I don't agree, because an election is not simply a way in which political leaders can use Parliament to impose their will. An election belongs to the people.
An understanding should be built into the law to say that as long as the government maintains the confidence of the majority of the members of Parliament, it cannot bring about a premature election. It's not very complicated. We've seen in Canada that if a government is defeated on a bill, doesn't want to treat it as a matter of confidence, and there isn't clarity on it, it then goes to the House and says, “I want to reaffirm that the majority of the members of the House still have confidence in the government.” In fact that's what happens.
So ultimately, if you're really talking about being prepared to undermine the government because the majority in Parliament is no longer satisfied with that government, it should take the form of an express vote of non-confidence. It should not be seen as a means by which a particular leader places pressure on other leaders because of his or her priorities.