Thanks for elevating the tone of the conversation.
You'll note that Harper has won two minority governments followed by a majority most recently -- canadians in general have become more confident in his leadership over time. So you might just wish to reconsider your arbitrary, completely unconstructive, keyboard warrior comment and reconsider what you should do next.
You might want to consider such topics as: a) Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction, b) the nature of being a resource producing economy in a cold northern climate, c) the necessity of balance of priorities by the leader of a G8 nation, including the replacement of a 40 year old airforce (which will be 50 years old by the time the F35 is available), d) the growth of CO2 on an absolute level worldwide even if Canada were to reduce its emissions to 0 as a nation, e) a framework that esentially excludes the US (they never signed) or gives huge incentives for growing economies to continue unabatted (India, China, Russia) making the collective situation worse.
China and India are more than happy to play up western guilt while they continue to absorb manufacturing and grow their economies. In China's case particularly, they're entirely resistant to 3rd party monitoring and aren't even honest with their own reporting -- something an open, democractic western nation can't avoid.
Canada belled the cat on this one. Kyoto is 20 years dead, never achieved its objectives, and never will. Best to knife the baby, move on, and look at other mechanisms globally to incentivize behaviour. Maybe redirect a tobin tax towards investing in alternative fuels and energies? Maybe a revenue neutral carbon tariff system (although who would police it, is almost as pragmatic).
Canada didn't exit Kyoto because its a CO2 denier, or resistant to change. It exited the treaty because its 20 years broken, is structured in a way that works directly against canada's interests economically, and ultimately would have zero effect upon the worldwide problem even if canada met all its objectives and committments.
Having the moral high ground in international relations is somewhat equivalent to have the best water gun on the western front circa 1916.
You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.