***OFFICIAL*** Canadians: Federal Election Thread

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
I don't feel its partisanship
I don't want her there, I'm more interested in the people who will actually govern this country than a fringe party who I'm guessing won't get a seat this time either.

The Greens have contributed nothing and will continue to contribute nothing, they can't even push a private members bill cause I'm guessing the crossover won't survive the election either, debate time is limited
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
Calling all MOD, calling all MOD,

Would it be possible to sticky this thread until the election?

Thank you.
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Green Party likely to be in national televised debate.

Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke said the Tories are dropping their opposition to Ms. May participating in the debate, saying they don't want to be the odd man out on the matter.

?It appears the NDP has changed their position. Our position has been to support the NDP on this point of principle. We are not going to be the only ones to boycott the debate,? Mr. Teneycke said.


HAHAHAHAHA LOL. A Conservative saying "Our position has been to support the NDP..." LOL. Sorry while I repair my exploded bullshit-o-meter.

 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
The campaigns are definitely picking up speed now. I'm getting 2-3 emails each day now from the Liberal Party. Here's the latest I received.

Dear Denis,

The difficulty with ideology is that it boxes in your thinking. Taken to its extreme, it replaces reason and understanding.

The challenges we face as a country are too complex to be answered with simple rhetoric.

Instead of ?tough on crime? policies, we need action that combines tougher sentencing and more police on the streets with jobs and recreation programs that offer hope and opportunity to youth.

Instead of telling people not to invest in Ontario, we need a government that works in partnership with Ontario workers and businesses to develop the green vehicles consumers want.

Instead of cutting funding to arts and culture, we need a government that promotes Canadian artists and cultural institutions at home and abroad.

Instead of ignoring or denying clear scientific evidence, we need a government that acts now on climate change.

Instead of cutting back on food inspectors, we need a government that keeps our food safe.

It?s time to free ourselves from the ideological trap that Stephen Harper has forced onto our politics. Please help Stéphane Dion put reason back into our government?s agenda.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,226
5,802
126
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
The campaigns are definitely picking up speed now. I'm getting 2-3 emails each day now from the Liberal Party. Here's the latest I received.

Dear Denis,

The difficulty with ideology is that it boxes in your thinking. Taken to its extreme, it replaces reason and understanding.

The challenges we face as a country are too complex to be answered with simple rhetoric.

Instead of ?tough on crime? policies, we need action that combines tougher sentencing and more police on the streets with jobs and recreation programs that offer hope and opportunity to youth.

Instead of telling people not to invest in Ontario, we need a government that works in partnership with Ontario workers and businesses to develop the green vehicles consumers want.

Instead of cutting funding to arts and culture, we need a government that promotes Canadian artists and cultural institutions at home and abroad.

Instead of ignoring or denying clear scientific evidence, we need a government that acts now on climate change.

Instead of cutting back on food inspectors, we need a government that keeps our food safe.

It?s time to free ourselves from the ideological trap that Stephen Harper has forced onto our politics. Please help Stéphane Dion put reason back into our government?s agenda.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff

A lot of good points. Too bad Ignatief wasn't the Leader.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
If Ignatief were the leader of the Liberals I would consider voting for them, but, I actually thought out my vote today.

Seeing as the Liberals sent our troops to Afghanistan, and the Conservatives decided to keep them there, I'm voting for the NDP as they are the only party that has been anti-war from the start.

The root of 9/11 is the US foreign policy, and the response to the incident has been nuts. If anything, it should have been a covert operation to bring down Bin Laden from day one, and there really is no excuse whatsoever for his escape.

The Green party interests me, but they haven't explained their fiscal policy and I don't trust them to prevent economic collapse.
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
If the liberals form government, then Iggy will be a part of it, a senior cabinet minister. There is more to the liberals than just a single man at top.

