A key element 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). The federal government attempts to balance the needs of the various regions in their decisions whereas provincial governments based on local interests, only.
When evaluating the governing party, it is imperative to assess the intent and action on their interests and goals. In the most recent election, the successful political achieved governing party status because Canadians believed in supporting a political leader that encouraged unity and cooperation, regional interests within a national framework, and respect for differences.
There is a reason why the unsuccessful party is called the Opposition Party. Their role is not to support the governing party or to engage in bipartisan cooperation to create policies and initiatives that enrich Canadians. Their role is to be in opposition to the decisions, dictates, and policy choices of the governing party.
The Opposition party did not achieve their goal of becoming the governing party for a variety of reasons but, chief among them is Canadians did not want our government 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.
