# The Race is on! Canadians go to the polls October 14. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2008, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481 "2008-09-07T13:58:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/81 "2008-09-08T16:22:51Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not Canadian but have been very interested to read this thread and learn more about Canadian politics. Why no love for Stephane Dion, the Liberal leader, among our Canadopers? He has no charisma and the best word that describes the Liberals under Dion is “timid”. The Conservatives have made all of their important legislation matters of confidence, which means that should the legislation be defeated the government falls and an election would almost certainly result(the other alternative would be other parties in the House forming a coalition government, but there’s too much bad blood between the parties to make that likely). The Liberals have been abstaining from these votes, which allowed the legislation to pass. This has made the Liberals look quite ineffectual(and that’s not an unfair criticism). ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/82 "2008-09-08T16:24:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Not everyone who doubts the Liberal Party is a “fuck you I’ve got mine conservative,” as you so politely phrase it. That was me. I want a straight up fuel tax directly at the point of consumption, which would not result in any more bureaucracy and is economically efficient, certainly much more so than income taxes, which everyone is apparently as happy as pigs in mud about. People can’t seem to understand this because they don’t understand economics and they can’t see past their next paycheck. Talk to them and you think Dion and the Carbon Tax enforcers are already dragging their children off to the camps. As to the government not keeping it’s word about it being revenue neutral and generally being bastards about it, well, how is voting Liberal or Conservative going to change that? I’ve lived in countries with poorly run and corrupt governments. On the global scale Canada is doing OK. Even if the carbon/fuel tax is inefficient, at least it’s a step in the right direction. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/83 "2008-09-08T16:27:54Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > It’s been said that if a British monach is presented with her own death warrant, duly passed by Parliament, she must sign it. If the Queen stood in the way of something her government wanted, she would soon find herself out of a job. Parliament did it to Charles I and James II, after all, and it could do it again. But this Queen, and indeed I think her entire family, would never let it come to that. Personally, I’d be okay with Canada’s connection to the monarchy being severed upon the death of Elizabeth II. I’d like it sooner, but this seems to me the best chance for a clean break. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/84 "2008-09-08T16:29:01Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > Further to this, the most economically efficient method of taxing this is right at the source - tax fuel. Ideally, I’d like to see the final cost to the consumer of fuel increase by 50% or more - $2/l gas at the minimum. Which impacts rural and low income Canadians - so I 'd assume you’d turn around and provide tax breaks to them with associated subsidy programs to buy new cars or such. Of course then the tax increase hits higher income/urban voters. But you see now you have to pay for the organization to deal with the new tax system since you haven’t eliminated the earlier income/corporate tax structure. You’ve simply reduced it. Ah you say, well then I’ll just move people over into it. Nope. You see now you need managers, associated HR departments, process primes etc. etc… Congratulations. We’ve now introduced a new tax, reduced current taxes but built in a new organization + introduced subsidies to offset the impact on lower incomes. Validating actual reduction in carbon still hasn’t been built in since you’ll want to see how much you need to increase the carbon tax for associated reductions. Revenue neutral might be a stretch. ETD - I see now you’d just prefer the gas tax increased. Again you’d need to offset costs to low income families. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/85 "2008-09-08T16:39:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Which impacts rural and low income Canadians - so I 'd assume you’d turn around and provide tax breaks to them with associated subsidy programs to buy new cars or such. Nah. Rural and low income Canadians get enough shit already. I’d say fuck 'em and let the free market sort them out. This is my position only, it may not be the position of the Green Party of Canada, but you know - politics, compromises, all that. I’m OK with it. > [@](#): > > Of course then the tax increase hits higher income/urban voters. But you see now you have to pay for the organization to deal with the new tax system since you haven’t eliminated the earlier income/corporate tax structure. You’ve simply reduced it. With a carbon tax, yes, with a straight up gas tax? Just collect it like you do the GST. I am amenable to both. Yes this is going to cost money to implement. People don’t work for free, not even for the government. I’m OK with this also. Again, Canadians are apparently OK with the current income tax system, which operates on the principle of punishing people for making too much money and working too hard, so why is a tax that gives an incentive for GOOD behavior such a stretch? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/86 "2008-09-08T16:40:28Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > What unending string of broken and dysfunctional Parliaments? It sure hasn’t been happening in Canada. > > After the PC implosion in 1993 we had three consecutive majority Liberal governments. Then there was a brief Liberal minority, then the current Conservative minority. > > You could certainly say the Martin minority was dysfunctional, but the Chretien majorities were perfectly functional governments, and the Conservative minority under Harper has worked just fine and the only reason he’s calling an election is because it’s a good time for his party to do so. I don’t mean dysfunctional in the sense of not having a working government. On the whole I would say we’ve had above average governance since '93, what with the budget balancing and general prosperity and all. But there’s been significant dysfunction nonetheless, albeit in a more shall we say structural way. From '93 until the formation of the new Conservative Party, there was only one party that was significant nationally, meaning there was only one party with the potential to form a government. As it turned out we got as I said above average governance from this party for most of that period, Adscam notwithstanding, but having only one possible governing party due to a regionally fractured opposition is not a healthy state for a democracy to be in. Since the Tories managed to mostly re-unite themselves that problem has been solved, but we’ve had minority governments due to the fact that a party which would like to see the dissolution of Canada holds the balance of power. This isn’t a particularly healthy state either, and it’s entirely likely to continue unless the Tories do better than expected in Quebec in this election. While these minorities might function reasonable well, I think the state of affairs isn’t healthy. Much as I am in agreement with the various criticisms of Harper that have been made in this thread and the other (particularly re lack of transparency and concentration of power in the PMO - disagreeing with specific policies is one thing, but these issues go beyond that), I would almost like to see a Tory majority. It would of necessity include a significant chunk of representation from Quebec, and would give 4 years for the Liberals to get their house in order without the constant possibility of a snap election. With any luck the Bloc would be sufficiently marginalized by 2012 that they’d be mostly irrelevant in federal politics. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/87 "2008-09-08T16:55:14Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Many people are driving less, or arranging trips to do multiple tasks. I have done some better insulating and weatherproofing in my house in the past 3 years, and have seen my oil use go down 20%. I have put in compact Fluourscent lights, and have made an effort to turn electric appliances off when not in use, and have seen a 30% decrease in my electricity use. It was the increase in cost of energy that encouraged me to do this. > > A tax, together with a good education program, could reduce Canada’s energy use significantly. I live in a rural part of the city of Ottawa. I chose to do so, of course. I am not served by any form of public transportation. I drive because I have to. I am certainly paying lower property taxes to live where I do, perhaps 20% to 30% less than city dwellers. But city dwellers have the convenience of public transportation and can actually walk to stores if required; I can’t. Also I am not served by city water, nor do I have natural gas as a heating option. Please don’t punish me further with a tax that will do absolutely nothing but gather more money for the government to piss away on needless bureaucracy. I like being independent and don’t think the government should do much more than provide core services, health care, security, etc. Hey, I do what I can to conserve energy, including installing a wood stove a few years back. I don’t need EXTRA taxation to convince me. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/88 "2008-09-08T17:22:30Z")
See, this is where we start trotting out all the irrelevant bullshit about how we’re all outdoorsy people and that’s why we need to live in places that are only accessible via farm machinery and all that other tripe. This is a very simple economic proposition - People treat the air like no one owns it because no one owns it. The government needs to start owning it on our behalf. You burn fuel and dump carbon into the air? Pay for it. I drive a turbocharged sports car that is both unpractical and inefficient. So what? I’m happy to pay for the fuel I burn because it’s only fair that I pay back to society the societal cost of the common good that I am consuming - unpolluted air. Why I make the choices I do is none of the government’s business, just as why **Leaffan** chooses his inefficient way of life should also be none of the government’s business. As long as we all pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/89 "2008-09-08T17:28:54Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > Hey, I do what I can to conserve energy, including installing a wood stove a few years back. I don’t need EXTRA taxation