@97T4JZC

9>9  Personal answerPro-choice AND pro-life. I abhor abortion, and consider the life in the womb to be sacred, and condemn the practice, but I do NOT want the government getting involved in this issue and telling a woman what to do. It should not be banned, but discouraged for other alternatives.

9>9  Personal answeryes, if we can afford it, and incentivize private companies to address the issue and lower cost

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerFor low income families, and if we can afford it

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerif we can afford it

9>9  Personal answerAs long as it's not subsidized and after psychological examinations, and with parental permission

9>9  Personal answerNo, and implement a two tier public/private system

9>9  Personal answerNo, we should address gender identity as a mental health issue and provide funds for more research and care

9>9  Personal answerLower the income tax rate and remove all existing tax loopholes for large corporations

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only cap tuition to each student's first year rate

9>9  Personal answerYes, because I don’t trust the government to define the boundaries of hate speech and as long as it does not threaten violence. Free speech is also typically only to protect you from criticizing the government

9>9  Personal answerNo, board members should be the most qualified regardless of gender

9>9  Personal answerfor low income families, and if we can afford to do so

9>9  Personal answerNo, this will only cause prices to increase in a never ending cycle

9>9  Personal answerYes, if there is no chance of survival or after a thorough psychological examination to show they fully understand their choice

9>9  Personal answerYes, but allow people to use private insurance

9>9  Personal answerYes, and citizens should as well

9>9  Personal answerNo, only for criminals and the mentally ill and require strict background checks, psychological testing, and training, and go after illegal smuggling of guns and illegal border crossings.

9>9  Personal answerYes, but for basic necessities only, AND ONLY IF, we can afford it. Manage the debt and deficit first

9>9  Personal answerYes, depending on if they entered illegally or depending on how serious the crime is. (Felony, financial, violent or sexual crimes)

9>9  Personal answerNo, only through scholarships, and focus on Canadian citizen students first, either way, cost should be reduced

9>9  Personal answerIncrease for large multinational corporations but lower for small businesses and eliminate deductions and loop holes

9>9  Personal answerYes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production

9>9  Personal answerYes, English OR French, and the government should provide free language learning courses

9>9  Personal answerI am satisfied with the current system

9>9  Personal answerNo, abolish the death penalty. Jail should be for the worst criminals, and rehabilitation should be the best resort

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only selective logging, no clearcutting, and a plan for regrowth

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerAllow women's sport to be for strictly biological women, and any other sporting league or event to be for ANYBODY who can compete, whether cis or trans

9>9  Personal answerYes, respect other cultures, but their identity must be privately verified by a female staff member, and Hijabs should be fine, but face covering like burkas should either be privately verified by a female staffer or banned. Burkas are usually used in more radical sects of islam

9>9  Personal answerNo

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, but make the process easier for skilled workers, and strictly screen immigrants for criminal backgrounds

9>9  Personal answerProvincial

9>9  Personal answerNo, banning immigrants based on their religion is unconstitutional and we should ban immigrants from “high risk” countries

9>9  Personal answerNo, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

9>9  Personal answerNormally, yes for low income students, but we can't afford it right now or for Canadian citizens only

9>9  Personal answerNo, and we should not try to influence any other country’s elections or policy

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as they can pass the same physical tests as men

9>9  Personal answerYes, somewhat, if we can afford it, but incentivize production/consumption of renewables instead

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only for low income families

9>9  Personal answerYes, compensate for hardship if they ask for it, but let them be and live their lives as normal citizens, and to pursue their own destiny

9>9  Personal answerYes, and use the U.N. peacekeeping forces to protect our interests

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, this would encourage drug use and lower funding for rehabilitation centers

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as they finished their sentence, and the crime was not committed in office, and as long as it isn't a felony, violent, financial or sexual crimes

9>9  Personal answerYes, politicians should not be bought by wealthy donors

9>9  Personal answerIf landowners are fairly compensated, first nations are consulted. i would prefer renewables or LNG pipelines, but for temporary or economic success, I could see it as necessary

9>9  Personal answerIncrease

9>9  Personal answerYes, but provide treatment for those testing positive, and test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians

9>9  Personal answerNo, I think businesses should require vaccination but not by government mandate

9>9  Personal answerYes, but the $1 billion budget is too high

9>9  Personal answerNo, implement foreign buyer and vacancy taxes instead

9>9  Personal answerYes, and increase comer incentives to recycle products instead, and increase tax incentives for companies that make biodegradable products, while also protecting smaller businesses, and punish larger corporations. Ban all disposable products that are not made of at least 75% biodegradable material

9>9  Personal answerYES! ABSOLUTELY! SWITCH TO PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION, FAVOURABLY RANKED SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE! ANYTHING BUT FIRST PAST THE POST

9>9  Personal answerNot in heavily populated areas, some LNG only, and temporary until we find better sustainable renewables or incentivize for more sustainable renewables to pursue. More research is definitely needed, avoid oil as much as possible

9>9  Personal answerYes, but not for cosmetics

9>9  Personal answerYes, and create more social programs to provide free food, clothing, and medicine

9>9  Personal answerRegardless, this is an issue for provincial or local governments and/or the private sector

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNormally, Yes, but not at the expense of greenspace, farmland, and at the moment we can't afford it right now. We should also repair/rebuild existing houses

9>9  Personal answerYes, if first nations are consulted first, and we go for LNG pipelines instead for social and economic benefits

9>9  Personal answerYes, provided a strict psychological evaluation shows they are no longer a threat to society and and we should provide more rehabilitation programs for prisoners

9>9  Personal answerSome help, and some help in theory, but a lot of unions have become corrupt. Though I support some private and public unions. Either way, ban their ability to make political donations

9>9  Personal answerNormally, yes, for humanitarian aid and some military supplies, but we can't afford it right now. And as long as we don't send our troops

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only after living in the country for 5 years

9>9  Personal answerNo, and political campaigns should be publicly funded

9>9  Personal answerYes, either two terms or a longer one term

9>9  Personal answerYes, but in the form of tax breaks for low income citizens

9>9  Personal answerNo, extreme situations should be handled by higher agencies with specialized training and equipment

9>9  Personal answerYes, and exceed the guidelines and be the world leader in environmental standards

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerNo, increase funding and training for police departments in higher crime rate communities

9>9  Personal answerMore, reform the system so that it supplements, rather than replaces, a working income

9>9  Personal answerNo, either keep it at 18 or raise it to 25, where most people's brains are fully developed

9>9  Personal answerYes, and reduce military spending, increase taxes on large multi national corporations and slightly increase taxes on the wealthy

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only for non-essential services

9>9  Personal answerPrivatize

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only for low income pensioners

9>9  Personal answerNeither, maintain the current amount

9>9  Personal answerNo, funding should come from grassroots efforts only

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only for low income families and single parents

9>9  Personal answerYes, but require the labelling of foods that are genetically modified

9>9  Personal answerYes, temporarily while we increase investment into cleaner renewable alternatives

9>9  Personal answerNo, I would respect them more if they did but they shouldn’t be required to

9>9  Personal answerYes, and the tax should be at least 5%

9>9  Personal answerDecrease, and deny aid to countries that harbour or promote terrorism, or infringe on human rights, and to reduce our national budget deficit

9>9  Personal answerYes, if Ukraine can deal with their internal affairs and corruption first. Normally, I would say abolish NATO, but Russia, and to a lesser extent, China, gave NATO a new purpose

9>9  Personal answerNo, I don’t respect anyone who does but they should have the right to do so

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, but handled through provincial or local governments, and spending for environmentally friendly solutions

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

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerSlightly decrease

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only after completing their sentences and/or parole/probation, gone through rehab or a strict psychological evaluation, and except for felons from murder, violent or sexual crimes

9>9  Personal answerNo, too many wealthy citizens are abusing loopholes in offshore banking laws to evade taxes

9>9  Personal answerNo, any worker should be rewarded based on their success

9>9  Personal answerYes, but only for low-income pensioners

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, and eliminate funding

9>9  Personal answerElect, Senators that are elected are less prone to corruption

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes, but after house arrest, community service, strict psychological evaluation, rehab, completing their sentence or after their parole/probation

9>9  Personal answerYes, income splitting provides tax fairness

9>9  Personal answerRegardless, allow employees the option to contribute an additional 5%-10%

9>9  Personal answerNo, this will incentivize companies to move jobs out of the country

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes, but not at the expense of funding public schools

9>9  Personal answerNo, focus on improving infrastructure and the community, as well as do NOT compromise the local environment, also punish them for moving jobs out of the country

9>9  Personal answerYes, but it should only be required every 5 years, easier to complete online, the information is vital for economists, scientists, statisticians, and the government to accurately make important policy decisions, but also ensure privacy

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes