Vote Selector Quiz

Vote Selector Quiz

Your Results:

1.Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (100%)

2.Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (90%)

3.Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois (81%)

4.Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (36%)

Dash sent me his results. I’m not terribly surprised by my results. I really do like Liberal policy. Here are some of the questions.

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to initiate a federal ban on private for-profit provincial health clinics?

No. If the public system worked then the rise of private clinics wouldn’t be an issue.

I think the problem with health care is the provinces and instead of fixing the system they continually ask for more money. Paul Martin pulled money from the transfer payments in the mid nineties to balance the budget. I think the move had a terrible cost but it was necessary. Ever since the provinces have steadfastly refused to fix health care and just asked for more money instead. The money has been put back in to the system but change is still too slow. If a province wanted to experiment with private delivery of health care funded by the public system they should.

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to reduce the Goods and Services Tax?

No. I’d much rather have an income tax cut. It is true that lowering the GST will save the poorest of the poor marginally more money because these people no longer pay tax. The purpose of the tax cut is not the help the poorest of the poor because they don’t pay a lot of tax. We have social programs for such things. It is the middle class that are in most need of a tax cut.

Thirty per cent of fuel costs in Canada stem from federal and provincial taxes and surcharges. Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to immediately reduce or maintain current federal tax levels on gasoline?

I’d raise gas taxes and put the money towards public transit. The only way we are going to meet our Kyoto obligations is to hit people and companies in the wallet to get them to change. We must change.

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to create a national early child care program or deliver a monthly cheque of $100 per child under six to cover costs?

I’m with the Libs on this issue. The big problem is a lack of quality childcare spaces. $100 / month is substantial but it doesn’t help much if you can’t find a place to spend it. The child tax credit already helps families with kids.

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to legislate mandatory minimum sentences for specified crimes?

No. Crime has gone down steadily for the last 13 years. The key to safe streats is addressing poverty, education, mental health, chemical addictions, abuse, marginalization, racism etc… People assume that criminals think rationally enough to consider the consequences of their actions. If you have decided to rob a bank are you really going to think, oooh, I better not because I’m sure to get 5 years in jail instead of 3. If someone has proven a perpetual danger to society they should be locked up longer to keep the community safe.

Do you want your Prime Minister and his or her political party to implement the international Kyoto Accord aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Yes. The Liberal record is dreadful. If the Cons came out with some substance on their plan for climate change I’d be willing to consider them but it will likely be more stuff like tax breaks for transit users. It is this issue that kills the Conservatives for me.

  1. #1 by Marc on January 17, 2006 - 5:19 pm

    The child tax credit does help, but the Liberal proposal is rather unbalanced: “It’s day-care or nothing.” It’s a system that favours two income families–or will force others into that situation. What about those that want one parent to stay home to raise the children?

  2. #2 by Keith on January 17, 2006 - 7:17 pm

    Question: what exactly have the Liberals done for the last 2-3 terms? i don’t want excuses I just want to know what they did, that they said they would. Personally I just feel that they’ve had more than enough time to get the job done in regards to health care, crime, day care, enviornment, border issues, and if you’ve ever watched c-span the parliment looks like a day care gone wild but low and behold they just avert our attention to other issues every time we start to dig up dirt. You have to love how the liberals work…The last debate Martin had nothing to stand firm on b/c nearly every thing they said they’d do could be proven otherwise from the last few terms where they said the same things. They burned their bridges. If the environment is the concern then why vote liberal and not green they need the support. I don’t fully agree with the conservatives either but then it’s been at least three terms since they last were in power and it’s a new team with new goals so I’m willing to see what they have I guarentee that if they screw things up people will not be as gracefull as they have been to the liberals so there’s really a lot more accountability for them to do well, that alone is worth considering.

  3. #3 by Leighton Tebay on January 17, 2006 - 9:41 pm


    What have the Liberals done in the last 4 terms? Took a country on the brink of economic disaster and made it economically viable.

    The lowest unemployment rates in decades.

    Economic growth outpacing the United States.

    Low interest rates

    Balanced the budget

    Paid down billions and billions of debt

    Lower crime rates

    Lowered personal income taxes

    Kept us out of Iraq

    The main reason why we have all that is because we had to drastically reduce spending which made it impossible to address defence, the environment, child care, and health care. The critics of the Liberal record think that somehow Canada was in some kind of position to miraculously erase the deficit and pay for every kind of program under the son. It would have been impossible. The numbers don’t add up.

    Now don’t get me wrong. This post is not an endorsement of the Liberals, just that I agree with their policy. I haven’t decided who to vote for.

  4. #4 by Leighton Tebay on January 17, 2006 - 9:48 pm


    If the problem is a lack of child care spaces then the Liberal proposal isn’t unbalanced at all. It directly addresses the problem.

    If the problem is that parents don’t have enough money to raise their kids then I can see how people would see the Liberal proposal as unbalanced.

    How could a government change the system to specifically support families with a stay at home parent that wouldn’t be abused?

  5. #5 by Jacob on January 18, 2006 - 9:51 am

    Why people think the goverment should get involved in child care is beyond me.

  6. #6 by Joel Schroeder on January 18, 2006 - 10:06 am

    Your Results:

    1.Stephen Harper Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada (100%)

    2.Jack Layton Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada (86%)

    3.Gilles Duceppe Leader of the Bloc Quebecois 34%)

    4.Paul Martin Leader of Liberal Party of Canada, Prime Minister of Canada (26%)

    I don’t know what scares me more, the fact that I NDP for me came in so high, or that the Bloc isn’t the lowest one on my list…

    Now just to throw something out there, the more I think about Politics in Canada (which admittedly isn’t a whole lot) I think that there is a very basic flaw in our whole system, and that is, no matter who you vote for, unless they are an independent, there are going to be times where they have to tow the party line, no matter if they have an overwhelming majority of their constituency letting them know that they feel a different way about an issue than the represntatives party. Now I know that a political landscape with no parties isn’t very good either, but there needs to be an inbetween that can work, because being forced to tow the party line isn’t what I want in any candidate.

  7. #7 by Steven on January 18, 2006 - 12:40 pm

    So you want to give the middle class an income tax break (great idea) but have the government hit them harder when they fill up their car?

    How do you suggest that my middle class family of 4 get by using the bus to get around? My wife and I work on opposite ends of the city, one kid in high school and 1 in elementary. We volunteer at several different organizations, attend a church and the kids are very busy as well. We would go broke using the bus and we simiply could not function as a family.

    The goal is not to have people drive less, but to make the enviro-friendly vehicles more affordable.

  8. #8 by Keith on January 18, 2006 - 6:51 pm

    thanks LT it is true no one could admit the Liberals didn’t fix our countries finaces …and possibly their own…sorry that was low. you missed the heatlth care and the border issues (ie: trade) and I’m currious as to where you got the stats on crime rates. And I’m pretty sure the income taxes came just prior to the election, which seems kinda cheap (though better now than never).

  9. #9 by Leighton Tebay on January 18, 2006 - 11:08 pm


    The Liberals had a significant tax reduction promised and delivered after the 2000 election. In 2004 the Liberals did not promise tax reductions but actually tried to put them through anyway in the summer.

    Here is a quick link on crime in Canada. The report is a little bit old but you’ll find the trend is consistent up to today.

    For health care the government started putting money back in to the system in Chretien’s last term. With the recent health accord signed last summer funding levels have returned to satisfactory levels. The problem with blaming the Federal government for issues in health care is that health care is a provincial responsibility. The federal government enforces the Canada health act, and funds health care but it is the provinces who are responsible for delivering care and collecting taxes for it as well.

    As for trade issues I’d say that the problem is the US government. They simply won’t abide by the rules of NAFTA. Some people say the problem is we’ve been too soft that we need to introduce tariffs on US imports. Others say we’ve been too nasty by opting out of Iraq and missle defence. The truth is no one really knows if either of those things would make a difference. Even if we were in Iraq dying along side the Americans that doesn’t mean the US softwood industry wouldn’t want to make a buck. The same goes for the cattle industry. If we introduced our own tariffs it might escalate in to a trade war killing even more growth and jobs.

  10. #10 by Leighton Tebay on January 18, 2006 - 11:18 pm


    I think that the reality is we are going to see the prices at the pump continue to go up. Within the next 5-10 years the world will reach what is called “peak oil.” That is when world consumption equals maximum oil production. At that point the cost of gas will skyrocket.

    I’d say that if we can curb oil consumption now we can delay that from coming and soften the blow. I don’t think a normal family will be able to do what you describe your family does. It just won’t be affordable. We can start preparing for it now or we wait until it slaps us in the face.

    I agree that more energy conscious vehicles will be part of that plan. By itself that won’t do enough to reduce on oil

    I think there should be much more rebates for things like high efficiency furnaces, low energy appliances, home upgrades etc… The money has to come from somewhere. If we tax the source of energy and provide strong incentive to change they will eventually save more money in the long run. Right now the price of gas is still not high enough to get people to abandon gas guzzling vehicles.

  11. #11 by Marc on January 19, 2006 - 9:34 am

    Aren’t more daycare spaces part of the Conservative platform as well?

  12. #12 by Leighton Tebay on January 19, 2006 - 9:40 am


    Yes, but not as many.

Comments are closed.