@95K5YQG

9>9  Personal answerPro-choice, and providing birth control, sex education, and more social services will help reduce the number of abortions

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as they pass the same background checks as straight couples

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, children should not be allowed to make irreversible life decisions

9>9  Personal answerYes, the government should fund healthcare, but we should also require provinces to pay their fair share of the funding, and have the responsibility for maintaining the system that we have, rather than cutting it for austerity purposes and then asking the government for more money.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, service should be a choice instead of an obligation

9>9  Personal answerNo, freedom of speech laws should only protect you from criticizing the government

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, require strict background checks, psychological testing, and training

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as it is safe for them to return to their country

9>9  Personal answerDepends on the regulation. We should be open to doing the right thing through regulations, even if it costs businesses more to comply, and this includes regulations around the protection of water, air and food, and other things humanity and wildlife needs to survive. But we should also be open to incentivizing markets to do the right thing, and it being mutually beneficial for both government and business, through market-based solutions like a carbon tax, or cap and trade. This worked well with the Acid Rain Treaty, so it could work well with carbon taxes if we have the right measures in place.

9>9  Personal answerIt would help them, as the majority of Canadians do speak English, but we also need to embrace diversity and other cultures, because it helps make us more tolerant of one another, and gives us a greater understanding of what other cultures of the world are like.

9>9  Personal answerLess, and provide more government funding

9>9  Personal answerYes, it's your business and you have the right to refuse entry to someone who could be a threat to the immunocompromised inside. That's entirely fair.

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerNo, preservation of our forests outweighs the economic benefits

9>9  Personal answerYes, we should respect all cultural traditions

9>9  Personal answerNo, private prisons will sacrifice quality of care and rehabilitation services for profit

9>9  Personal answerNo, the current policy is sufficient

9>9  Personal answerProvincial, but with federal funding and regulated standards

9>9  Personal answerNo, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional

9>9  Personal answerThis could be what makes life much more affordable for many Canadians, but I do worry about the risk of the student loan system collapsing altogether if we do this wrong. So, we should tread with caution.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, I do not believe in the death penalty

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerI am satisfied with the current amount

9>9  Personal answerYes, but I don't think that we can actively force businesses to have employees that are vaccinated. I think we should make it hard for people not to be vaccinated by making vaccines mandatory to travel, and cross the border, so that people understand that this is a dangerous virus that is affecting many groups of people, but I think that the government would be challenged in court if they were to actively do this.

9>9  Personal answerNo, this is not well-thought out, and could only increase the rising cost of affordability for housing in Canada. Many immigrants/foreigners (non-permanent residents, diplomats, students, etc.) are all important to help fill labour shortages in areas that we need them most, but also can help be trained in schooling/volunteer through international humanitarian work, if we ban foreigners from buying homes, we are actively preventing our economy from getting access to potential residents and people who want to immigrate here.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerWe should be focusing more on reusable products rather than disposable ones, but we do need the biodegradable option open and available for things like disposable needles and other health products that would sit in a landfill and pose a risk otherwise.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, and there could be many valid reasons as to why they refuse the housing in the first place, as there are issues of harassment, sexual assault, racism, safety, and other numerous reasons as to why someone might reject these and choose to live on the street. We need to do this, because public buildings often have amenities that the public can use (washrooms, etc.) and security cameras so if something does happen, we have a record of it and are able to report it to the police, there is also usually adequate lighting, which helps keep people safe, and people who wish to do harm think twice as they are visible. Making it harder to find a place to sleep only hurts our most vulnerable, and puts the problem where we can't see it, such as out on Forest Service Roads, or underneath bridges. The only thing that I would add though, is that it's also the responsibility of those who are sleeping there to treat others with respect, don't harass/intimidate or threaten others, and don't leave a mess behind with needles or other garbage that someone could step on/has to pick up.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerWe should actively aim to build more housing for Canadians as we're going to need it in the future to help solve the affordability crisis, but also welcome new residents to Canada. I also worry about government organizations doing this entirely by themselves, as we've seen government often neglect services like this. Not to say that the private sector is any better, as there are problems with homeowner's associations within apartments/condos and gated communities that have to wait years to get something fixed, but at least there's the option of moving out or actively finding solutions to repair things so that they don't get neglected. So yes, we should build housing but we should be very cautious in how we implement it, and make sure that we're not causing new problems in doing so.

9>9  Personal answerYes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society

9>9  Personal answerYes, but they should only be allowed to vote in local elections

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerI would say no, as my inclination is to say the voters should say how long a certain person is in office. But, at the same time there are some really dangerous people who could be in power for a long time (ex. Donald Trump like-politicians) if we don't have term limits, so I would say that we should be open to it as a form of keeping bad people out of office who wish to do ill, but it also keeps good people from being able to do more with their leadership as well.

9>9  Personal answerWe should encourage Canadians to save money for a house or other future financial goals by opening avenues for them to save for it, like through TFSAs or RRSPs, even through other means like the First Time Home Buyer's Incentive, and potentially removing student debt as ways to help them achieve their goals.

9>9  Personal answerDepends. If the community based programs work like the John Howard Society, and are known to reduce recidivism and actively help stop problems before they occur, then yes. But we also can't neglect issues that police departments face like labour shortages and adequate training, as well as resources to help officers, so it has to be a balance between the two.

9>9  Personal answerThey should be a guideline, but they should figure out solutions that work for each community rather than adhering to one way.

9>9  Personal answerI think there's an argument to be made that because younger people are learning about different things, it would be a great way to get them involved with the democratic system and learn about different candidates and what they stand for/against. But at the same time, we do run the risk of politicians manipulating young, vulnerable people into voting for them because they're not smart enough. Overall, that also happens with adults as well, so we can't really say we have the high ground like Obi-Wan said to Anakin, so we should be open to it.

9>9  Personal answerIt's obviously needed, as these jobs are jobs that many Canadians wouldn't want to do as they are hard jobs that are long hours, but I would also say that we need to treat them with respect, and we can't just let them be at the whim of the agricultural owners as well. I would say keep the system as it is, but we also can't ignore the problems with it, nor the growing demand of Canadian produce that is needed around the world right now, especially with the war in Ukraine.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, but it should depend on many things. If it's someone who's clearly speculating, and sitting on the property because of it's value, and has no intention of moving to the residence, then they should be subject to the tax, or an even higher tax depending on their income. If it's someone who is a refugee fleeing conflict, a non-permanent resident, someone who has claimed asylum, a foreign diplomat/consulate of another country, or even a international high school/university or college student, they should not be subject to the additional tax, as they have the potential to become citizens, but also can add great value to this country.

9>9  Personal answerI am satisfied with the current amount of spending

9>9  Personal answerProvincially managed but with federal standards to ensure consistency

9>9  Personal answerYes, it's clear that Canada's cities are going to need investments in transit, and we're going to need this infrastructure to be built as our planet is warming, and we need to reduce our overall CO2 emissions from transportation as much as possible. EVs and fuel-efficient cars can only do so much, but they don't work for everyone as cars are often a big expense for many people.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, it is a slippery slope towards a police state

9>9  Personal answerNeither, I am satisfied with the current amount of spending

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only relative to the amount that other countries contribute

9>9  Personal answerYes, every citizen deserves the right to vote

9>9  Personal answerI would say that we should move towards electrification of our public buses and trains throughout our country, but we should also make sure that there is infrastructure there to actually be able to repair/charge them. But regardless, we should be moving this way as it is a step in the right direction for not only communities, but also for the planet.

9>9  Personal answerNon-violent offenses can certainly be a range of multiple different things, so I would say to tread with caution. We should definitely be putting those with mental health/psychological issues in places where they can get help, as well as those with addiction issues as well, as if we don't they just learn from other people in prisons and jail how to become a better criminal.

9>9  Personal answerNo. Independent schools/school choice programs come at a great cost to our public school system, and we need to be investing more in public schools, rather than those who jack up tuition for kids to attend.

9>9  Personal answerDepends on the community and it's needs.

9>9  Personal answerNo. Many of these jobs help keep people afloat, and companies shouldn't be allowed to just replace huge amounts of jobs with automation. Yes, it might be faster and more efficient for the company, but it could leave thousands out of a job..