to convince me. But you know what? National policies are not just about YOU. Just because a policy that is designed to change people’s behaviour around energy use will not change your habits, that does not mean that it is a useless policy. I know that you’re simply rationally looking out for yourself first, but you need to recognize when a policy is good for the country as a whole. I f you’re unwilling/unable to move to be closer to work, or unwilling/unable to change to a more efficient means of transportation, and unwilling/unable to heat your house more efficiently… That’s bad for you. However, the overall bigger picture may be much better for the country. A (very poor, I know) analogy is the person who does not want to pay school taxes because they have no children. Yes, they do not derive a direct, personal benefit from school taxes, but it is for the good of the community/country, and therefore indirectly good for them. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/90 "2008-09-08T17:58:00Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > See, this is where we start trotting out all the irrelevant bullshit about how we’re all outdoorsy people and that’s why we need to live in places that are only accessible via farm machinery and all that other tripe. > > This is a very simple economic proposition - People treat the air like no one owns it because no one owns it. The government needs to start owning it on our behalf. You burn fuel and dump carbon into the air? Pay for it. > > I drive a turbocharged sports car that is both unpractical and inefficient. So what? I’m happy to pay for the fuel I burn because it’s only fair that I pay back to society the societal cost of the common good that I am consuming - unpolluted air. Why I make the choices I do is none of the government’s business, just as why **Leaffan** chooses his inefficient way of life should also be none of the government’s business. As long as we all pay for it. What’s inefficient about my lifestyle? I don’t consume treated city water. I don’t flush my waste into the communal sewers. I don’t need air conditioning because I’m in a bungalow where I can open my windows and let in fresh air, and there’s no traffic noise at night with the windows open. I burn wood and use electricity as heat. I need to think about what to stop at the store for on my way home, so I don’t need to go out later to pick it up. Apart from having no public transportation option, I think I’m doing pretty damned good. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/91 "2008-09-08T18:23:14Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > But you know what? National policies are not just about YOU. Just because a policy that is designed to change people’s behaviour around energy use will not change your habits, that does not mean that it is a useless policy. > > I know that you’re simply rationally looking out for yourself first, but you need to recognize when a policy is good for the country as a whole. I > > f you’re unwilling/unable to move to be closer to work, or unwilling/unable to change to a more efficient means of transportation, and unwilling/unable to heat your house more efficiently… That’s bad for you. However, the overall bigger picture may be much better for the country. > > A (very poor, I know) analogy is the person who does not want to pay school taxes because they have no children. Yes, they do not derive a direct, personal benefit from school taxes, but it is for the good of the community/country, and therefore indirectly good for them. So the government should step in and raise my taxes because I don’t have access to public transportation? I do in fact heat my home very efficiently. My electricity bill has decreased by 30% since I put in a wood stove. On my own. With no government incentive to do so. So, you think the only way to effect change is through taxation? See how well that worked for tobacco and alcohol? ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/92 "2008-09-08T18:44:00Z")
> [@](#): > > What’s inefficient about my lifestyle? It has nothing to do with efficiency. You can and should have the right to be as inefficient as you want. What I am clamoring for is a more appropriate PRICING of the societal cost of fossil fuel consumption. The rest of your issues are mostly issues that the free market can sort out. If public transportation is such a big deal for you, then maybe you will choose to live somewhere WITH public transportation instead. Or maybe you won’t and will just choose to continue to pay the cost of private car ownership. Or maybe do something in between. It doesn’t matter to me or the government. For example: > [@](#): > > I do in fact heat my home very efficiently. My electricity bill has decreased by 30% since I put in a wood stove. Behold! The free market at work! > [@](#): > > So, you think the only way to effect change is through taxation? See how well that worked for tobacco and alcohol? It works for me. If smoking were cheaper I’d start. If booze were cheaper I’d drink everyday. In any case, even if taxation doesn’t stop anyone from smoking/drinking, it is still a net positive - it more fairly allocates the tax burden so that people who choose destructive behavior pay more back to society. Surely you’re not arguing that we should STOP taxing booze and smokes? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/93 "2008-09-08T18:53:09Z")