The NDP voted in support of the Conservatives against a motion that would have set 2009 as the end date for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That opened the door for it to be extended to 2011. Their hands aren't clean.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: libs0n
If the liberals form government, then Iggy will be a part of it, a senior cabinet minister. There is more to the liberals than just a single man at top.

The NDP voted in support of the Conservatives against a motion that would have set 2009 as the end date for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That opened the door for it to be extended to 2011. Their hands aren't clean.
Maybe I'll vote Green then.

I'm really pissed at the Conservatives about Bill C-51. They passed it just before they dissolved the government. It gives more power to pharmaceutical companies and somehow "regulates" homeopathic medicine.

I'm also upset at what's happened to OSAP and university bursaries. I can't even get OSAP or bursaries and I'm studying at the graduate level. It's stupid. I blame the conservatives for it.

The Liberals have a really messed up plan WRT the carbon tax on gasoline. It's backward-thinking. People driving cars shouldn't be funding public transit. People who live in cities and in areas that commute into cities should pay for the transit system (and heck, why can't transit systems fund themselves?).

People are already going broke with the price of gas. Adding on a tax isn't going to help.

TBH none of the parties truly interests me. Maybe I just won't bother voting. I'm still leaning toward the NDP. Their hands may not be clean but they're not as dirty as the Liberals or the Conservatives when it comes to the war issue.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
If you don't know which party to vote for then look at the candidates for your local riding

Ignor federal politics and try to vote for a good representative in your area
 

libs0n

Member
May 16, 2005
197
0
76
Originally posted by: SickBeast

The Liberals have a really messed up plan WRT the carbon tax on gasoline. It's backward-thinking. People driving cars shouldn't be funding public transit. People who live in cities and in areas that commute into cities should pay for the transit system (and heck, why can't transit systems fund themselves?).

People are already going broke with the price of gas. Adding on a tax isn't going to help.

The green shift policy excludes gasoline; there is no carbon tax on it. I personally favour a more strict policy that would encompass gasoline. Even if it did, the green shift wouldn't tax gas to spend on public transit. The increased price of gasoline would comparatively make using public transit a more cost effective choice in places where it is available, but there would be no direct spending on public transit due to it.

The green shift isn't a tax alone. It's a tax swap. Increased taxes collected on carbon emissions are offset by reductions in personal income taxes. If the green shift did indeed cover it, gasoline would cost more, but Canadians would be taking home more pay and thus could so choose to spend in that manner. But again, no carbon tax on gasoline.
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: libs0n
Originally posted by: SickBeast

The Liberals have a really messed up plan WRT the carbon tax on gasoline. It's backward-thinking. People driving cars shouldn't be funding public transit. People who live in cities and in areas that commute into cities should pay for the transit system (and heck, why can't transit systems fund themselves?).

People are already going broke with the price of gas. Adding on a tax isn't going to help.

The green shift policy excludes gasoline; there is no carbon tax on it. I personally favour a more strict policy that would encompass gasoline. Even if it did, the green shift wouldn't tax gas to spend on public transit. The increased price of gasoline would comparatively make using public transit a more cost effective choice in places where it is available, but there would be no direct spending on public transit due to it.

The green shift isn't a tax alone. It's a tax swap. Increased taxes collected on carbon emissions are offset by reductions in personal income taxes. If the green shift did indeed cover it, gasoline would cost more, but Canadians would be taking home more pay and thus could so choose to spend in that manner. But again, no carbon tax on gasoline.
If they cut income taxes, that makes them more conservative than the conservatives, and it will affect funding of programs like healthcare and education.

Their plan just doesn't jive with me. I personally believe that things like awareness, proper planning, and smart environmental regulations are the best way to a cleaner country.

I'm voting NDP. 4 years of the Conservatives will turn us into America Junior. With the Liberals, their plan looks to be more radical than the Conservatives. Stephane Dion has ruined the party, and it was broken to begin with when he inherited it.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: libs0n
If the liberals form government, then Iggy will be a part of it, a senior cabinet minister. There is more to the liberals than just a single man at top.

The NDP voted in support of the Conservatives against a motion that would have set 2009 as the end date for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That opened the door for it to be extended to 2011. Their hands aren't clean.
Maybe I'll vote Green then.

I'm really pissed at the Conservatives about Bill C-51. They passed it just before they dissolved the government. It gives more power to pharmaceutical companies and somehow "regulates" homeopathic medicine.

I'm also upset at what's happened to OSAP and university bursaries. I can't even get OSAP or bursaries and I'm studying at the graduate level. It's stupid. I blame the conservatives for it.

The Liberals have a really messed up plan WRT the carbon tax on gasoline. It's backward-thinking. People driving cars shouldn't be funding public transit. People who live in cities and in areas that commute into cities should pay for the transit system (and heck, why can't transit systems fund themselves?).

People are already going broke with the price of gas. Adding on a tax isn't going to help.

TBH none of the parties truly interests me. Maybe I just won't bother voting. I'm still leaning toward the NDP. Their hands may not be clean but they're not as dirty as the Liberals or the Conservatives when it comes to the war issue.

I'm pretty sure the federal conservatives have little influence over OSAP... the O stands for 'Ontario'.

You've been letting Harper tell you what the Liberal carbon tax is about, rather than looking at the plan on its own merits - gas is excluded, but otherwise the plan cuts income taxes and replaces them with consumption taxes that provide automatic incentives to citizens and businesses alike to reduce carbon emissions.

People choose to 'go broke' due to the price of gas. They can reduce their consumption if they decide it is 'worth it', and they will.

By your logic here, people who take trains shouldn't pay for roads, and people without kids shouldn't pay for schools. This is perhaps a valid position to hold, but it's way out of the mainstream for Canada, and you'll be a long time finding a candidate, let alone a party that wants to take up your cause;)
 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
11
81
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
The campaigns are definitely picking up speed now. I'm getting 2-3 emails each day now from the Liberal Party. Here's the latest I received.

Dear Denis,

The difficulty with ideology is that it boxes in your thinking. Taken to its extreme, it replaces reason and understanding.

The challenges we face as a country are too complex to be answered with simple rhetoric.

Instead of ?tough on crime? policies, we need action that combines tougher sentencing and more police on the streets with jobs and recreation programs that offer hope and opportunity to youth.

Instead of telling people not to invest in Ontario, we need a government that works in partnership with Ontario workers and businesses to develop the green vehicles consumers want.

Instead of cutting funding to arts and culture, we need a government that promotes Canadian artists and cultural institutions at home and abroad.

Instead of ignoring or denying clear scientific evidence, we need a government that acts now on climate change.

Instead of cutting back on food inspectors, we need a government that keeps our food safe.

It?s time to free ourselves from the ideological trap that Stephen Harper has forced onto our politics. Please help Stéphane Dion put reason back into our government?s agenda.

Sincerely,

Michael Ignatieff

Dear Michael,

I like your points. I'm voting Conservative this time so Dion is outed as leader and you can get some shit done next time around.

dennilfloss



Please tell me you wrote that back :)
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: SickBeast
Originally posted by: libs0n
If the liberals form government, then Iggy will be a part of it, a senior cabinet minister. There is more to the liberals than just a single man at top.

The NDP voted in support of the Conservatives against a motion that would have set 2009 as the end date for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. That opened the door for it to be extended to 2011. Their hands aren't clean.
Maybe I'll vote Green then.

I'm really pissed at the Conservatives about Bill C-51. They passed it just before they dissolved the government. It gives more power to pharmaceutical companies and somehow "regulates" homeopathic medicine.

I'm also upset at what's happened to OSAP and university bursaries. I can't even get OSAP or bursaries and I'm studying at the graduate level. It's stupid. I blame the conservatives for it.

The Liberals have a really messed up plan WRT the carbon tax on gasoline. It's backward-thinking. People driving cars shouldn't be funding public transit. People who live in cities and in areas that commute into cities should pay for the transit system (and heck, why can't transit systems fund themselves?).

People are already going broke with the price of gas. Adding on a tax isn't going to help.

TBH none of the parties truly interests me. Maybe I just won't bother voting. I'm still leaning toward the NDP. Their hands may not be clean but they're not as dirty as the Liberals or the Conservatives when it comes to the war issue.

I'm pretty sure the federal conservatives have little influence over OSAP... the O stands for 'Ontario'.

You've been letting Harper tell you what the Liberal carbon tax is about, rather than looking at the plan on its own merits - gas is excluded, but otherwise the plan cuts income taxes and replaces them with consumption taxes that provide automatic incentives to citizens and businesses alike to reduce carbon emissions.

People choose to 'go broke' due to the price of gas. They can reduce their consumption if they decide it is 'worth it', and they will.

By your logic here, people who take trains shouldn't pay for roads, and people without kids shouldn't pay for schools. This is perhaps a valid position to hold, but it's way out of the mainstream for Canada, and you'll be a long time finding a candidate, let alone a party that wants to take up your cause;)
The way transit is funded here in Toronto is broken.

As an example, there were subway tunnels dug out underneath Eglinton Avenue to link the Yonge line with the Spadina line, and they were filled in because the government changed and the new party didn't want to spend the money to complete the project. The problem goes beyond where the money comes from.

Again, taxing carbon is not addressing the root of the problem, and is only giving corrupt government more control.

We have technology right now to allow people to live in houses that are off the grid, and to drive electric cars that do not emit. In the case of cars, we have had that technology for a century or so.

The other thing that pisses me off is how our roads are finished with asphalt. Why not concrete? Our throw-away culture is stupid, along with the lack of vision within our government.

I'm going to do some reading on the Green party. I still think that the NDP is the way to go right now.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Sickbeast: We are electing a federal government...most of the issues you are bringing up are not federal jurisdiction.
Not respecting constitutional jurisdiction is the reason for Quebec separatist roots. If Canadians continue to elect governments like the liberals who do not respect the constitution we get reckless inefficient spending that hurts the economy, national unity and federal/provincial relations.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: SickBeast
The way transit is funded here in Toronto is broken.

As an example, there were subway tunnels dug out underneath Eglinton Avenue to link the Yonge line with the Spadina line, and they were filled in because the government changed and the new party didn't want to spend the money to complete the project. The problem goes beyond where the money comes from.

Again, taxing carbon is not addressing the root of the problem, and is only giving corrupt government more control.

We have technology right now to allow people to live in houses that are off the grid, and to drive electric cars that do not emit. In the case of cars, we have had that technology for a century or so.

The other thing that pisses me off is how our roads are finished with asphalt. Why not concrete? Our throw-away culture is stupid, along with the lack of vision within our government.

I'm going to do some reading on the Green party. I still think that the NDP is the way to go right now.

Transit in TO is still, as far as I know, the closest to 'rider-funded' there is in the developed world.

Taxing carbon actually is addressing the root of the problem, in the sense that it provides automatic incentives to reduce consumption of non-renewable energy: reduce your usage, you pay less tax. It's much more direct than the current mixed bag of subsidies, taxes, and lassaiz-faire ignorance.

You can disagree with the policy in general, or the specific implementation suggested by Dion (I'm not necessarily sold on it), but it trades indiscriminate income for an incentive system that becomes part of the landscape. It's hardly out to lunch in this sense.

Concrete roads cost a lot more, are expensive and difficult to repair, and have worse performance in cold/icy conditions than asphalt (ice more quickly, melt more slowly).

And for once :)P) Stunt is right - a lot of your complaints aren't really 'federal'.
 

dennilfloss

Past Lifer 1957-2014 In Memoriam
Oct 21, 1999
30,509
12
0
dennilfloss.blogspot.com
Here's a list of the promises made so far.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti...e=election2008&no_ads=

Conservatives

A two-cent-per-litre tax cut on diesel and aviation fuel over four years; projected to cost $600 million a year, fully implemented. Reinstate benefits for Second World War veterans who have lived in Canada for more than 10 years; $9 million a year.
Put the recognition of foreign skills credentials for immigrants on the agenda of the next first ministers' conference.
A near-complete withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan in 2011.
Ease foreign ownership restrictions on Canadian firms by: more than tripling the threshold for foreign investment reviews to $1 billion; increasing the allowed level of foreign investment in airlines to 49 per cent from the current 25; allowing foreign companies to own Canadian uranium mines.

Greens

Tackle poverty with a Guaranteed Livable Income supplement; make locally grown organic produce more readily available to food banks. No costs provided. A national student loan program that would forgive half the loan for those who get a degree or certificate. No costs provided.
More money for post-secondary institutions and research grants for institutions that focus on renewable energy and conservation. No costs provided.
Gradually shift consumption taxes on to products and services such as fossil fuels and toxic chemicals that harm people and the environment; reduce taxes on income, products and economic activities that do no harm. No cost provided.
Cut the corporate tax by $50 for each tonne of carbon-emission reductions, to create a $100-a-tonne saving when combined with avoided carbon tax. No cost provided.
Work to keep small communities viable by ensuring innovation and green business-development opportunities.
Reduce the paperwork burden on small business by eliminating duplicate tax filings and red tape. It would offer incentives to make industrial buildings more energy efficient.
Require manufactured goods, including vehicles, to be designed for easy re-use and-or recycling and to contain 90-per-cent recycled materials by 2025.
Require all appliance and equipment retailers to accept and recycle or repair goods they have sold, and help industry establish a national deposit and recycling system.

Liberals

A ban on semi-automatic assault rifles outside of the military.
A "Green Shift" carbon tax on fossil fuels to cut emissions, offset by income and business tax cuts, green-energy and conservation investments. Add $350 to the $1,200-a-year child-care allowance. Low-income families would also receive another payment of up to $1,225 a year. Costs paid for with carbon tax.
Restore the Court Challenges Program to help defray the cost of Charter challenges, doubling budget to $6 million a year.
$50 million to upgrade Canada's food safety system.
$600 million in energy retrofit tax breaks: up to $10,000 in tax breaks for home retrofits and another $10,000 in interest-free "green mortgages" to help homeowners fund the projects.
Beef up Canadian building code standards for energy efficiency; set tough new standards for home appliances.

NDP

A moratorium on expanding Alberta's tarsands and requiring oil companies to reclaim land strip mined for petroleum production. $8.2 billion over four years to create, protect and foster growth of "green-collar" jobs and manufacturing.
A "cap-and-trade" system to create incentives for big business to reduce their emissions.
Slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
A price-monitoring agency to investigate fuel price spikes and consult with provinces about regulations.
Capping credit-card interest rates at five per cent over prime.
Outlawing automated banking machine fees, which the party claims would save consumers at least $104 per year.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Here's a list of the promises made so far.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti...e=election2008&no_ads=

Conservatives: Buying your vote with your own money since 2006.

Greens: Who cares, token protest vote party until the Liberals get back in line. :p

Liberals: What's with the idiotic rifle ban and restoration of the Court Challenges Program? Why do we taxpayers want to pay $6 million a year to fund people launching lawsuits against our own government? :confused:

NDP: Playing divide and conquer by pitting urbanites against all other comers since the dawn of the party. And hey guys, while we're at it, let's pretend our economy isn't almost completely based upon being an energy exporter. Die oil companies die!
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Another Conservative promise was to pay down the debt and the interest saved in the following year would go towards income tax cuts.

yllus: Every promise made by a politician is buying your vote with your own money. This is not something inherent in one party. Look at sickbeast, he wants better roads/transit and student loans so he is voting NDP; that is buying votes with our money.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Another Conservative promise was to pay down the debt and the interest saved in the following year would go towards income tax cuts.

yllus: Every promise made by a politician is buying your vote with your own money. This is not something inherent in one party. Look at sickbeast, he wants better roads/transit and student loans so he is voting NDP; that is buying votes with our money.

