The Canadian Parliamentary System: Who's Election?

Let me begin with a few comments about my perspective and bias. First, I share information not for the sake of convincing someone of a particular view point but, rather, to expose people to another perspective. I believe that you cannot change people's opinions/decisions based on either emotional appeal or through a logical argument. Individuals will have to find their own path. Second, and this is the critical perspective, I don't believe that the current form of representative democracy represents either an individual citizen or the constituency that a representative is elected. Your elected representative does not represent you but the party that they are beholden too and, more importantly, the leader of that particular party. If I have to work within a representative democracy, I prefer proportional representation; at least, the multitude of views can be expressed within an elected institution. While this model has its own limitations, at least, the diverse views of the population have some opportunity for representation.

One of the problems with the Canadian electoral system is that most people don't understand how the parliamentary system actually works. First, the raison d'être of any political party is to be the governing party. It's that simple. Second, a party does not get elected to govern; they are elected to the institution. It is at the privilege of the Governor General who governs. Just because historical conventions support that the party with the most seats is offered to govern does not mean it is an absolute. The idea of the Canadian political system is POGG (Peace, Order, and Good Government). As a result, the Governor General asks the party with the best opportunity to govern to form the government. This is something that Canadians must learn, understand, and accept. Of course, if you don't accept it, change it.
The idea that the system of minority governments is not working in Canada is based on historical conventions. Canadians have been spoiled or disillusioned as a nation; our history has been based on a majority system of governance. In many countries around the world, minority or coalition governments are the norm. More than this, though, our system is not democratic: we base our electoral system on "first-past-the-post". It does not mean that the candidate won with a majority of votes; they won with the most votes of all the candidates. A proportional representative system would allow all the voices to be heard in parliament, based on the percentage of votes. Although this has its problems, proportional representation is more representative of the democratic voice. In other words, a multitude of voices will be represented in the political institutions.
Everyone always speaks of the cost of elections. It would be irresponsible to speak of the cost of elections in monetary terms, only. If you want to be in a representative democracy with arbitrary dates for elections, you should expect to have elections whenever they are determined by the customs and conventions of the parliamentary system. Let's not forget that the Conservatives did not have to call an election; it is based on the convention of "non-confidence". Instead of calling an election, the Conservatives could have revisited the questions around the "non-confidence" issue and presented another budget. Remember: the party that is in government is the one that presents to the Governor General a "request" to dissolve parliament. It is not automatic. We only assume as much because of custom and convention of the Westminster model of governance.
If there is one point to be made it is this: the Westminster parliamentary system of government is based on custom and convention. Canadians either accept this form of governance or are prepared to but their energies into Constitutional changes. In a country where there is a division of powers between the national and provincial governments, it becomes very problematic. This is especially true when we have government by the executive (namely, the Premiers and Prime Minister Offices) and based on provincial interests, only. 
Now you ask me if I would endorse a coalition government with Gilles Duceppe as the Prime Minister. Of all of the national leaders, he is the one that is clear on his interests and goals. There is no misunderstanding his intent; I can't say that for the other leaders of their respective parties. So, would I prefer to have someone that I understand their intent or someone that is going to use threats, scare tactics, fear mongering, political bribery, regional discontent, corporate welfare, class differentiation, and indifference to the parliamentary institutions as their platform for a reason to govern. The answer to me is clear.