Machjo

Sorry, I meant MNA, not MP.

This would be more of an investment though. A hungry child, no matter how smart, won't study hard on an empty stomach. If we're spending tax dollars to educate him, then we might as well get a bang for the buck and if that means filling his belly to have him study harder so that he can succeed in life rather than just produce another generation of hungry kids, then that's a small price to pay.

Just because we can afford it doe not mean we must spend it. Spending must always be an investment of some kind. And for the most part, that lies with the private sector. The only area I can see government spending really being an investment is in education, and even then I'm for school vouchers or other incentives for the private sector to get involved, and with public education developing the skills one will need to serve the community, which includes learning a trade or profession before the end of his compulsory education. Beyond education though, government spending ought to stick to the basics.

Just because we can afford it doe not mean we must spend it. Spending must always be an investment of some kind. And for the most part, that lies with the private sector. The only area I can see government spending really being an investment is in education, and even then I'm for school vouchers or other incentives for the private sector to get involved, and with public education developing the skills one will need to serve the community, which includes learning a trade or profession before the end of his compulsory education. Beyond education though, government spending ought to stick to the basics.

So how would you bring up the birth rate? Among some options I could see would be to improve education. For example, let's say schooling for 5 to 15 year olds would extend through the summer and winter holidays, possibly include activities one day each weekend, etc. and include school meals as examples.

Not if some had their way.

Good point. If we promise it, we give it. If we don't want to give it, then don't promise it. That said, if it were me, I'd not have promised it in the first place, and instead turned to more deregulation to help the poor. Examples could include more free trade for instance, rather than monetary help. Now as for that promise, we ought to either keep it or take our name off that agreement. This is one thing that frustrates me, where governments will sign all these feel good international agreements and then not lvie up to them. Either don't sign them, or live up to them. Take you pick, but have some backbone either way.

So in other words, it's preferable to have a small tax base supporting an army that has to defend the second largest country in the world? I can hear the printing presses at the Bank of Canada revving up as I type. The truth of the matter is, we cannot afford an army capable of defending all Canadian territory with the population and tax base we currently have. If the goal is to expand our military, then we first have to expand our tax base, and that comes via more births or more immigration. Take your pick.

Such referenda are actually harmful to Quebec too as they essentially pit Quebecer against Quebecer. Repeated such referenda again and again and again are bound to have their toll on Quebec unity over time. But hey, it's their choice. But if the sovereigntists were wise, they would not have a referendum unless they know they could win it because each repeated referendum just divides Quebecers among themselves, and that's certainly not what the movement wants.

As for the far north, why not just exploit its resources? Also, the smaller Canada's population, the fewer people there are to populate the North. How about banning abortion except to save the mothers' life as a start. Start with the basics.

Our national debt would have a massive presence too.

Most Quebec voters are not stupid and I think they understand that. That said, I do agree the question ought to be made clear. And to save money on a referendum, why not roll it together with a regular election? Just put the question at the bottom of the same ballot they'll vote for their MP.

Sorry, MP.

The Bloc is strictly a federal party. Are you sure you're not confusing it with the Parti Quebecois? And a loss for the Quebec Libs does not automatically translate into a win for the PQ. There are other parties there, though granted the Libs and PQ are the two predominant parties.

Seeing that Duceppe is a Federal and not Provincial minister, is it really his busines to be calling for a Quebec-wide referendum, or is he calling for a Canada-wide referendum

Another absolutely basic requirement I could see woudl be to require them all to pass a basic English of French test.

The problem I see is political parties hijacking the political process. The idea is to create a system that removes parties from the picture. Or are you a party hack yourself?

Do we have rifles in almost every home in the country? Is almost every Canadian trained in at least basic infantry skills?

They do, but once the professional army collapses, you then have to face the civil defense force. Canada has this flaw too. Once the professional army is overrun, it's game over for us. Sweden is another country like Switzerland. Even if you do overrun its professional force, you then have to face the citizenry.

How would it be awkward and destabilizing? You could even have electronic voting booths whereby you just enter the three or however many names, ensure their spellings are correct, perhaps be required to enter some voting ID number of theirs or something of the wort, and the computer would do the rest. Without a doubt the winners would be people who are well respected in the community, people the community trusts. We'd finally have some class in Parliament. And again, people who can gain genuine respect are usually people who can work as a team too. With no parties anymore, there'd be no more partisan circus in Parlaiment.

The CPC is neither right nor left. I have no clue what it is, but I don't see how a fake lake plays in its ideological make up.

Here's how I see it. No country would ever attack Canada just for the sake of attacking it. If a country attacks Canada, it would need a valid reason to do so. Heck, even Hitler could not attack Poland without first controlling all media and then launching a false flag attack against German soil by German soldiers dressed up a Polish soldiers. If even Hitler were so constrained, then without a doubt a country would give plenty of forewarning of an attack. It must first find a valid excuse or even its own people will oppose it. But even with that, just attacking Poland for the sake of attacking it was of no value to Hitler. He intended to exploit the country's resources. So looking at it that way, simply having bomber planes would not suffice, since while bombers can destroy, you eventually have to put soldiers on the ground to control if the goal is to benefit from this in some way. And even with that, Hitler had to be cautious. It was learnt at the end of WWII that even some German officers were not aware of the atrocities committed by the Nazis and sincerely believed from the start that they were simply fighting for their homeland. So clearly Hitler had to be cautious when attacking other countries not to make his atrocities too obvious to the overall public, thus restricting how violent they could be. I believe this is where Switzerland outsmarted Poland. Poland simply had a professional army, which is easy to attack with full force on the argument of them being legitimate targets. Once the professional military was down, that was game over for Poland. With Switzerland, for one thing it was a citizen army, so the Nazis would have had to either bomb the whole of Switzerland, which would likely have shaken the loyalty of many German officers (after all, they were still human and had a pride in being upright and certainly engaging in genocide is not what most would want to engage in). Or fight the Swiss street to street. After all, just attacking the country is of no benefit unless you can then control it. So looking at it that way, Canada does not need to be able to outperform an enemy force, but like Switzerland just be able to ensure that while the enemy might win, it would be a hollow victory bringing with it no benefit anyway.

You can't deny such a system would crush the parties.

Locally?

Could it not be tested at the local level initially?