BTW, I've got a little proposition for you - if at any point in this campaign, Harper stops trying to equate the 'carbon tax' with increased gas taxes, I'll vote for him.

Since I doubt this will happen, who should I vote for?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Originally posted by: Stunt
Another Conservative promise was to pay down the debt and the interest saved in the following year would go towards income tax cuts.

yllus: Every promise made by a politician is buying your vote with your own money. This is not something inherent in one party. Look at sickbeast, he wants better roads/transit and student loans so he is voting NDP; that is buying votes with our money.

BTW, I've got a little proposition for you - if at any point in this campaign, Harper stops trying to equate the 'carbon tax' with increased gas taxes, I'll vote for him.

Since I doubt this will happen, who should I vote for?
The carbon tax will increase gas prices...natural gas...you just assume conservatives are referring to gasoline ;)

Jokes aside the Liberals and NDP over the years have made countless lies about Harper's policies and agenda; those party's are no better for confusing the average voter. I think you should vote for who will make Canada better in the next 4 years. In all honesty you can never be happy with absolutely everything a government implements but I think Harper has shown the Canadian people he can be trusted with running the country for the next while.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Technically the carbon tax will increase the cost of diesel fuel...some people consider that gas...
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Technically the carbon tax will increase the cost of diesel fuel...some people consider that gas...

They've been pretty explicit about relating the tax to gasoline prices; the one product it won't really affect at all.

Honestly, I think there's an opportunity right now to take some meaningful action, and electing a Conservative government, or any minority means it will take a sea change in thinking, after the election to accomplish anything in the next four years.

I think the old Reform party has been forced to incorporate enough moderate members and policies over the last 5 years that they aren't going to really rock the boat now, and I like that they have rejected in some measure East-Coast regionalism and greed over oil revenues. If they would just take a harder look at the disaster we're creating in the oil sands, and be a little more serious about truly future-oriented energy policies, they might accomplish something.

With the state of the economy, I don't think we'll see any retarded Bush-style tax cuts, because I think Harper is smart enough not to take the country deeply into deficit. In all honesty though, a small deficit in the next year or two won't surprise or bother me, especially if our little mini-recession deepens.

That being said, my preference would be for Canada to send another minority government to Parliament, and keep doing so until the babies in Ottawa learn to work together constructively.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
While a minority in theory sounds nice, the nature of the opposition parties doesn't lend itself to constructive government. The bloc only cares about Quebec's interests and tend to vote against everything, the liberals are so power hungry they just want to be the government and have no interest in participating in legislation, the ndp is so out of touch with reality and what people want/expect from their government.

If there were a bunch more parties in Canada it would work better as there would be coalitions for certain issues/legislation and nobody would ever form government. Honestly the liberals and conservatives are the most similar of all the parties but they seem to be each other's opposition so they almost have to oppose all legislation to serve as a critiquing body.
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
While a minority in theory sounds nice, the nature of the opposition parties doesn't lend itself to constructive government. The bloc only cares about Quebec's interests and tend to vote against everything, the liberals are so power hungry they just want to be the government and have no interest in participating in legislation, the ndp is so out of touch with reality and what people want/expect from their government.

If there were a bunch more parties in Canada it would work better as there would be coalitions for certain issues/legislation and nobody would ever form government. Honestly the liberals and conservatives are the most similar of all the parties but they seem to be each other's opposition so they almost have to oppose all legislation to serve as a critiquing body.

Legislation was passed. Things were accomplished. Important decisions were made in a reasonable time-frame.

I've never been a believer in getting things done just so you could get them done - if Canadians don't have a clear preference for the direction they want the country to go, why would it be advantageous to give one group the power to make big changes?