@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic Policy10yrs ago

In order to reduce energy costs, should the government nationalize or privatize the energy sector?

+
Expand
+ Settings

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 373k Canada voters.

61%
Nationalize
39%
Privatize
61%
Nationalize
19%
Privatize
20%
Privatize, but increase environmental and regulatory oversight for price control

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 373k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 373k Canada voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Canada voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9JQKZYTfrom New Brunswick  answered…11mos11MO

Nationalize the energy sector while still allowing provinces to privatize temporarily to test new ideas

 @9F6VHWJfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

All of Canada should use the Hydro-Quebec model

 @8Z9R3TXfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

Both privatized and nationalized energy companies to keep the sector competitive while allowing for Canadian control of national resources.

 @9WYVB8Rfrom Quebec  answered…2mos2MO

The energy sector should be owned and operated by the people independently of the government or private entities.

 @9F5KMPVfrom Alberta  answered…1yr1Y

Nationalize the energy sector. Greedy private corporations shouldn't control the energy. Electricity should also be free to everyone but have a limit on how much you can use. Everyone should have electricity even if they cannot pay as long as they aren't a resource hog and it should be the federal government's responsibility.

 @9JZV4G6from Ontario  answered…10mos10MO

No one is reducing my cost. The government claims they do, by something like $12 per month...but from the line to my door, costing me more than my actual hydro

 @9H6GJSNfrom Alberta  answered…1yr1Y

Nationalize but make it possible for our high energy-producing provinces to sell and manufacture more energy to nations.

 @9F97JY4from Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

only high risk sources like nuclear

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Biden will issue a pardon of his son Hunter Biden

President Joe Biden has decided to issue a pardon for his son Hunter and is expected to announce it Sunday night, according to a senior White House official with direct knowledge of the decision.The decision marks a reversal for the president, who has repeatedly said he would not use his executive authority to pardon his son or commute his sentence. The pardon comes ahead of Hunter Biden’s Dec. 12 sentencing for his conviction on federal gun charges. Hunter Biden also is set to be sentenced in a separate criminal case on Dec. 16, after pleading guilty in September on federal tax evasion charges.The pardon is expected to cover both Hunter Biden’s gun charges conviction and guilty plea.The senior White House official said Biden decided over this weekend to grant his son a pardon and began to inform his senior aides on Sunday. Using his pardon power to assure Hunter Biden does not spend time in jail comes as the 82-year-old president is near the end of his term in the White House and has no future election to face. In recent months Biden has said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence.“I will not pardon him,” the president said of his son in June after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun charges.President Biden has discussed issuing a pardon for his son with some of his closest aides since at least Hunter Biden’s conviction in June, two people with direct knowledge of the discussions about the matter said. They said a decision was made at the time for the president to publicly say he would not pardon his son even though doing so remained on the table.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters earlier this month that the president’s position has not changed.

▲  1713 replies

Active 33mins ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree