opposition has until this afternoon to decide whether to bring it forward immediately, or let it languish on the notice paper for now.

There are, after all, more than a dozen Conservative-sponsored supply motions currently in the queue for debate, including several that directly address the ongoing rail blockades and pipeline protests that have dominated both the headlines and the political agenda for the last two weeks.

Even more critically, at least from a strategic perspective, there’s no guarantee that it would actually pass. In fact, there’s good reason to think it wouldn’t, as it would require the support of the three largest opposition parties to succeed. And at least one of those parties — the Bloc Quebecois, to be specific — has made it clear that they’re not interested in turfing Team Trudeau unless they believe it to be clearly and unambiguously in the interest of Quebec to do so.

As for the New Democrats, while they may not be keen to publicly reaffirm their confidence in the Liberal minority government, they would be even less enthusiastic at the prospect of heading back out on the hustings for one very simple reason: The party just can’t afford to foot the bill for two national campaigns in less than six months, particularly considering their lacklustre fundraising record.

In fact, it’s probably a safe bet that even a majority of Conservatives — both MPs and rank-and-file party members — would be quietly counting on being on the losing side of the eventual vote, what with the party currently in the middle of a leadership race.

So, why would their party even float the idea of a non-confidence motion that seems all but doomed to defeat?

For starters, it would allow the Conservatives to portray themselves as the only party truly, adamantly and unwaveringly opposed to the current government.

Not only would it give Scheer and his MPs a full day to make the case for why the Liberals don’t deserve the confidence of the House, but it would let them put not just the government but also their opposition rivals on the defensive by forcing them to explain why they disagree. And while there’s always the possibility of an accidental — and unwelcome — victory, given all the factors listed above, the odds are heavily against it.

As strategies go, it’s low-risk. But it’s not quite no-risk, as the Conservatives would also have to come up with a compelling argument for taking the ongoing cross-aisle battle to its logical conclusion at the very same time that the country is in the midst of what they contend is a national crisis: namely, the very same cross-country protests that Scheer has repeatedly described as a national crisis.

Forcing an election would put any coordinated effort by the federal government to negotiate an end to the impasse on hold for at least 35 days — and very likely nearly twice that long for whatever party winds up forming government to install (or reinstall) a working ministry.

For the duration of the campaign, the federal government would be operating under the caretaker principles, which would impose strict limits on taking an active role in resolving the dispute.

Even if they’re all but certain that the motion will fail, the Conservatives may still face questions over just how an election would bring an end to the blockades.

Fortunately for the Conservatives, they have other options — including, as noted above, no fewer than five alternate motions — all of which, like the non-confidence motion, stand in Scheer’s name — primed and ready to hit the floor tomorrow, including:

A motion to have the House “condemn the government’s inaction in response to the illegal blockades of railways, highways and bridges by activists not impacted by the Coastal GasLink project, and call on the government to take action immediately to restore access to important economic infrastructure,” and a separate motion to have it “stand in solidarity with every elected band council on the Coastal GasLink route, the majority of hereditary chiefs, and the vast majority of the Wet’suwet’en people, who support the Coastal GasLink project, and condemn the radical activists who are exploiting divisions within the Wet’suwet’en community, holding the Canadian economy hostage, and threatening jobs and opportunities in Indigenous communities.”

A proposal to “ask the parliamentary budget officer to deliver a report no later than March 31, 2020, quantifying the financial impact of the current rail disruption on individuals, companies, and the Canadian economy.”

A motion to instruct the Commons foreign affairs committee to “conduct a study of the alleged funding by foreign groups of protestors against the Canadian energy sector, including those involved in the current illegal blockades.”

And finally, a motion to have the House “endorse the recommendations of the independent Joint Review Panel and call on the government to approve the Teck Frontier mine project,” which could also highlight what is widely believed to be a serious rift within the Liberal caucus.

Or they could just damn the torpedoes and go with the non-confidence motion, which would, at least, make it crystal clear where they stand — not just on the government’s handling of the current situation, but its competence and capacity to run the country, period.

*This column has been corrected to note that the non-confidence motion needs the support of the three largest opposition parties to pass, not all four as erroneously stated earlier.