I prefer the idea of a party having two issues that are on the ballot and the voters decide those issues and which ever party wins must pass them.
So the Conservatives for example could chose ban Abortion and the Liberals could have legalize pot. Both would be on the ballot.

Why not? I mean, our banking info is all online and presumably secure.

Like a referendum?

About as secure as our CRA information. It's a terrible idea.

Correct

So the Liberals could have had

Place a carbon tax on ...... to save the world
Legalize Marijauna

The Conservatives could have had

Approval of the Energy East Pipeline
Ban abortions

If any items got 67% of the vote the party would have to put them into law.

Lets face it the current system has Justin Trudeau setting the agenda and if your against it or do not comply your asked to resign like Bill Morneau was when he disagreed with Justin's plan to spend his way out of the pandemic.

Of course the same thing happened with Harper

You can’t put a referendum to let others decide the control of your body to the rest of the community .
We ban slavery Worldwide already and in Canada we made huge progress with abortion and the right to die with medical assistance , I don’t go back to the Stone Age without freedom and dictate by religion...

Our political system working just fine , just wish it would be more representative with 2 turn of voting instead of a nominal system .

California does this to a large extent through ballot initiatives and it has all sorts of terrible drawbacks, the biggest ones being:

1. People end up putting into place government policies that are nice by themselves but contradictory, like things that increase spending along with initiatives to block tax increases.

2. Contrary to what you might expect, direct democracy ended up favoring special interests more than the average joe as special interests have better resources to get things onto the ballot (it's tough to gather the requisite number of signatures in order to get on), and the advertising money to push the outcome they want.

It was an example and it would never get 67% of the vote plus by putting it on the ballot it would cost them votes.

Our current system is horrible. Quebec has to much representation and veto power. I do agree with the 2 turn of voting though

Although not perfect, the USA is obviously the best system of goverence so far in human civilization. It's pretty amazing how many things the founding fathers got right looking back on it.

Why you say Quebec as too much power ?
Quebec is the second most populated province in Canada, and by far from the 3rd place , shrug.

Ontario has massive representation too, why are you not citing them ?

About the veto ?
Well it only exist to prevent Canada to do w.e he wants without the consent of the provinces since we are a federation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriation_Reference

Seven judges, a majority, found that the federal government had the legal authority to unilaterally seek the amendment of the Constitution without consent of the provinces. "

When you speak constitution, it is a major issue and i think its perfectly normal everyone agree before making any major changes...
(and do not forget, Trudeau father been able to change the Canada with the freedom chart since it was impose to all Canadian and Quebec did not sign the consitution).

FWIW : https://globalnews.ca/news/3496355/q...-amend-reopen/

"Some amendments even require unanimous consent across all federal and provincial legislatures."


Regardless, all that would of been history but 2 deputies, one from Alberta and another from newfound land if my memory serve me well, reject the accord for Quebec to join....

So blame them for the veto if it still exist.
It doesnt change much anything anyway, no constitution talk for the next 50 years is in line, shrug.

The American Constitution was a brilliant document, but it is a shame that it didn't function as it was intended, strictly limiting the size and scope of the state.

Should Huawei be allowed to operate 5g in Canada?

This is a decision that should have been made a long time ago.
Absolutely not. Justin seems to trust the Chinese to much. I have no clue why he partnered with them on a vaccine only to get screwed.

China is a large threat to the democratic west and it may be to strong to stop

Remember when we had a PM from Alberta who kept putting albertan interests and ideology ahead of the rest of the country for a decade? And then those same albertans had a massive hissy fit over losing a democratic election and went all #wexit (despite the organizers objectively being complete and utter morons)? And you bought into it? Ya...I wouldn't complain about quebec representation if I were you.

I can complain about anything I want Maybe we should have a government that balances the interests of all Canadians Not just whats best for one province

Have to say I missed my Trudeau Bot

Wexit was definitely the best idea of 2020

You mean worst idea , it would of been bad for both , Canada and Alberta .
While now Alberta got help from Canada and when Economy restart Alberta will help Canada ......

Pso you invest and if yes , do you have a porte folio ?

No No the worst idea was "The government will borrow the money so Canadians will not have to"

Why is this a bad thiing? What is the specific economic theory you are following here?

Instead of asking the forum the same question repeatedly, you'd get a better answer if you googled it.

Trudeau doesn't realize that its Canadians and future generations that need to pay the debt not the government.

One time fine but another 1 or 2 years of 250 billion dollar deficits and your looking at tax increases, cuts , GST of 7%

So your belief here is that trudeau doesn't understand the most basic, trivial, and obvious facts about government debt? Come on, don't be that guy. Do you similarly make this claim about Harper, or any conservative leader who promises tax cuts without any realistic plan to pay for them?


So you think this year trudeau did the right thing, correct? Namely, as in almost every country in the world, there was gargantuan economic stimulus to keep the economy afloat through a unique global pandemic. Basically there is a trade off, keeping away massive short term, uneven pain that tanks the economy completely, vs long term, disributed, much more manageable pain. I think trudeau, broadly speaking, made the right choice. The exact magnitude, the exact timing of the inevitable tapering of supports, etc is a debate the economists can have, but to just pass it off as "trudeau doesn't understand" something he obviously does and is just ludicrous.

Be better than this.

[QUOTE] [/So your belief here is that trudeau doesn't understand the most basic, trivial, and obvious facts about government debt? Come on, don't be that guy. Do you similarly make this claim about Harper, or any conservative leader who promises tax cuts without any realistic plan to pay for them?QUOTE]

This is what baffles me about you. When you bring up climate change as a moral obligation and I bring up selling weapons to the Saudi's or Buying votes in Africa you use the argument dont use what ifs .... just like you are doing now. What about Harper. Never have said Harper was great
No I am not sure how much Justin understands about the impact of a large national debt and its effect. He never has had to pay a bill himself as he is a income trust baby.
Also this is the same man that said " Budgets balance themselves and never came close to balancing a budget pre-covid. When Bill Morneau confronted him about it he fired him I mean asked for his resignation.

I have said I am torn on this one as he needed to get the help out quick but I also see tons of abuse of these programs. Like I said I give him a pass on the first 300 billion but he has had tons of time now and still has no plan. Even when it comes to overall testing and masks mandates he should be the man in charge and were falling behind on testing . Im not looking forward to fall

It's very simple. What you said it - obviously - completely ridiculous. Justin Trudeau - obviously - understands the the most basic, most obvious fact about how debt works. Since it can only be partisan, it is reasonable to see whether you think the exact same thing about the exact same situation of national debt against a different political person. Hopefully that would make more obvious to you what should be obvious already: your statement is truly terrible. Note carefully this is distinct from your earlier tactic where we were talking about climate change and you were like WHATABOUT this entirely new and different topic of selling jeeps to saudi arabia or whatever.


Damn, you really are doubling down on this nonsense. OF COURSE JT - like every other person in politics - is capable of understanding the concept of a national debt regardless of his financial situation. Look, a more reasonable conversation about debt is one about tradeoffs. People can reasonably debate about the relative value of those trade offs. I personally think people worry too much about structural deficits, for instance. However, if you are coming into that conversation with the view that our pm just doesn't even understand the most basic points, because of a life of luxury, then you can't really begin.

So you are fine with Canada having 2 deficits of 250 billion dollars a year for a couple more years?

Lets be clear I give him the benefit of the doubt on 2020 deficit. Though what we know now about folks receiving CERB, CEBA and Payroll Protection programs you have to adjust every one of them as there is to much abuse going on.
Do you know folks that are getting any of these programs that in reality do not need them?