Yes. So why shouldn’t the free market come into play for these so-called nasty fossil fuels? If people are already cutting back due to economic reasons, why should we be taxed even more? As supplies diminish, and prices increase, shouldn’t that naturally mean less consumption overall? Look what is happening in the auto industry with zero government intervention? Plant closures. Job losses. Increased hybrid sales. Focus on electric and hydrogen cars. All this without extra taxation. Amazing. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/94 "2008-09-08T19:06:20Z")
> [@](#): > > So why shouldn’t the free market come into play for these so-called nasty fossil fuels? 1. Because. no. one. owns. the. environment. Are you familiar with the idea of “The Tragedy of the Commons”? 2. Another residual positive is that economies that are already energy efficient will experience far less discomfort once the finite fossil fuels do run out. Look south if you want an example. Canada ia already at a slight advantage, because prior to the current commodities run up, fuel was taxed at a much higher rate in Canada than the US. the result is that the price rises in Canada have been fairly moderate in percentage terms compared to the US. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/95 "2008-09-08T19:10:01Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > 1. Because. no. one. owns. the. environment. Are you familiar with the idea of “The Tragedy of the Commons”? > > 2. Another residual positive is that economies that are already energy efficient will experience far less discomfort once the finite fossil fuels do run out. Look south if you want an example. The problem of course is that to implement a broad carbon tax you need a majority (and body armour for your MPs). I see no way that a party could campaign on such a thing nor a minority government budget one. ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/96 "2008-09-08T19:16:25Z")
The unfortunate thing is that a carbon tax is neither a liberal or a conservative thing - A conservative can say “well, then the amount of carbon tax collected should be allow us to reduce the income tax rates, so people are punished for burning fossil fuels and polluting instead of working hard and creating value” or “RRAARR BIGGER ARMY NOW!” and be perfectly consistent as a conservative, a liberal can just as easily say it should go towards health care or education or homeless cats. - It doesn’t matter if we use the tax money for a string of solid gold Mulrooney statues from coast to coast. The economics of the tax itself are really not a matter of dispute. To oppose it, you’d either have to be an oil company executive, or just not very good with economics. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/97 "2008-09-08T19:50:21Z")
> [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](#): > > … To oppose it, you’d either have to be an oil company executive, or just not very good with economics. Why would the oil companies care? One way or another the increased cost of doing business will just get passed along to the consumer. Manufacturers in Canada are already near the breaking point. John Deere GM Ford Stanley Hershey Are just a handful of companies who have shut down plants in Ontario recently. Further taxation will mean more economic gloom and doom. It’s not JUST me I’m thinking of here. Job losses can devastate whole communities. I’m not being selfish at all when I state that any more increased taxation is the wrong thing to do at this time. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/98 "2008-09-08T20:04:14Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I’d be okay with Canada’s connection to the monarchy being severed upon the death of Elizabeth II. I’d like it sooner, but this seems to me the best chance for a clean break. Hmmm. Just how strong is republicanism in Canada nowadays? Any noticeable public support for having no Queen (or King) of Canada? ---
**Author:** ![Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Throatwarbler\_Mangrove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Throatwarbler_Mangrove)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/99 "2008-09-08T20:05:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Why would the oil companies care? Because if this thing works, you buy less oil, which means less money for them. > [@](#): > > Are just a handful of companies who have shut down plants in Ontario recently. Further taxation will mean more economic gloom and doom. It’s not JUST me I’m thinking of here. Job losses can devastate whole communities. I’m not being selfish at all when I state that any more increased taxation is the wrong thing to do at this time. Leaving aside for the moment the absurdity of propping up failing companies, are any of those companies in the business of selling fuel? If not, why would it matter to them? The taxes being collected are not going into a hole in the ground, they have to make their way back into the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2008, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481/100 "2008-09-08T20:10:13Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Hmmm. Just how strong is republicanism in Canada nowadays? Any noticeable public support for having no Queen (or King) of Canada? I’d say it is a non-issue, except maybe in Quebec (where it ties in with the nationalism issue). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-race-is-on-canadians-go-to-the-polls-october-14/462481.md?page=6)