What would you do

[Thib]

With the election comming up in Canada, what would you do if you where the one elected Prime Minister of this country?

[Pilot]

haha... this is why I don't do politics..

[condor888000]

Sleep? :cool:

[katielloyd]

Well, it's a lot easier to *make* plans than to see them through, but I would definately see if I could do something about the Health Care system. Not only are most hospitals under-staffed but many of them don't have the best diagnostic equipment either. Not only that, but many smaller hosptals are being shut down despite the fact that this means that people needing immediate medical attention will have to wait for over an hour to arrive at the hospital, which will surely result in the loss of many lives. But, as I said, it is easier to say that something will be done than to actually do it, since the budget problems can't be solved immediately.

[Wood]

Well, it's a lot easier to *make* plans than to see them through, but I would definately see if I could do something about the Health Care system. Not only are most hospitals under-staffed but many of them don't have the best diagnostic equipment either. Not only that, but many smaller hosptals are being shut down despite the fact that this means that people needing immediate medical attention will have to wait for over an hour to arrive at the hospital, which will surely result in the loss of many lives. But, as I said, it is easier to say that something will be done than to actually do it, since the budget problems can't be solved immediately.

Ya I thought about all this stuff to and then I immediately realized that this falls under provincial juristiction.

Hmmm... well I don't think I should joke about the wars I'd start here....

I'd probably try to make a constitutional admendment explicitly adding sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Charter.

Reform the airborne regiment and prepare them the wars that I'm not mentioning here...

I'd try to become more active in the UN and try to strengthen that organization. And in order to do that you need power, hence the real reason for strengthening Canada's military.

I'd cancel an invitation to the white house at the last minute just to see how they like it.

I'd move the legal system away from simple punishment and towards rehabilitation and focus in on the factors that cause people to become criminals.

[Earlam]

What I'd do if I was PM:
i) Permit private health care services (though without gov't funding).
ii) Increase defence budget (with the hundreds of millions saved on health care), make sure the CF remained a viable military force for the next generation or two.
iii) Take a more active role in world affairs (both within and independent of the UN and NATO).
iv) Defend Canada's sovereignty and territorial integrity, no matter who the enemy or what the cost.
v) Kickbacks and favours for my friends, just like every other PM in Canadian history.
vi) Retire from politics, write my memoirs, die in the Carribean.

Now, all I've gotta do is get elected.

[Neo]

What I'd do if I was PM:
i) Permit private health care services (though without gov't funding).
ii) Increase defence budget (with the hundreds of millions saved on health care), make sure the CF remained a viable military force for the next generation or two.


That may be what you want, but poll after poll has shown that a strong majority of Canadians want more Public Health Care... even if sadly at the expense of the Canadian Forces.

And there are about 44 million people south of the border who wish they had a health care system like ours.

[Earlam]

That may be what you want, but poll after poll has shown that a strong majority of Canadians want more Public Health Care... even if sadly at the expense of the Canadian Forces.

And there are about 44 million people south of the border who wish they had a health care system like ours.

I'm not proposing we should get rid of public health care.
I'm proposing that people shouldn't die in line if they can afford not to.

Those 44 million people want a system like ours? Well, I'm sure they wouldn't mind 2 tier. I'm all for public health care, but lets be realistic. It's not always the best solution.

This is a democracy, correct?
Well, in a democracy, the strong majority has a right to be wrong.
And I have the right to disagree.
(God Bless Democracy)

[Wood]

I'm not proposing we should get rid of public health care.
I'm proposing that people shouldn't die in line if they can afford not to.




Well then the opposite of your statement has to be true if a person cannot afford not to die in that line they should. As long as there's a mutual reason for all Canadians to want good healthcare, the we'll have reasonably good care. But if you allow privatization then the public healthcare will literally be for the second rate and will eventually degrade. At least that's the fear.

You'd never get elected as PM with that as a policy... partly because that falls under the provincial powers :p


Anyways, I wanted to add help the poor to mine anyways, not just here but everywhere.

[Earlam]

Well then the opposite of your statement has to be true if a person cannot afford not to die in that line they should. As long as there's a mutual reason for all Canadians to want good healthcare, the we'll have reasonably good care. But if you allow privatization then the public healthcare will literally be for the second rate and will eventually degrade. At least that's the fear.

You'd never get elected as PM with that as a policy... partly because that falls under the provincial powers :p


Anyways, I wanted to add help the poor to mine anyways, not just here but everywhere.

I believe that the gov't having a monopoly on health care is like the gov't having a monopoly on fast food. Health care is a business, and the gov't has the entire market. This denies choice. I believe that choice is a good thing (to a degree, of course). In fact, I think choice is a cornerstone of democracy. If you follow through with this line of thought, gov't controlled health care could be seen as subversive to democracy.
(I don't hold that opinion meself, as I believe it to be a tad bit extreme).
I understand the fear, but it just doesn't seem very important to me. Heck, I'm middle-class now, and pretty soon I'll be lower-middle-class or poor. I still don't think the fear is important. There are more important things to this country than health care, even if the population needs a good kick to realize it.

I would never get elected anything if I was open with most of my opinions. That's why it wouldn't be policy.
First you say what the public wants to hear, then (after you're elected) you do whatever the Hell you wanted to do all along.
I love this country.

[Wood]

Democracy isn't an economic system. Closer to the ideals of democracy is equality, like whether or not the rich should recieve better health care than the poor. Also I don't think anyone needs a kick to realize that Canadians value having the ability to save our own lives over the ability to kill others.

And the major downside of a monopoly is that the lack of competition allows for unfair prices and lack of innovation. Not nessesarily applicable to our health system which is free and needs to be very imaginative to deal with our needs.

[SLt T. Clausen]

I'd become a political sex symbol and drive the women of Canada wild with my ridiculous good looks and sex appeal. { ! }

[RatherBeFlyin]

The gas prices would go way down
People wouldn't have to pay ambulance bills
Huge, massive tax cuts
Schools would have more of a variety of subjects
Medication wouldn't be as expensive as it is.
If people had to fly somewhere for a family function like a funeral, wedding, etc they wouldn't have to pay airfare. The only people that would pay airfare are the ones going on trips, and the cost of that would be a lot less. Oh yeah, people going on business trips wouldn't have to pay either.

[CONtroversial_subject]

If I was PM? LOL

I'd make alot of changes in the trading area, get our dollar value boosted back up, cut any and ALL things that we are doing to artificially deflate our dollar's value, boost the military budget to an ammount that would allow us to atleast staff the ships, bases and aircraft that we already got, do everything in my power to make sure Campbell disapeared off the face of the earth, increase school funding, especially in the competitve sports areas, we need to start puttin out some better players, promote canadian business, and put an end to all these cover businesses, its time that canada owned a couple fortune 500s, and i'd work towards the legalization of marijuana and outlaw any infomercials about it that didn't contain completely accurate and unbias information.

I'd do alot of other things too, but mainly my platform for PM would be to better our country financially. I'd like to see Canada as a superpower in the business world, not just a US puppet.

[Neo]

I see some great ideas, but unfortunaletly, the Federal Government has absolutely NO say over education, which is a shame. I think Canada should have National Education Standards. Of course, each province would have its own system, based of social and geographic needs.

Thats the problem Non-Centralist Federal Parties, they want to allow the provinces to essentially become mini-countries under the banner of Canada. Which in my opinion is the exact opposite of what the Fathers of Confederation wanted.

Canada needs a much more centralised Government, and the role of the provinces should be to ensure the prosperity of their own jurdistiction to better all of Canada.

That's why I favour a strong Central Government. We need to have equal standards across the entire country.

[The Blue Tory]

Personally... I'd go into Quebec, and make all their signs and all have English on it. I'd ban seperatist referendums. Then I'd make it free vote, increase military spending, tax breaks, cut welfare, strengthen the judicial system, create tougher penalties for crimes and especially firearm related offences...

[CONtroversial_subject]

Canada needs a much more centralised Government, and the role of the provinces should be to ensure the prosperity of their own jurdistiction to better all of Canada.

That's why I favour a strong Central Government. We need to have equal standards across the entire country.

You must live in Ontario? Its not equal standard, its the East gets everything standard.

[Feeloo]

Personally... I'd go into Quebec, and make all their signs and all have English on it. I'd ban seperatist referendums. Then I'd make it free vote, increase military spending, tax breaks, cut welfare, strengthen the judicial system, create tougher penalties for crimes and especially firearm related offences...

Are you related to Lord Duhram? You know assimilation and all that was in his report...

[Neo]

You must live in Ontario? Its not equal standard, its the East gets everything standard.

I do live in Ontario, but I don't see what that has to do with me believing that education, health, and environmental standards should be the same throughout all of Canada.

[Thib]

Personally... I'd go into Quebec, and make all their signs and all have English on it. ...
No probleme with it, lets also do the same in english speaking provinces, all signs must have french on it. Oh at the same time, lets make all provincial and provincials services available in french and english.



I'd ban seperatist referendums. ...
A province is allowd to make the referendum it wishes. Also, a democracy need to listen to the wishes of it's population. Wich also inclued accepeting referendum in wich we don't like the result.

[Insane Power Pilot]

And there are about 44 million people south of the border who wish they had a health care system like ours.

Does this mean that there are 236 million people south of the border that are in favor if the status quo?

I would downsize the public sector and social spending and lower commercial and industrial taxes and bring in some business-friendly policies...basically tackle unemployment first. Then once the debt is under control or completely paid off, I'd lower income taxes and boost the social services. Imagine all the money we would have at our disposal that wouldn't be used to pay interest on the debt anymore...

I would also hold national referendums (referenda??) on the return of the death penalty and on 2-tier health care.

[Wood]

I would also hold national referendums (referenda??) on the return of the death penalty ...

It would be pretty interesting if you hold a reforendum on an issue where the pro side, if voted for is likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.

[The Blue Tory]

No probleme with it, lets also do the same in english speaking provinces, all signs must have french on it. Oh at the same time, lets make all provincial and provincials services available in french and english.


A province is allowd to make the referendum it wishes. Also, a democracy need to listen to the wishes of it's population. Wich also inclued accepeting referendum in wich we don't like the result.
You people asked what I would do...

So don't criticize what I say, just don't vote for me if I ever went for PM

I don't think that 1 province should be allowed to change the face of an entire nation...

[The Blue Tory]

Does this mean that there are 236 million people south of the border that are in favor if the status quo?

I would downsize the public sector and social spending and lower commercial and industrial taxes and bring in some business-friendly policies...basically tackle unemployment first. Then once the debt is under control or completely paid off, I'd lower income taxes and boost the social services. Imagine all the money we would have at our disposal that wouldn't be used to pay interest on the debt anymore...

I would also hold national referendums (referenda??) on the return of the death penalty and on 2-tier health care.
I agree with your suggestions...

Other things that should be voted on in that referendum should be the legality of abortions, the legality of euthanasia (sp?), and for those supporters the legality of samesex marriages...

As for the Supreme Court they shouldn't be able to rule referendum based decisions unconstitutional... because they are supposed to represent the people aren't they in judicial matters to protect the rights... but if the people want something overwhelmingly they have no right to refuse it...

However, if they can, does that mean the Supreme Court can rule a successful seperatist referendum unconstitutional since it would go against the original constitution from confederation?

[Neo]

Does this mean that there are 236 million people south of the border that are in favor if the status quo?

I would downsize the public sector and social spending and lower commercial and industrial taxes and bring in some business-friendly policies...basically tackle unemployment first. Then once the debt is under control or completely paid off, I'd lower income taxes and boost the social services. Imagine all the money we would have at our disposal that wouldn't be used to pay interest on the debt anymore...

I would also hold national referendums (referenda??) on the return of the death penalty and on 2-tier health care.

To clearify the 44 million who I spoke of are the 44 million in the United States who have NO health insurance. That number is rising, especially as jobs are lost in the U.S. I'm sure there are probably plenty of other Americans who would be envious of our Health Care system.

