Machjo

As strange as it might seem, a principled conservative, a principled liberal, and a principled socialist will share far more in common with one another than with the unprincipled of any stripe. To take supply management as an example. A conservative would oppose it because of its conflict with the free market. A liberal would oppose it for the same reason and the fact that it hurts the poor. A socialist would oppose it because it hurts the poor. So that says a lot about the parties that defend it.

The main claim of the left is its desire to help the poor. The dairy cartel benefits farmers at the expense of poor consumers. I don't see how any principled leftist can support the dairy cartel. Free trade helps poor Canadian consumers and poor foreign workers. How can the principled left oppose free trade? The left generally supports more open immigration to help the poor, but how does spending millions of poor working-class people's hard-earned taxes help the poor? Now let's say Bernier made it easier for a foreign national to visit, study, work, or do business in Canada but more difficult for that person to collect social assistance in Canada, that would still present the argument of giving poor foreigners more opportunities without burdening poor Canadians so much, and so helping the poor all around. I think if he adapts his policies to show Canadians how these policies can benefit the world's poor, he might stand a chance to win over at least some moderate left voters.

I agree. Voters can be shallow.

But are Canadian westerners just Anglo supporters or real principled conservatives who can look past an accent?

I vote candidate, not party. That said, if I were in Bernier's riding, I could see myself supporting him depending on who ran against him. I support open borders, and Bernier is is a mixed bag on that front. On the one hand, he's very pro-free-trade, maybe even in favour of unilateral global free trade. If so, then that would be a big plus. He believes in more controls on immigration. I'm a mixed bag on that front. I could see putting an end to social assistance for foreign nationals except genuine refugees, but other than that I'm very much for the free movement of labour. As for cultural policy, I say keep the government out of that. So overall, I take him as a mixed bag: I could vote for him, but it would really depend who was running against him.

Supporters of unilateral free trade might find common ground with Bernier.

Thank you.

I would describe the UK as secular even if it is a Christian monarchy. France is a secularist state.

That makes sense. When we lower taxes on the poor and raise them on businesses, the poor then fail to understand the link between the higher business taxes and the cost of goods and services. Should the poor pay some kind of tax, even if just a low symbolic one, it helps to reinforce the link between social services and their costs and so affects the way they vote. Alternatively, make basic economics a compulsory course in high school for all. Or both.

A million here and a million there quickly adds up.

Don't they realize that when we tax businesses, those businesses just pass the cost on to the consumer? Maybe that's the problem. The poor don't realize that in the end, they're paying taxes too through higher costs for goods and services.

'Using a general equilibrium model, this paper explores the potential benefits of unilateral free trade for Canada. On the one hand, eliminating all tariffs would cost the federal government roughly $4 billion a year in revenue. Offsetting that, there would be some savings for government on the $75 million currently budgeted for collection of border taxes and the management of free trade agreements. More importantly, this paper projects output gains on the order of one per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – approximately $20 billion a year based on the level of GDP in 2013 – in additional economic activity due to the cost savings to firms engaged in trade.' http://www.ceocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Should-Canada-unilaterally-adopt-free-trade-Ciuriak-and-Xiao-May-20141.pdf Gotta love economists.

We should give illegals one of two choices: 1. a student, work, and business visa. 2. A ticket back home. If you can't support yourself, tough. OK, a third option: 3. A private sponsor. Taxes shouldn't be paying for anything other than a ticket home.

Alternatively, the Notwithstanding clause.

Ford would simply need to ask the Federal Government to strike it from the Constitution Act and I imagine the Federal Government would accept. It might take time to wind through the system, but it could be done.

And the vast majority of the population is heterosexual. I see nothing wrong with segregating the sexes in cases in which a person may need to dress less modestly than usual such as in a public washroom, a change room, a dorm room, or a swimming pool.

And actually, Pearson originally proposed the Pearson Pennant which had three red maple leafs on a white background and two blue bars on the sides to symbolize the Canadian motto from sea to sea.

Actually, the motive for the red had little to nothing to do with the Liberal Party. King George V had made red and white the official colours of Canada in 1921, red from St. George's cross and white from the white from a French royal emblem. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established just before the Maple-Leaf flag was adopted and published its report not long after with a mandate to explore the relationship between the 'two founding races.' within that historical context, the choice of red and white was more probably a subtle bow to the English and the French but without explicit symbols beyond these more than any link to the Liberal Party's colours. Sure the Liberal Party's colours may have played a role too, but if so, then a very secondary one.

Secularism or secularity? One is closed, the other open? For example, France is a secularist state, the US a secular one. France restricts public displays of religion whereas the US allows it. Which do you mean?

Who knows? Maybe you're right about not giving an official civil status to the 1957 Canadian Red ensign especially given how anyone can legally fly it anyway and that to give it such an official status would be purely symbolic with no practical consequence anyway. I would still like such a status conferred on it for its symbolic significance but accept that it wouldn't change anything in practical terms I guess.

Interesting. I believe in God, yet am more than willing to accommodate atheists. You seem to be proposing heavy-handed laws to infringe on religious freedoms.

I bet they probably do. If you're referring to Islam, it actually teaches obedience to the social laws of the state and recognizes that the religion of the state and that of the individual can be different. Nothing in Islam would prevent a Muslim from swearing allegiance to the Queen on social matters as long as she does not impose spiritual laws on them pertaining to profession of faith, prayer, or fasting for example. Ironically, I think atheists would struggle with this more than any believe in God regardless of this religion. I do think though that we should allow a person to swear the oath of allegiance none-the-less. Again, irrespective of religion, you might find more Muslims than atheists willing to do so.

It would merely be a co-official civil flag alongside the Maple-Leaf, meaning that people would be free to not use it if they don't want to. The Maple-Leaf would remain the sole official state flag. In other words, the state would not actually use it but just confer an official status on it as a symbolic sign of respect for it. No one would be forced to use it. So if I understand you correctly, you'd be opposed to even so much as granting it a symbolic official status that would have little no no practical bearing?

The Maple-Leaf flag is now the official state flag of Canada and, in the absence of a different civil flag, has served as the civil flag of Canada too.While keeping the Maple-Leaf as its official state flag for official purposes, should Canada adopt both the Maple-Leaf and the Red Ensign as its co-official civil flags?I understand that any private citizen can already freely fly whatever flag he wants in front of his house or waive whatever flag he wants at a Canada-Day celebration, so giving an official status to the Red Ensign would be purely symbolic since any private citizen can freely fly it already anyway. I still think that it would be a positive symbolic gesture for the government to recognize the Maple-Leaf as the official state flag and the Maple-Leaf and Red Ensign as the official civil flags just to give it the historical recognition it deserves.Your thoughts on this?

I think we should perhaps modify the oath of allegiance to simply promising to obey the law. It shouldn't be imposing any king of belief system on a person otherwise it just encourages untruthfulness anyway.