The government’s job should be to ensure all areas have an equal playing field and to help the areas that can’t manage on their own as well as be a stable foundation for other things such as currency and defence.
Any government should not micro manage their citizens and businesses to the point that it is now- what businesses receive taxpayer money, what products can be sold, etc. The government should also put their people first before any others. If we think of the government like the parents of a family, we would be upset if they gave away their money to someone down the street and let their children starve. If we would get mad over that, why are we not mad about the government giving our money away for nothing in return and leave the citizens to suffer under the massive debt and deficit?
If people are unable to help themselves or get help from charitable organizations, then as a last resort, the government should step in. How it is now, the government is getting involved in everyone’s lives and trying to “help” them but in reality, it’s only bringing everyone down. The middle or working class is so small now that the needy and the wealthy classes are both larger than it is.
An example of too much government is universal basic income because the government is taking money from those who work and give it to those who don’t. There needs to be incentive to work or else fewer people will work. In order to pay for anything (nothing is free) the government must first take from someone to pay for it. Eventually, those who have their money taken will decide that the government takes too much and they will then also stop working in order to live off of the handouts from the government. With fewer people working to pay for the universal basic income, taxes will have to be raised to pay for it and the cycle will continue until the system can’t sustain itself anymore. The same can be said about $10/day daycare or $1 transit rides or anything the government says it can cheapen or give away.
Giving money to other countries and “free” or discounted things are significant reasons as to why costs and inflation are so high. What we need to do is to stop handing out money for nothing in return or not of equal value to other countries, with the exception of some humanitarian aid in actual emergencies. We also need to stop with wasteful spending at home with services and programs that have shown to not be cost effective and to reduce the size and scope of the government. If we can eliminate the waste and get rid of the deficit and tackle down the debt, we can have more money down the road for other extras. In short, less spending now will ensure more for later.
At no time in history can we see when a nation has disarmed its citizens that both a reduction in crime and the governing body did not become tyrannical happen. If we go back through history, two most glaringly evident times, of the many, when disarming the people went badly for the people are China, when an estimated 65 million people were killed and in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust around 6 million Jews were killed. A tyrannical government can do as they wish if the people are disarmed and can’t defend themselves. Gun control is about control. Period.
What does the Canadian Liberal Party plan on doing to want to disarm their citizens? To find the answer to this question, we can’t go to the government because we will never get the truth. To find the answer, we must go through history and see what happens when a government/dictator disarms the population. Most recently, Venezuela has shown the world what happens when the people lose their firearms. What about the Jewish community in Nazi Germany? And the people under Mao or Stalin? We can see that tens of millions of people have been killed and many millions more severely impacted by just this one thing. A government should not have to fear their people unless they are planning on doing something that goes against the people. And telling their citizens lies about firearms to instil fear in them so that more people will go along is unconscionable.
Under the Liberal government, since Trudeau came into office, gang violence is up 92% and violent crimes are up 32%. This trend is continuing upward even though he has banned thousands upon thousands of firearms through the Order in Council in May of 2020 and the handgun freeze in late 2022. The vast majority of firearms used during the commission of crimes are illegally smuggled from the US and the Chiefs of law enforcement around the country have all stated that banning legal firearms will not change the outcome of crime rates. While Trudeau professes to want to curb violence and crime, his hypocrisy shines clearly in the fact that he has lowered the penalties for gang-related crimes. In order for crime to go down, there need to be reasons for individuals to not want to commit those crimes. Either by increasing penalties to dissuade them or something to incentivize them to do something else instead. Trudeau instead does neither and wants to take the property from law-abiding citizens. In 2018, according to StatsCan, there were a total 651 homicides and of those, 249 were by firearms and 51% of those were gang-related. This means that there were 122 homicides out of 651 where firearms were used not by a gang member. Out of nearly 2.2 million licenced individuals, you have a 0.0056% chance of being killed by someone with a firearm and the Liberal government wants everyone to believe that that is significant. However, in the same 2018 year in Canada, there were 1,922 fatalities due to car crashes, nearly 300 drownings, 119 were beaten to death, 250 nutritional deficiencies, 54,182 from heart disease, 168 from medical & surgical care, ~15,000 from alcohol use, and ~48,000 from smoking.
Using our neighbour to the south, we can clearly see that restricting firearms does absolutely nothing to prevent crime. Look at California, New York, and the city of Chicago. Those are the places with some of the most stringent firearms laws in the country and yet crimes with firearms are extremely high. Over 90% of mass shooting happen in gun-free zones. Criminals know that they can get away with whatever it is they want because they know no one will be armed and shoot back in defense. Over in Great Britain we can see the same thing. They banned firearms and even knives but yet their crime rates are still not falling as was claimed would happen and are actually increasing. What we see around the world is that the governments, including our own, do not want their citizens armed. The Liberal party had a long-gun registry a few years ago and its cost was too high for the next to zero return they got from it. It showed how useless it was in preventing or catching criminals who used firearms because next to none of the firearms that were used in crimes were legally owned by the offenders. The firearms were either bought off the black market (registry wouldn’t help with that), stolen (registry wouldn’t help with that), or smuggled into the country (registry wouldn’t help with that). Now, the Liberals are using the Order in Council to bring back a registry without calling it one. This is yet another one of their attempts to control the population. That, along with the banning of certain firearms because of the perceived danger that they pose.
Here in Canada, we are taking away peoples’ right to enjoy their property in the name of safety. Canada does not have a gun problem, we have a gang problem and the Liberals continue to make it easier for them to commit crimes and at the same time vilify law abiding citizens for enjoying something we have done for over a hundred years. Why would our government want to disarm its citizens closely after taking away most of our rights and freedoms in the name of safety during COVID? What are they planning for our future?
A government should want to have its populace trained and armed in case something goes off the rails, like in the Ukraine. We (the West) are giving Ukraine citizens AR-15s to help defend themselves against Russia and yet at the same time taking them away from us. If conservation officers need ARs to protect them from Canadian wildlife, then why can’t Canadians have and use them for the same reason?
In all of our history, only ONE person has died as a result from being shot from an AR-15. The ban on them as well as the ban on others and the bans yet to come serve no purpose to public safety. None. In fact, the government should be telling people to get their licence, to not be afraid of a tool. More vehicles kill people than firearms; more people are beaten to death than are killed with firearms; more people die from medical errors than are killed from firearms; alcohol kills more people than firearms. Many things result in the deaths of people in higher numbers than firearms. If it truly were about saving lives, then firearms wouldn’t even be in the top 10 of things to ban. Again, it’s about control. They are fear mongers who play on your emotions to get you to side with them as well as targeting those who know little to nothing about firearms or the related laws to side with them.
Assault-style or military-style are made up terms that are meant to make you think that they are assault or military weapons when they are not. The magazine capacity restrictions in Canada make no sense- 5 rounds for a rifle, 10 for a handgun, and no restriction for a shotgun or .22 rimfire. They want to ban firearms that can take magazines of more than 5 rounds. Guess what the manufacturer standard capacity magazines are for the most common rifles? 30 rounds. That’s the actual standard that they come in. We have to modify them to meet Canadian standards. When competing in speed competitions with rifles on the international stage, Canadians are at a significant disadvantage since we can only train with 5 rounds before having to reload. When we go somewhere else to compete, they’re used to using the standard 30 rounds. Our laws are so mixed up and make no sense. We arbitrarily limit magazine capacity so that criminals have to take more time reloading, thus slowing them down. Criminals are already breaking the law, so they don’t care about undoing the modifications that limit the number of rounds in a magazine. Not to mention that it only takes a second or two to reload a firearm. As for real assault weapons, which are fully automatic, have been banned for 50 years and use up their magazine in only a moment before needing to reload and are not as easy to keep aimed due to the kick back.
Finally, if law abiding firearms owners were the problem, then we wouldn’t need the government and their paid media telling us that we are.
I believe that it should be everyone’s right to own firearms as long as they can pass a criminal background check and pass a safety course, which we do already. Furthermore, I am of the mind to allow citizens to carry firearms as they do in many Sates of the U.S. as long as they pass a safety course for that and regular range practice and testing to prove that these people can carry and use their firearms safely and competently. There should be no magazine restrictions because they do not do anything except create more complications. Finally, there should be three classes of firearms, as there is now. Prohibited firearms would be any automatics, restricted would be any handguns, and all rifles and shotguns would be non-restricted.
The environment is quite important to the planet and to us because without the resources and air that we get from it, we wouldn’t be here to talk about it. Canada does a fairly decent job at keeping things clean by recycling and not tossing trash everywhere. There are individuals who do actively pollute or destroy the environment by not caring where they leave their garbage or what they burn, but overall, we do fairly well. There will always be room for improvement though.
Where the issues come from are the lesser developed areas that are mainly in Africa, India, and China. In certain areas within those places, you can see rivers that are literally full of trash that flows downstream and into the oceans or lakes. When you see pictures of tons of plastics and other garbage in the water or from a clean-up, nearly all of that comes from those types of areas and not Canada. Having companies stop using plastic straws and bags is just virtue signalling because we are not the issue when it comes to ocean pollution and the plastic packaging vastly outweighs the amount of bags and straws consumers use and throw out. Bags can and are reused and recycled and plastic straws can also be recycled. The reusable bags out there aren’t as good for the environment as some people may believe because some are also made out of plastic. While they are reusable (as are regular plastic bags), there is now becoming a surplus of those as well because people buy them when they need them and eventually have too many and then have to get rid of them. What companies should focus on is getting plastic bags that are biodegradable so that the people can reuse them and once the bag’s life comes to an end and isn’t properly disposed of it will simply decompose, unlike the heavier reusable ones.
When it comes to paper straws, we have to think about both the health of the person and where the paper materials come from. Paper straws disintegrate fairly quickly and that means that people will be ingesting parts of those straws and what types of effects can that have on people if they use those straws on a more regular or frequent basis? Paper usually comes from trees with other sources becoming more popular. How many trees do we have to cut down in order to make all of these straws? And isn’t carbon dioxide supposed to be a bad thing for the environment? Cutting down trees that take out carbon dioxide from the air to make straws seems to me to be not the smartest idea because either we need trees or carbon dioxide isn’t as bad as “they” are saying.
As for carbon dioxide, it is actually a very good thing to have because that’s what plants need to survive and if we keep cutting our emissions to zero, the plants will die and so will we because they produce the oxygen we breathe. Some greenhouses actually pump carbon dioxide into their buildings to give their plants an extra boost for growing. There have been times in history when the carbon dioxide levels were higher than it is now and life flourished. The world’s carbon dioxide levels are 0.04% of the atmosphere, which is up from 0.03%. This is one of the main reasons why the Earth is greener than it ever has been. If carbon dioxide is to be reduced, we can’t reduce it too low because at only 0.02% plants will start to die. While we don’t want to intentionally pollute the atmosphere, we also don’t want to reduce emissions too much or we will run into problems ourselves. We’re already struggling with pollinating what we have because of a lack of bees. Imagine how much worse it will be when plants start to die off because they can’t survive with carbon dioxide levels that are too low. Specifically, in Canada, we are already carbon negative because of all the trees we have and the technology we use to reduce pollution. If we are carbon negative, why the talk about going green and carbon taxes? Money. Not environmental reasons, money.
The cost of living is going out of control. Prices of everything have increased greatly over the past several years, especially housing. The cost of buying a house in Canada has doubled since 2015 and the rates are still going up. How are Canadians who want to buy their first home supposed to do so unless they come from a family who has money? The average house is over $700,000, which means that the smallest down payment is $35,000. Many Canadians don’t even make that in a year, let alone being able to pay their bills and save up that $35k. Some Canadians are lucky and they live in areas where the local average house cost is less and others are not so fortunate and have to pay more.
What Canada needs to do is to stop all non-essential immigration and foreign ownership. With such a high demand for housing, it creates higher costs. We need to catch up on the backlogs we already have by building more houses, apartment buildings, etc. so that those who are already in Canada can find an affordable place to live. By significantly reducing the immigration to only those who are necessary (and immediate family only- spouse and children under 18) for Canada’s economy, we can lessen the increased demand for housing. Also, by eliminating people who live in other countries from purchasing, for example, a summer home, we will further reduce the demand on housing. Both of these strategies will ensure that construction companies can catch up with demand and ease up the pressure felt by homebuyers and renters.
The cost of living in Canada is out of control. The cost of buying a house in Canada has doubled since 2015 and market prices are still going up. How are Canadians who want to buy their first home supposed to do so unless they come from a family who has money?
The average house in Canada is priced at $816,720, the smallest down payment for a mortgage would be $40,836 (5%). The average income of a Canadian is $55,700 (the median market income of Canadian families and unattached individuals), even if you earned this amount (double minimum wage for a full-time employee in Ontario) it would take several years to save that amount. Some Canadians are lucky, and they live in areas where the average price of a home is considered affordable.
Unfortunately, many of these areas have cheaper housing because they lack sufficient employment options or service infrastructure (transit, internet, etc.). If you want to live where the jobs are you are going to pay more – a lot more.
Canada needs to suspend all non-essential immigration and foreign ownership. A high demand for housing creates higher costs. We need several years to catch up on the backlogs we have created. This is achieved through the expedited approval of quality affordable home construction including the development of multi-family dwellings (row housing and apartment buildings). This increased construction effort will allow those who are already in Canada to, hopefully, find an affordable place to live.
By significantly reducing the immigration numbers to only economic immigrants (plus their immediate family, spouse and children under 18) we can lessen the current unsupported demand for housing. The proactive blocking of foreign ownership of Canadian property, for example the purchase of a seasonal vacation home, will further reduce the demand on housing. Expedited quality residential construction approval and a sensible reduction in immigration will ensure that development and construction companies are able to keep up with demand. A reduction in the housing shortage will ease the pressure felt by homebuyers and renters to pay exorbitant costs for housing and a cooling of market prices, to reasonable numbers, should occur.
The environment is crucial to the survival of the planet and the species living on it, including humans. While there is always room for improvement, Canadians have done a decent job at keeping our neighbourhoods clean with extensive recycling and waste management programs. We need to do our best to identify polluters, be they residential, commercial, or industrial, and through due process stop and fine them and ensure that clean-up efforts are regulated.
Incidents of major pollution frequently come from lesser developed areas mainly located in China, India, and Africa. In several communities within those locations photographers have captured scenes of rivers that are overflowing with trash. This trash ultimately flows downstream into lakes or the world’s oceans. When you see pictures of tons of plastics and other contaminants in the water, or the clean-up efforts of these areas, nearly all those photos were not taken in Canada.
The banning of plastic (drinking) straws and plastic (grocery) bags is non-sensical virtue signaling. Plastic bags can and are reused and both plastic bags and straws can be recycled into other products (ranging from reusable shopping bags to home construction materials). Grocery stores who have taken it upon themselves to virtue signal to the public are now creating a waste stream of re-usable cloth and plastic bags that, upon completing their cycle of use, will go directly to the landfill.
Instead of banning plastic bags and plastic straws, only to substitute them with products that will create future problems, they should be improving on the existing item. Plastic (grocery) bags can be made with 100% biodegradable (and in some cases edible) materials and vegetable ink (or no printing on the bag at all). To reduce the use of plastic straws, have restaurants servers wait until the consumer asks for a straw instead of just including one with their drink.
When it comes to paper straws, we must think about both the health of the person and where the paper materials come from. Paper straws disintegrate at a minute level and that means that people will be ingesting fragments of those straws. It would be better, as a healthy society, not to find out five years from now the negative effects those straw fragments end up having on the people who use straws on a frequent basis.
We have the technology to improve on existing products, the solution to every problem cannot be to simply ban it or throw money at it and hope it goes away.
In September 2021, I campaigned as an Independent candidate in Canada's 44th Federal Election for the riding of Huron-Bruce. I placed 5th with a total of 509 votes (0.9%). It is my intention to run as an Independent candidate in Canada's 45th Federal Election in 2025.