A question, how would you continue to offer services by downsizing the Public Sector? As well, but having a fairly large Public Sector, they are basically putting Gov't Money into the economy through the purchase of goods and services. So its good the economy.

The Commerical and Industrial Taxes you spoke of, they one of the key sources of income the gov't uses to pay down the Debt. Basically, taxes need to stay a little higher then the should until the Debt is payed down, sometime in the 22nd Century (I'm making that date up).

In conclusion, you have some good ideas, the details just need a little working out. I'm sure my working out of them needs a little working out too :).

[Wood]

As for the Supreme Court they shouldn't be able to rule referendum based decisions unconstitutional... because they are supposed to represent the people aren't they in judicial matters to protect the rights... but if the people want something overwhelmingly they have no right to refuse it...

However, if they can, does that mean the Supreme Court can rule a successful seperatist referendum unconstitutional since it would go against the original constitution from confederation?

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, there's a Charter to ensure that Canada has some basic standards that it must adhere to, unless there is a decision to make a constitional admendment which is unlikely to susceed.

2nd part, I'll have to look more closely at the Constittion Act 1867 in order to tell you. I doubt it though. There is more likely than not provision to ensure that provinces can in fact choose to leave confederation. And Canada's not going to hold people here who truely want to leave.

[The Blue Tory]

this may seem controversial but its true...

this whole separation issue could have been avoided had the English taken complete control over all of Canada, and deported the French back to France...

If that happened, there would be no separatism to worry about, yet Canada would be a much different place...

[Penholdstaff2k4]

[QUOTE=Wood].

Reform the airborne regiment and prepare them the wars that I'm not mentioning here...

QUOTE]
excellent job! i would love to see the airborne reformed!! although not the wars your are planning perhaps ;)

[Thib]

this whole separation issue could have been avoided had the English taken complete control over all of Canada, and deported the French back to France...


It isn't because we speak the same language that we are from the same country. At the fall of Quebec to the British, most people from here where related from france only by the language.

They try assimilation it didn't work, they couldn't have deported all the french speaking to France since it would have ended up in a rebelion. (Since they knew what happen to the Acadian a couple of years before).

And on the same issue, we wouldn't have this probleme if you would have won the American independance war, the loyalist wouldn't have come here :eek: :rolleyes:

[Feeloo]

this may seem controversial but its true...

this whole separation issue could have been avoided had the English taken complete control over all of Canada, and deported the French back to France...

If that happened, there would be no separatism to worry about, yet Canada would be a much different place...

It's not realistic, because:

1-There were a lot more Canadiens back then, than there were British;
2-Most Canadiens had been here for about 200 years, it's like saying: 1958, France takes back Canada: Canadians from British origins will all be deported to England

It doesn't make sense...

And don't worry about separation, it will never happen.

[Ching]

this may seem controversial but its true...

this whole separation issue could have been avoided had the English taken complete control over all of Canada, and deported the French back to France...

If that happened, there would be no separatism to worry about, yet Canada would be a much different place...
Controversial? Try bigoted.
The problem isn't that they speak French. The problem is they were promised a fair deal, then didn't get it.
Same with the First Nations.
The problem, if anything, is the English.

[Neo]

And don't worry about separation, it will never happen.

In my opinion we can't have that attitiude... we have to ensure that the unity of Canada only gets better, and never stop trying.

[Feeloo]

In my opinion we can't have that attitiude... we have to ensure that the unity of Canada only gets better, and never stop trying.

Come live here for a few months and you'll see, separation is not in the news. I doubt Quebecois will ever feel like all the other Canadians, but I'd say with confidence that most of us do not see separation as a solution, or don't see it anymore.

[Earlam]

Controversial? Try bigoted.
The problem isn't that they speak French. The problem is they were promised a fair deal, then didn't get it.
Same with the First Nations.
The problem, if anything, is the English.

Where were they promised a fair deal?

We Anglos beat them. They were conquered.
The only retained the power they did because of their enormous population.


First Nations groups I can sympathise with (although I will defend Britain's imperialist and dishonest policies, no matter how tasteless they were). The Canadian Francophones, though, knew exactly what they were getting into all the way through history.

[Thib]

The Canadian Francophones, though, knew exactly what they were getting into all the way through history.

They sign in for a Confederation not a federation. (In french does two word don't mean the exact samething, I don't know if it's the same in english). Also, from 1867 until the 70's the federal governement has refuse to protect the french language in Manitoba and Ontario even if it was under their jurisdiction. The governement needed to make sure that existing services where still offer in the provinces but didn't do nothing when Ontario and manitoba cut funding to french speaking school bord.

Also, the french speaking canadian felt betraed by an number of promises not keep to them like conscription in 1942. Also they didn't sign in thinking that the army where going to fired on them in 1917.

[Ching]

Where were they promised a fair deal?

We Anglos beat them. They were conquered.
The only retained the power they did because of their enormous population.


First Nations groups I can sympathise with (although I will defend Britain's imperialist and dishonest policies, no matter how tasteless they were). The Canadian Francophones, though, knew exactly what they were getting into all the way through history.
They joined confederation. They weren't forced to. They joined. All the provinces under confederation were equal. Yet, even today, people refer to the Québecois as if it's a derogatory term.
The Anglos antagonize the Francos. Not the other way around.

[Insane Power Pilot]

A question, how would you continue to offer services by downsizing the Public Sector? As well, but having a fairly large Public Sector, they are basically putting Gov't Money into the economy through the purchase of goods and services. So its good the economy.

I wouldn't cut any of the funding at first. The idea is that those who can afford to not wait in the emergency room line can pay money and go somewhere else, as can those who pay into their provincial health plan and to a private health insurance company. The idea would be to fund the public hospitals on the basis of supply and demand, I guess.


The Commerical and Industrial Taxes you spoke of, they one of the key sources of income the gov't uses to pay down the Debt. Basically, taxes need to stay a little higher then the should until the Debt is payed down, sometime in the 22nd Century (I'm making that date up).

The idea is to lower these taxes to allow these sectors to grow like wildfire. With an unemployment rate at or near 0%, more people can be weaned off the government teat and the social safety net can be cut back, and the taxation can also be increased to keep in line with the demand.


In conclusion, you have some good ideas, the details just need a little working out. I'm sure my working out of them needs a little working out too :).

Well, I won't be Prime Minister for a few years :p so there's still time to get it all sorted out...

[Earlam]

They sign in for a Confederation not a federation. (In french does two word don't mean the exact samething, I don't know if it's the same in english). Also, from 1867 until the 70's the federal governement has refuse to protect the french language in Manitoba and Ontario even if it was under their jurisdiction. The governement needed to make sure that existing services where still offer in the provinces but didn't do nothing when Ontario and manitoba cut funding to french speaking school bord.

Also, the french speaking canadian felt betraed by an number of promises not keep to them like conscription in 1942. Also they didn't sign in thinking that the army where going to fired on them in 1917.

The words mean much the same thing, but I suppose there's a subtle difference. The Fed did refuse to protect the French language, it's true. But Quebec wasn't promised equality with the Fed, it was promised equality with the provinces under the Fed (all being equal, all being subservient to the Fed).

As a sidenote, the Manitoba schools issue had a few people out here upset as well (as did conscription, though we were pretty enthusiastic in WW2).

Emily, us Anglos have done some pretty bad ****. We do it to everybody. But the Francophones haven't always been reasonable themselves.
How is Quebecois a derogatory term? I don't see it as that..... it's only as derogatory as "some guy from Quebec". Unless everybody from Quebec is automatically bad, there is nothing derogatory about the term. Hell, it's their own word!

IPP, you can count on my vote, provided I get a cushy cabinet or senate job.

[CONtroversial_subject]

removed

[Ching]

How is Quebecois a derogatory term? I don't see it as that..... it's only as derogatory as "some guy from Quebec". Unless everybody from Quebec is automatically bad, there is nothing derogatory about the term. Hell, it's their own word!.
I didn't mean literally. I said they refer to the Quebecois AS IF it's a derogatory term. As in, people practically spit when they talk about Quebeckers.

[Svejk]

1. Make Personal Income Taxes 20% for everyone. No deductions. Nothing extra. On all income.

2. 0% Corporate Income Tax.

3. People collecting GST get a small commision to reimburse the Hassle.

4. Get the Federal Government out of anything that it is specifically, by law, not supposed to be doing.

5. Canada Savings Bonds would be project specific. This would be the Only way the Government could get into debt.

6. Foreign Debt to be paid off according to a timetable.

7. No UN ties. Whatsoever. Maybe same for NATO.

8. Cancel the Gun Control Bill.

9. Legalize marijuana. Sned those forces engaged in marijuana onto the Fraudulent marketers operating out of Quebec.

10. Do what I promised to do.

Obviously, there would be upheaval and the Solutions would take some time to be practical but it would be a good start.

[Thib]

The words mean much the same thing, but I suppose there's a subtle difference. The Fed did refuse to protect the French language, it's true. But Quebec wasn't promised equality with the Fed, it was promised equality with the provinces under the Fed (all being equal, all being subservient to the Fed). .

That's a problem, it depend on how you see "le pacte de la confédéreation". The probleme comes from there. Since the start people had different vision of what Canada was suppose to be. One of the vision that was saw by the french speaking was the one that Bourassa try to promote.



As a sidenote, the Manitoba schools issue had a few people out here upset as well (as did conscription, though we were pretty enthusiastic in WW2)..
I was talking about conscription crissi of WWI, where "english speaking" troopd fired and kill 4 "french speaking" Canadian. (the reason that I am poiting out the fact that it was english speaking troops is because a day before. the french speaking one refuse to fired) It also show that from the start both groups had different ideas of what Canada was to be.

[SLt T. Clausen]

6. Foreign Debt to be paid off according to a timetable.

Good luck with that. Canada would be the first country to pay off a national debt. They'd give you the Nobel Prize for Economics (if they had one lol).



7. No UN ties. Whatsoever. Maybe same for NATO.

Oh, so you believe that independant, sovereign nations working unilaterally is the best way to go, eh?



8. Cancel the Gun Control Bill.

Perhaps if I were PM, I would make good sense mandatory. I'll admit the gun registry is a waste of money, but only in it's current form. If it were revamped so as to make it not a waste of money, then we could continue to live in a country that doesn't kill itself with guns like the US does.



Obviously, there would be upheaval and the Solutions would take some time to be practical but it would be a good start.
A good start towards global nuclear war, and domestic catastrophe.

[Walsh]

With the election comming up in Canada, what would you do if you where the one elected Prime Minister of this country? Exponetially raise taxes and slash services, and raise my salary.

[offguard96]

I would do a few things...

Most of the budget would stay the same. Half of any surplus would pay the debt down, the other half would be evenly split between the following:

The Forces, Education, Health, and Farmers.

I would have some cajones when dealing with wackos like Bush on the world stage. I would petition to have the United Nations relocated to Calgary or Quebec City.

I would push for a permanent spot on the UN Security Council, and if this was achieved I would reform the Canadian Forces to be more closely tied to the United Nations.

Closer ties would be established with the European Union. If possible, a North Atlantic Economic Community, a sort of "merger" with the EU, would be negotiated.

We'd also need much closer ties with the Koreas, China, India, and all the nations of Southeast Asia. They're economic Tigers, and they'll be calling the shots in thirty years.

NAFTA would get a good looking-over, as would the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Gay marriage would be a congressionally protected institution.

Tobacco taxes would increase tenfold, marijuana would be legalized and taxed. Also, health taxes would be increased for smokers (of anything).

Internal combustion engines would be regulated and phased out wherever possible. Exceptions would be made where necessary, but the day of the Hummer 2 and the ramblin' Buick would be over. The effect of this would be twofold. First, our total energy reliance would be lessened, giving us more political clout as a nation. Second, we'd finally be able to meet and exceed our Kyoto goals. Plus, it'd be nicer on city-dwelling lungs.

I'd put Israel in its proper place about giving Palestinians back their Palestine. Whether they like it or not. Just like was done in 1948, except this time it'd be justice served.

I'm not sure what else I'd do. Probably take more vacations than any previous prime minister...it seems to work for Bush...All I need is a ranch and a few million voters. Parliament, here I come!

[AMothfromWpg]

IF I were at the top of the food chain in politics I would do the following:

Healthcare- get nurses/doctors/specialists off of hourly wages and onto a flat salary
idea being to get rid of some of the gloat that exists there - now I'm not saying don't pay them, I'm simply saying remove the gloat.
Change doctors pay to salary from per patient basis as it is right now..
further- review all past reports on healthcare in order to find all possible to ways to streamline/strengthen efficiencies in the system.

Military- rework taxation policies wrt military personnel so that it is far more lucrative to join and stay in.
Look at wastages in ALL military budgets- eliminate wastage monies and transfer such monies to programs that require it (ie kit for the forces, etc)

Education- establish guidelines for provincial education bodies to follow wrt grading/curriculum

Taxation: Rework taxation policies across the board to close all loopholes for the wealthy and rich- increase % on taxes on income over 1-2 million and upper echelons.
Lottery Winnings: anything over 3 million would be taxed a percentage.
gas tax: keep as is
gst: would be reworked so that essentials are not taxable, junk food is taxable *no matter it's form- closing the loopholes that exist right now like tax on 1 donut no tax on 12
Tax incentive: tax rebates if you can prove that you have made your home/car/whatever much more energy efficient- not marginally better - much
guidelines to be established.

Justice: Rework/Reexamine Criminal Code of Ca to punish all crimes
put to work prisoners on public work items - road building, ditch digging, fighting natural disasters etc
serious offenders- rapists, child molesters etc be shipped off to foreign lands (with DND/Corrections Canada overseeing) to aid in demining - minimal protection for such offenders- once x km's have been certified to be demined - possibility of review of sentence to a reduction of sentence
rework prisoners rights to bare minimum wrt the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Cannot vote, would lose golf courses, satelite tv, steak dinners etc
Change Criminal Code of Canada to punish prisoners so that there debt is repaid to society
change judges freedom in assigning jail terms -set out guidelines for common crimes and strongly suggested terms of jail time/community service - this would eliminate the murderers/rapists etc who get out after a 1-2 years

ALL civil servants need not be fully bilingual however at all goverment agencies there must be x number of people who are bilingual in order to assist those who wish service in another language. Further, expand this bilingualism beyond simply french and english to meet regional specific needs- for example up north- french/english may not be so required, but main aboriginal languages would be, or on the west coast- where mandarin and cantonese are prevalent.

NAFTA/FTAA/WTO: Strongly look at all and specific policies and examine where Canada has agreed to unfair conditions. Move strongly to rework documents to promote FAIR trade, not just Free where one makes off better than another country.

Enviromentally: Increase all fines greatly for things like negligence, purposely ignoring enviromental protection laws, dumping of waste materials (chemicals, product byproducts etc)

Review all MPs accounts and rework to only allow for business related to being an mp

review all diplomatic jobs and rework diplomat systems in order to remove gloat from accounts - like 5 star hotel stays, extravagant dinner bills etc

That's all that I can think of for now.

[Insane Power Pilot]

I would have some cajones when dealing with wackos like Bush on the world stage. I would petition to have the United Nations relocated to Calgary or Quebec City.

I think you'd have a hard time doing this, given that you are from Canada. You'd have to get somebody else from another country to do your dirty work. :cool:


I'd put Israel in its proper place about giving Palestinians back their Palestine. Whether they like it or not. Just like was done in 1948, except this time it'd be justice served.

Anti-semite.

[offguard96]

Anti-semite.

Nope. Justice served. Israel's treatment of Palestinians is deplorable, and Palestinians use underhanded tactics, but both have a right to the same land. Since Israel currently occupies ALL that land, it's only fair to split it in half, and let each have their own.


I think you'd have a hard time doing this, given that you are from Canada. You'd have to get somebody else from another country to do your dirty work.

Considering we're not on the security council, yeah, that's about right. But not because we can't do our own work, only because we don't have the political power to do the right thing. Luckily for us, we've done most of the right things in the past few years. Like going into Afghanistan, and staying well clear of Iraq. Both right things.

[Insane Power Pilot]

Nope. Justice served. Israel's treatment of Palestinians is deplorable, and Palestinians use underhanded tactics, but both have a right to the same land. Since Israel currently occupies ALL that land, it's only fair to split it in half, and let each have their own.

Oh, I thought you were talking about giving Palestinians the entire country. My apologies.

[The Blue Tory]

Oh, I thought you were talking about giving Palestinians the entire country. My apologies.
Considering that there never was a Palestine... they can't realistically give it back... The West Bank belonged to Egypt and Turkey but never to Palestine actually

[offguard96]

You know, some would argue that if a group of people lives in one place for many thousands of years, they have a right to keep living there...

[The Blue Tory]

it never belonged to them though...

Say someone buys a plot of land, and goes to another country and keeping it undeveloped... yet still own it... 30 years later they want to build on it, yet there are vagrants on the land now with tents and all who've been there for 27 years... The owner is within their rights to kick them off, and do what they want with the land since it's theirs

[offguard96]

Except, of course, that the Palestinians have been living there since time immemorial, since at least the time of the Roman Empire, when it was called Palestine...this was after the time of the Roman Republic, when it was called Judea, but the same people lived there at both times. Even under Ancient Greece, the entire area was called "Palestine".

The "original owners" were both Jewish and Palestinian, and it has been alternately called Palestine, then Judea, then Palestine, then Israel, for thousands of years. How does one group suddenly have more of a right to live there than the other?

[Earlam]

The "original owners" were both Jewish and Palestinian, and it has been alternately called Palestine, then Judea, then Palestine, then Israel, for thousands of years. How does one group suddenly have more of a right to live there than the other?

I think it has to do with who has either the favour of the ruling power or more trained men-at-arms. But I guess that's how most things are decided.....

Man, you forgot Canaan! You can't forget Canaan!

[wb256]

Just because they didn't have the greatest military control in the area dosn't mean they didn't have a right to the land.

Labelling anyone who dosn't think Israel should have a claim to the area as an anti-semite is ridiculous. That's completely ignoring the issue and taking cheap shots.

Also, Palestinians are semetic people too. By your logic, you're just as anti-semetic for NOT supporting the formation of palestine :p

[wb256]

[QUOTE=Earlam]I think it has to do with who has either the favour of the ruling power or more trained men-at-arms. But I guess that's how most things are decided.....[QUOTE]


Historically, yes...that's how things have been decided. However, it may not have been the best way to do things (may not is an understatement).

Also, I'm curious as to how you could ever defend the policy of colonialism. The plight of our native people's, and the formation of the third (or less developed) world dosn't seem like a good thing to me at all. Not to mention the awful working conditions that so many were forced into during the colonial period.

[Wood]

it never belonged to them though...

Say someone buys a plot of land, and goes to another country and keeping it undeveloped... yet still own it... 30 years later they want to build on it, yet there are vagrants on the land now with tents and all who've been there for 27 years... The owner is within their rights to kick them off, and do what they want with the land since it's theirs

How, exactly was the land bought? From who? If ownership of land is dependant on it being sold to you then land cannot be owned, because you have to own it to sell it.

[ctjj.stevenson]

Personally... I'd go into Quebec, and make all their signs and all have English on it. I'd ban seperatist referendums. Then I'd make it free vote, increase military spending, tax breaks, cut welfare, strengthen the judicial system, create tougher penalties for crimes and especially firearm related offences...
Why ... are all your signs in Ontario equally translated in French?



Are you related to Lord Duhram? You know assimilation and all that was in his report... hahahahaha! However, even though the 1st Lord Duhram does not have a pretty place in Canada, assimilation was not his only idea, and the way that it is portrade is incorrect ... at least, according to a history professor of mine. However, before that I can be mis-quoted, I will have to find my history notes again.


A province is allowd to make the referendum it wishes. Also, a democracy need to listen to the wishes of it's population. Wich also inclued accepeting referendum in wich we don't like the result.

Even though it goes against all my wishes, I agree with Acting Sub-Lieutenant Morier-Thibault.
--------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly believe in multiculturalism, bilingualism, and all the wonderful other aspects to our Official Languages Act and Official Multiculturalism Act brought in by the Liberal government of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We should encourage it as much as we can. As for the comments of Mister Goodwin, these are the types of comments that will destroy the country. If English-Canadians want to show that French/Québec is welcome in Canada, well, it should be promoted. Okay, I do have my problems with Bill 101, however, I understand the reason of its existance. Francophones in Québec believed that their language would be lost, and put measures in place to protect it.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, if I was named the Right Honourable Christophe T. Stevenson .... hmm, what would I do? Actually, I am not sure ... I think that I am a left of centre person, however, balancing to books also seem important. I know ... instead of being elected Prime Minister ... I will just bug people who I know will have the post in the future, and beg them to name me Governor General! Then, I would have the title of His Excellency the Right Honourable (probably Lieutenant(N)) Christophe T. Stevenson ... and have a lovely time as GG, and let the politicans do all the dirty work.

[Earlam]

Historically, yes...that's how things have been decided. However, it may not have been the best way to do things (may not is an understatement).

Also, I'm curious as to how you could ever defend the policy of colonialism. The plight of our native people's, and the formation of the third (or less developed) world dosn't seem like a good thing to me at all. Not to mention the awful working conditions that so many were forced into during the colonial period.

Force-of-arms may not be the best way to do things, but it's how things are done. We're trying to get away from that nowadays, but there is no escaping it. Power really does grow from the barrel of a gun (though the gun can be anything from an AK47 to popular opinion).

Colonialism isn't pretty. But it resulted in the success of European civilization. And its descendent, globalization, is making my life easier.

The native peoples' plight is unfortunate, but I can't argue against results.
The third world gives us in the first world somebody to exploit (and where would we be without someone to exploit?). Horrible working conditions were something that made the current system possible.

I don't think colonialism is morally right, and I won't argue the point. But it's made my life better. That makes it, in my books, right.
Selfish, but whatchagonnado?

[Thib]

hahahahaha! However, even though the 1st Lord Duhram does not have a pretty place in Canada, assimilation was not his only idea, and the way that it is portrade is incorrect ... at least, according to a history professor of mine. However, before that I can be mis-quoted, I will have to find my history notes again.


If I remember my history Professor at Laval told me that Duhram reports wasn't official at first, and that it wasn't part of it's mandat to do so, while in Canada. Also the Idea of unification of boths Canadas date back to 1828 from a report that was presented in London. One of the probleme when we study this time periode of our history our sources are usuly from Xavier Garneau (if I remember corrwecly) who hated Lord Duhram. The same can be said by english merchant who also hated him.

[ctjj.stevenson]

If I remember my history Professor at Laval told me that Duhram reports wasn't official at first, and that it wasn't part of it's mandat to do so, while in Canada. Also the Idea of unification of boths Canadas date back to 1828 from a report that was presented in London. One of the probleme when we study this time periode of our history our sources are usuly from Xavier Garneau (if I remember corrwecly) who hated Lord Duhram. The same can be said by english merchant who also hated him.


Okay, I went back into my Canadian history university notes, and here is what I could find on Lord Durham, (and these are my exact notes)

DURHAM

- Durham made a mistake
-> did not have the authority to send the rebels to Burmuda and Australia
-> Did not have the authority to exial anyone
-> Durham's report was written in the United Kingdom

- Durham was condemed to become anti-French - NOT TRUE - he was a business man
->Being a business man - making money was important - outlook!

- Looks at Lower Canada -> The English businessmen of Montréal are progressive = good

- The French farmers are backwards = bad

- Refers to French as backwards = made him hated in Québec.

- He approves with the people of Upper Canada, who wants more democracy. Does not like the Family Compact -> Not business orriented, and had to much power.

- Want to convert the "French" into "English"

- Suggests uniting Upper and Lower Canada into one colony - Canada.

- Uniting both colonies would give an English majority.

- Responsible government - simple - real power is in the hand of the elected people i.e. the Legislative assembly.

This is Durham's report (in brief):

- Have responsible government, elected by the people.

- Proposes that local matters would be under the control of the Canadian Legislative assembly (therefore the governor would approuve everything). However, for Imperial matter, the Governor (who is chosen by the British government) would be in charge (in other word, the British government).

- The members of the Legislative council (like the Senate/House of Lords) would still be appointed by the Governor, but, since it would have been a local matter, on the advice of the Legislative Assembly.

However in the United Kingdom ...

The British government got the report. The Brits were against the idea of giving direct power to the Canadians, because Canada did not belong to the Canadians, but to the British government.

Therefore, the British government only accepted that one proposition of Lord Durham ... unification of the colonies (but keeping French civil law in Canada-East).

That's all! Good day to all!

[wb256]

I don't think colonialism is morally right, and I won't argue the point. But it's made my life better. That makes it, in my books, right.
Selfish, but whatchagonnado?


Well, I guess there isn't much I can say to that. If you don't care about anyone but yourself, then I guess colonialism is a good idea.

By the same type of logic, Hitler was a geat leader. He improved life for the majority of germans...at the expense of millions of lives and the slavery of much of Europe.

[Ching]

I know someone who DOES think Hitler was a great leader. He improved her family's life, anyway!


But then, she IS a racist in every respect, so she's willing to overlook the fact that her grandfather had a part in killing millions of innocent people...

We're not the best of friends. :)

[wb256]

I know someone who DOES think Hitler was a great leader. He improved her family's life, anyway!


But then, she IS a racist in every respect, so she's willing to overlook the fact that her grandfather had a part in killing millions of innocent people...

We're not the best of friends. :)


At the time many German's supported Hitler. Many either didn't know what was going on, or refused to accept the atrosities that had been committed.

Well, if improving my quality of life is what's needed, why don't we kill off the mentally handicapped and the elderly. Save the resources for young ones like me? While we're at it, lets just nuke the ghettos.

I think when voting, one should consider both what benifits one's self, and what is morally correct. Putting jewish people into ovens, is not morally correct. Neither is enslaving an entire continent (Africa).

[CONtroversial_subject]

While we're at it, lets just nuke the ghettos.


What and let white people be poor? nah I dont think they gon be doing that anytime soon.

[Svejk]

Actually, I would like to change my first point. No Income taxes only indirect taxes on importation or user fees. This would negate the Government and UN's need to know my finances.

Nothing wrong with being first-we would also be one of the Few truly Independent Countries. Afraid to part from the Crowd? Where's you moral courage?

Yes, Independant and Soveriegn Canada is exactly what I want. The UN has never worked and NATO has outlived it's original purpose of protection from the Collectivist Nations (Warsaw Pact). It instead has become a tool of the Collectivists. Take a look at Kosovo.

No catastrophe. Just solid and sensible solutions. There would be a short term spike in unemployment etc but then excellent prosperity.

[wb256]

Nothing wrong with being first-we would also be one of the Few truly Independent Countries. Afraid to part from the Crowd? Where's you moral courage?


Accusing those who disagree with your views of cowardice is really cool. However, it might be possible that it's a difference of opinion (rather than a lack of moral courage) that would cause some to disagree.

[Bos'n101]

I know someone who DOES think Hitler was a great leader. He improved her family's life, anyway!


But then, she IS a racist in every respect, so she's willing to overlook the fact that her grandfather had a part in killing millions of innocent people...

We're not the best of friends. :)
Hitler was a great leader, the way he used his leadertship abilities was bad.

[wb256]

Hitler was a great leader, the way he used his leadertship abilities was bad.


I agree. The need to use force and fear to gain power (along with the need to imprision and kill those who oppose you to maintain power) is always the mark of a true leader. I know it's how I kept things under control in my corps.

[Svejk]

Warren, the Moral Cowardice comes from "no one else does it" rather than it is the Wrong Thing to do. Therefore, it is extremely cool.

Hitler was a visonary leader. Still evil though same as Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Khmer Rouge, Sudanese Government, and Mugabe.

[Earlam]

Well, I guess there isn't much I can say to that. If you don't care about anyone but yourself, then I guess colonialism is a good idea.

By the same type of logic, Hitler was a geat leader. He improved life for the majority of germans...at the expense of millions of lives and the slavery of much of Europe.

Of course I care! What, do you think I'm inhuman?
I just don't care enough to sacrafice my standard of living.
If it comes down to them starving to death in a malaria-infested African-hellhole or me paying $10.00 more for a new pair of shoes......
I'm afraid they have to live poorly and die horribly, because I'm not payin'.

Hitler wasn't a great leader.
He lost.
If he had succeeded in, say, taking over the world and raising the standard of living in Germany to ridiculous heights, he would have been a great leader. Killed all the Jews? Unfortunate, but since the survivors wouldn't be Jewish, it would be an acceptable loss.


Everything has a price. The price of my standard of living is thousands of preventable deaths every day. And the longer we can keep it that way, the better our lives (I'm assuming everyone on CW lives in a developed or semi-developed nation) will be.

I'm not gonna respond to some of what you've said, as I think I've made my feelings clear. I regret what has to be done to maintain our decadent society. But if I were running things, I'd do it all (,and worse, ) in a heartbeat.



All of that being said.......
What's wrong with selfishness?
It's one of humanity's most effective tools as a species. It's gotten us this far, and it'll get us everywhere we go from now, right up until the species ends.

[Neo]

All of that being said.......
What's wrong with selfishness?
It's one of humanity's most effective tools as a species. It's gotten us this far, and it'll get us everywhere we go from now, right up until the species ends.

Wow, I guess its true, History does repeat itself....

[CONtroversial_subject]

Earl Mitchell everybody the next Hitler.

[Neo]

Earl Mitchell everybody the next Hitler.

That I did not mean, and even though I disagree with Earlam all of the time ;) I think that response was uncalled for.

[Ching]

Of course I care! What, do you think I'm inhuman?
I just don't care enough to sacrafice my standard of living.
If it comes down to them starving to death in a malaria-infested African-hellhole or me paying $10.00 more for a new pair of shoes......
I'm afraid they have to live poorly and die horribly, because I'm not payin'.
See, that's not just selfish. That's selfish and ignorant. When you pay that extra $10 for a pair of shoes that was made by a worker with fair wages and good conditions, you get better quality shoes. Therefore you'll need new shoes less often. Therefore you end up spending less money in the long run. Go for the quality, it's not just garment quality, it's quality of life. I think it's worth it. If you can afford $70 for a pair of shoes, you can afford $80.

[Earlam]

You know what's funny, Kris?
I hear that alot from people...... and that's before they hear my opinions and ideas.
As a sidenote, I'm very little like Hitler. He was an idealist (not to mention a wee bit off his rocker). I'm motivated by (sometimes enlightened) self interest, and quite sane (or at least I'd like to think so).

I appreciate that you weren't trying to paint me as a Neo-Nazi, Chief. As another sidenote, you're not too bad, for a Liberal ;) .


See, that's not just selfish. That's selfish and ignorant. When you pay that extra $10 for a pair of shoes that was made by a worker with fair wages and good conditions, you get better quality shoes. Therefore you'll need new shoes less often. Therefore you end up spending less money in the long run. Go for the quality, it's not just garment quality, it's quality of life. I think it's worth it. If you can afford $70 for a pair of shoes, you can afford $80.

If that worker got fair wages, those shoes would cost alot more. Do you know what the markups are on those shoes? It's ridiculous! They pay the workers pennies a day, and take home tens of dollars to the company.
It's not fair, true. If you could stop that from happening, I might even support it. But if they pay workers fair wages, they're gonna wanna keep their obscene amounts of money. Prices will rise significantly.

I don't agree that contented labour makes for better products. And even if they did, the industry would still want to sell shoes. So they'd design them to fail (car industry, anyone?). Upside for the labourers in the third world, but nothing but downside for me.

$70.00 for a pair of shoes?
ARE YOU INSANE?
Perhaps this is why our opinions differ so much...... I can't afford a $70.00 pair of shoes, and won't be able to for quite a few years now.
Where exactly do you buy your shoes?

[Ching]

$70.00 for a pair of shoes?
ARE YOU INSANE?
Perhaps this is why our opinions differ so much...... I can't afford a $70.00 pair of shoes, and won't be able to for quite a few years now.
Where exactly do you buy your shoes?
*newsflash* Not all clothing is made in sweatshops. Heck, not even all brand name clothing is made in sweatshops. And yes, it is better made when it's made by a contented worker. It's like the difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one from Kelsey's. It's worth the difference in price.

And I buy my shoes at shoe stores. Or sports stores, if I'm getting running shoes. Aldo, Sport Chek, Bata... It's hard to find a decent pair of shoes for less than $70.

[Earlam]

*newsflash* Not all clothing is made in sweatshops. Heck, not even all brand name clothing is made in sweatshops. And yes, it is better made when it's made by a contented worker. It's like the difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one from Kelsey's. It's worth the difference in price.

And I buy my shoes at shoe stores. Or sports stores, if I'm getting running shoes. Aldo, Sport Chek, Bata... It's hard to find a decent pair of shoes for less than $70.

Not all clothing is made in sweat shops. But I'm not talking just clothing, or just sweat shops. They're an example, but I think the issue is standards of living (what they are, what they could be) (they're an extreme example).

I buy $20-$40 shoes. I payed $45.00 once.....
When I have the money to buy $70.00 shoes, I might get a little more idealistic about the plight of everyone else in the world.
(I wouldn't count on it, but I'm told there's always hope for my soul)

[wb256]

If that worker got fair wages, those shoes would cost alot more. Do you know what the markups are on those shoes? It's ridiculous! They pay the workers pennies a day, and take home tens of dollars to the company.
It's not fair, true. If you could stop that from happening, I might even support it. But if they pay workers fair wages, they're gonna wanna keep their obscene amounts of money. Prices will rise significantly.

I don't agree that contented labour makes for better products. And even if they did, the industry would still want to sell shoes. So they'd design them to fail (car industry, anyone?). Upside for the labourers in the third world, but nothing but downside for me.

Unless you cut out the rich middle man who makes $60 off of a $70 pair of shoes that he didn't help make, ship, sell, etc. Then you'd pay less and the Burmese would get a better wage. But that'd be communism or something.

[Thib]

I was talking with a friend today about what would we do if we became prime minister and we both think:

1) Make a law that every Canadian that have the legal age to vote need to do so. If they don' they should be fine. We don't agree on how much it should be. I say around 1000$. But my friend what 500$ and if he do it 2 election in a row he loose the right to vote except if he want to pay 2000$ to have it back. If someone dosn't vote for anyone, he still need to go and vote except that we leave a blank case for themé

2) Reform the Senate. Each provinces and territory would get 10 senators. Ir's up to the province to choose how they should be elected for their teritory. So if a province want to give equal power to each region they can do so. They can choose the best way to nominate their member of the senate, the way they think would better serve the popuation.

3) No new money for the military until we have descided what will be the role of the Canadian military. No point to buy aircraft carrier, if we no longer want Canadian soldiers to be sent out of the country... After we have our new defence policy now we'll spend the money on the military.

4) Remove the federal governement from the provincial jursidiction under the condition that the provinces maintain minimum services in some key area.

[Earlam]

Unless you cut out the rich middle man who makes $60 off of a $70 pair of shoes that he didn't help make, ship, sell, etc. Then you'd pay less and the Burmese would get a better wage. But that'd be communism or something.

Internal struggle.......
Should I call for the flogging of the Red, or should I agree with him.......

Yes, the rich middleman makes an obscene amount of money off of the whole affair. It wouldn't hurt me any to see him go out of business, and it'd do a helluvalotta good for the kids in Burma.
Unfortunately, the rich middle man is...... well, rich. And by rich, I mean he could by my soul with the money he uses to buy a suit. A single suit.
My point is that he's too big to get out of the picture.
It'd be nice, but it's not a workable solution.