Canadians are rightly concerned about terrorism, but there is an air of crisis around it that is exaggerated and unsustainable. Things have to settle down, likely sooner rather than later. So what happens to the Harper government's election strategy when they do?Let's start with the coalition against ISIS. Joining it was a good move for the Conservatives. It was in line with Canadians' views on the situation. It was also politically opportune. Stephen Harper needed some way to reconnect with Canadians and fighting terrorists (and standing up to dictators) seemed to do it.At the time, the anti-terrorism campaign was only one part of the Conservatives' overall election strategy. The main focus was supposed to be the economy. Then the price of oil crashed and everything changed. Suddenly the policy cupboard was empty and the whole campaign seemed to get hitched to the terrorist bandwagon.That's a big gamble. To succeed, Canadians will have to believe there is a global crisis. At the moment, that might seem to be the case. Turn on radio or TV news or scroll through social media news sites and terrorism is everywhere. It's quite extraordinary, really.But eight months is a long time in politics and sustaining this air of crisis is likely to be the Conservatives' biggest challenge. It won't be easy. Even when danger is real and imminent, getting people to focus on a single issue takes a huge effort. All the more so when the crisis has to be manufactured. And cracks are already showing.Take the Conservatives' effort to talk up the threat to our way of life and the efforts to radicalize our youth here at home. If this seemed in keeping with the mood, it came off sounding amateurish, opportunistic and xenophobic. It's now being openly ridiculed in the media.But the critical step in the government's new strategy is Bill C-51, the new security bill. It is designed to raise the stakes on terrorism and put the opposition offside.Consider the refusal to provide adequate oversight for the new security measures. It might seem strange that Harper would let such a conspicuous flaw creep into the bill. Conservatives have nothing to gain from this.Clearly, it is there to taunt the opposition. Harper is trying to goad Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau into an emotionally charged debate over the bill, which he believes they will lose. Will it work?Perhaps. Consider Mulcair. On one hand, we can admire him for standing up to Harper on the bill. The lack of oversight and other flaws are serious enough that, in a fair debate, Mulcair could win. In theory, public opinion might be turned around on this.But this will never be a fair fight. Harper controls the process and he will use every lever at his disposal to ensure that never happens. Mulcair may be a hero to academics and Ottawa journalists, but Harper has his eye on bigger things.He is betting that, come election time, the NDP will pay a high price in Quebec for their opposition to the bill—and the Conservatives will be there to reap the rewards.Justin Trudeau has taken a very different tack. He has refused to take the bait. Critics say he is trying to have it both ways: he wants to oppose the bill while refusing to vote against it. The opposition's job is to oppose, they say.Well, maybe, but the opposition can only oppose if the government is prepared to defend. The legislative process requires debate and debate is a two-way street. It won't work unless the government engages. And that's not going to happen.A real debate over C-51 would quickly expose the bill as a stalking horse to put the opposition parties offside with public opinion.Instead, the Conservatives will posture, try to goad or press opposition leaders into attacking the bill, and position themselves as the people's defender.So to engage on the bill, like Mulcair, is to play into the government's plan. Of course, no plan is foolproof and Mulcair apparently believes he can turn public opinion around. If he does, he will certainly deserve credit but, frankly, it looks like a long shot.As for Trudeau, there are good reasons for his refusal to engage. First, holding off till the election allows him to move the debate into a forum that Harper does not control. That will give Trudeau a better chance to make the case on his own terms.Second, clashing with Harper over the bill in Parliament will only feed the air of crisis Harper needs to make his new election strategy work. By refusing to engage Trudeau forces him to fall back on other means to sustain it, such as inflated rhetoric. And that is both challenging and risky.It is challenging because, unless something big happens on the international scene, the focus on terrorism will shift. People will tire of talking about it. It is risky because trying to sustain the air of crisis, say, with inflated rhetoric will not only sound opportunistic, but increasingly desperate.It should be an interesting campaign.Dr. Don Lenihan is Senior Associate, Policy and Engagement, at Canada 2020, Canada's leading, independent progressive think-tank. Don is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and Open Government. His recent projects include chairing an expert group on citizen engagement for the UN and the OECD; and chairing the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan