@98FPFSY

9>9  Personal answerBoth pro-life and pro-choice. Invest in sex education, family planning, childcare as well as contraceptives so that we don't have unplanned/unwanted pregnancies, and if you do choose to have children, then you can give them the best head start as much as possible and benefit the community around them, making it a better place.

9>9  Personal answerNo, this would increase the risk of accidental shootings

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as there's money that's able to be given to provinces/territories, there has been consultation with them, and there have been standards/programs put in place to ensure efficiency of the given system.

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

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as there's money that's able to be given to provinces/territories, there has been consultation with them, and there have been standards/programs put in place to ensure efficiency of the given system.

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as there's money that's able to be given to provinces/territories, there has been consultation with them, and there have been standards/programs put in place to ensure efficiency of the given system.

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, but have them pay their reasonably fair share within a larger, sustainable tax system rather than have them pay for everything like Bernie Sanders wants them to, because there's a great risk of the system collapsing altogether if you tax the wealthy way too much.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerIt varies depending on where you are/given time context. It's maybe not a priority for Canadians now, because we aren't really in a conflict with other nations. But in South Korea, Ukraine, Israel as well as Finland? They need it to survive as a nation as they have aggressive neighbours around them that threaten their existence.

9>9  Personal answerIt really depends upon the business, but women's voices and concerns should absolutely be heard by businesses, as a way to help strive for more equality in the workplace, and make workplaces safer for everyone.

9>9  Personal answerNo, freedom of speech only protects you from the government in that they can't arrest you for what you say, and if we make hate speech legal, that treads on other people's rights and sets a really bad precedent that some people are less than others.

9>9  Personal answerI would say that we should be cautious. We should update and enforce the existing regulations that we have, as well as make smart regulations that can help reduce our environmental impact when necessary. I would also say that we should try and make market-based solutions happen, such as a carbon tax or cap and trade as a way to reduce emissions across all of our economy.

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

9>9  Personal answerIt's debatable. I see the potential in it, but I can't see it being a viable program for a government to make considering that social security already costs a lot to maintain. So no, I'm not particularily in favour of it.

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as there's money that's able to be given to provinces/territories, there has been consultation with them, and there have been standards/programs put in place to ensure efficiency of the given system.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerDepends on a wide variety of factors rather than just high or low taxes. Do they add a lot to the economy, and give back to the community through research and development, but also by hiring lots of employees? These are just some of the things that determine how much or how little a company pays.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, too many people are innocently convicted

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, but by teaching more critical thinking skills in school, by teaching subjects such as History and social studies, as well as English which help to develop those parts of the brain.

9>9  Personal answerI am satisfied with the current system

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, but we should also embrace the diversity of cultures and languages that they bring.

9>9  Personal answerYes

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

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

9>9  Personal answerI think it should be considered. But have a long term plan to reform the system that's in place, with zero interest rates, as well as a pause on it for other things (income brackets) which has been put in place by the Liberal government.

9>9  Personal answerIt's a good starting point, but I would say that it's important to come up with solutions that work for each community, so that we can protect the environment but also do it in a way that is beneficial to the communities that we live in.

9>9  Personal answerNo. I think that this is a bad move that goes against our democratic values, and makes us look just as bad as the state we're trying to "save". This has often backfired throughout history.

9>9  Personal answerYes, they should, but they should also have more say in how those funds get used, as there has been a long history of government imposing things on them through the Indian Act, like the band system and other horrible atrocities, such as the Residential School System and banning of cultural practices like the potlach ceremony. There needs to be a more collaborative relationship with all three levels of government so that they can find mutual ways to support one another, and benefit each other as well as our country, and that does require funds, but also giving indigenous people a voice/more democratic participation.

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

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

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

9>9  Personal answerYes, we should. It's in our national interest to develop energy independence, as well as continue our power as a lead exporter of energy, whether it be in oil and gas, and natural resource development, or exporting renewable tech to other nations. It's also good for us to develop it as it can show the world the potential that it has.

9>9  Personal answerYes, but I don't think they can do that without a court challenge. So I would say that it should be a partnership with provinces, where there are vaccine mandates on air, sea and land borders upon entry/leaving Canada.

9>9  Personal answerAs for legalizing some drugs, yes. We should legalize drugs such as marijuana, and potentially those such as mushrooms, as they have been shown to potentially help people. We should also allow researchers to be able to study all drugs as we have to know the potential health effects, and can help adequately treat people in our public health guidelines. But as for decriminalization, it should really depend on a variety of things, as there should be more ways to get treatment, but also have ways to help protect the public from people who are a danger to themselves and others, but having potential jailtime, because mental health treatment doesn't always work for some people unfortunately.

9>9  Personal answerI think it's a good idea, as it could lighten the load on our ambulance services and hospitals, but there has to be staff that are willing to do it, as well as communities that are willing to have it in place, and that can be a massive barrier to entry.

9>9  Personal answerYes, Canada has a long history of being a founding member of the UN, and being an advocate for the goals in which the UN strives for.

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

9>9  Personal answerNo, the current policy is sufficient

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo, I think that this could lead to breakdowns of our efficient democratic system, as in PR the government would have to cater to those within fringe movements, such as the People's Party of Canada, as well as smaller parties in order to gain a majority, and this could create a lot of deadlock and erode people's trust within the constitutional democratic system here in Canada, which has also happened within European democracies such as Germany to some extent, and republics such as the United States of America, as congress is almost always in a deadlock (with some rare exceptions.)

9>9  Personal answerYes, Canada already has some of the largest freshwater reserves in the world, and these are becoming increasingly threatened by climate change, as well as through mining and natural resource development. Any research we can do to help understand the situation further is desperately needed and worth every single penny we invest into it.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerDepends on what a "foreigner" is classified as. We can't ban house ownership to refugees, permanent residents, immigrants who are waiting for citizenship, ambassadors, consulates and such, because that would have catastrophic consequences for the country, as well as international relations with other countries. If you mean people who speculate, and don't actually live here, but sit on a property just because it's valuable, then yes, because nobody's living in those houses anyway. However, there should be consultation with places that have a large amount of vacation homes, nd rely on that for tax money, because they need it for their municipal budgets and it could harm their ability to invest in their community very much.

9>9  Personal answerIt shouldn't be an "either-or" thing. If police departments need the funding to hire and retain staff, as well as give support, we should do that if it's in the community's best interests. But, we can also have community-based programs to reduce recidivism, as well as keep people from going to crime, as it is a good thing additionally for the community. But regardless, it depends on the community.

9>9  Personal answerA mix of both. They should be there if the workers want it, but it depends on how they're run that makes me skeptical of them. They can create a really good environment, but also a really antagonistic one, and so that's why I would say that I'm in the middle on this issue rather than just blindly picking a side.

9>9  Personal answerYes, as long as they are respectful and treat the property well (don't vandalize, steal/smash, etc.) because no matter how many houses we build, there is always some people who won't be able to live in them because of underlying circumstances, so giving them access to public washrooms, as well as a space to sleep/eat is in the community's interest for safety of everyone.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes. Ukraine is in need of it, but we should also do it to keep conflict from spreading in to NATO member territory, and preventing WWIII. It's also good to do for economic stability, as we need to make sure that we can play a role in a peaceful outcome/de-escalation which helps bring society and markets back to a greater stability.

9>9  Personal answerI think we should have term limits, for the sake of the generational power that can be held by some generations (such as the baby boomers and millennials.) but also for the sake of having less power-hungry individuals, and keeping the respect for office high while they serve, and also to limit the potential damage that they can do. I do realize that there may be some troubles, as consistency can be thrown to the wind in some ways, but I do think that it is important to have for the sake of our democracy.

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

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerI would say be cautious. Often times, those who want austerity measures to be in place don't think things through, and can cause a lot of unintended damage to the greater federal budget, leaving a massive mess for future generations, but also erodes faith in our democratic system. Overall, I would say be pragmatic and methodical, and have wise investments with lots of consultation rather than just blanket cutting of programs or adding of programs.

9>9  Personal answerI would say so. We should try our best to get a lot of the wealthy influence out of politics as much as possible, and get back to making decisions which can reflect the will of the majority of the people, while also having more faith in our own policymakers and those we elect to represent us.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes. It's a very fiscally responsible thing to do, as children who are in early childhood education help develop many skills early on, and become more capable later on in life, but it also helps advance gender equality within the workforce, as more women can go to work, and fill in labour gaps which can help ease a lot of the tensions, and labour shortages in our economy which will only grow in the coming years.

9>9  Personal answerSubsidizing makes it seem as if the government is paying for the house, which it is not. But anything we can do to help people be able to save for a house, as well as make it more affordable is very worthwhile, and we should consider it.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerAs long as it meets the requirements, and the Ukrainian people want to join NATO, then the Ukrainian government should be allowed to join under the principles and goals of the Washington Treaty and other documents.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerDepends on what a "foreigner" is classified as. We can't ban house ownership to refugees, permanent residents, immigrants who are waiting for citizenship, ambassadors, consulates and such, because that would have catastrophic consequences for the country, as well as international relations with other countries. If you mean people who speculate, and don't actually live here, but sit on a property just because it's valuable, then yes, because nobody's living in those houses anyway. However, there should be consultation with places that have a large amount of vacation homes, nd rely on that for tax money, because they need it for their municipal budgets and it could harm their ability to invest in their community very much.

9>9  Personal answerNo, the bill is too vague on the issues of scope, oversight, and accountability

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 answerI am satisfied with the current amount of spending

9>9  Personal answerNeither, maintain the current amount

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes. It's abundantly clear that Canada is going to need more good-quality public transit in the coming years, as our cities will grow but we also need to combat the additional challenges of climate change and rising GHG emissions within cities, which are a problem as most Canadians do live within or just outside of a major city.

9>9  Personal answerMake the reforms necessary to ensure confidence in the organization again. Tackle problems of systemic discrimination, as well as sexual harassment within it, which have plagued the organization's reputation (ex. Somalia Affair, Jonathan Vance investigation.) and make it a desirable place to serve again, and then we can talk about what spending measures are necessary, as we can't just throw money at it if there's a dwindling population of soldiers who are dissatisfied.

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

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerYes, but there should also be investments in infrastructure to make sure that they can be repaired and maintained within the city, otherwise it's not a worthwhile investment to make, and it makes it challenging.

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerDepends on what "non-violent" is classified as. If it's a crime that didn't really do a whole lot of damage, maybe that's a community service but I'm skeptical to label all "non-violent" offenses as safe to be released to the community, because that sounds like a recipe for disaster.

9>9  Personal answerNo

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

9>9  Personal answerNo, we should focus on improving our public schools and increasing teacher wages instead

9>9  Personal answerYes

9>9  Personal answerNo