Updated: 2024-04-01 – Wow. 5 Years since I updated this, my views remain mostly consistent, but I’ve made a few changes.

Updated: 2019-04-16 – I grow as a person and my views change over time. I thought it would be good to revisit this document and revise it. Additionally I thought it would be good if I showed what I changed so people can see how those views have changed, and maybe why I thought to change them.

With the presidential primaries going on in the US, the vacancy of a seat in the US Supreme Court by Antonin Scalia, a recent election Federal Canadian election, and an upcoming provincial election, it makes me want to be part of the solution. It makes me want to run, and to make changes.

So I am going to start a list of changes that I would make if I were in any of these offices. (In the case of the Canadian positions, I assume I am a policy maker and not just a back bencher).

To that point I would:
Enact Canadian Government Reform
No more party line votes – Enabling elected reps to vote freely for their constituents needs, or as they see as the best solution.
More opportunities for backbenchers to present bills – allowing more ideas to come up for debate and vote
Reform Political Parties – Make it so a party can present a platform that they would like to see enacted, members can then say that they fully support that platform, that they support much of it, or oppose all of it. The party would become an advocacy group, and could support a member to be elected based on the parties priorities, but the member would not be beholden to the party in any vote. The details would need to be refined to allow the party to support their candidates but not punish the candidate for not supporting their entire platform.

Enact Canadian Senate Reform

An elected senate or possibly a senate made up of previous provincial premiers.
Remove lifetime appointments and replace with 17 year appointments. – The senate should provide a sober second thought and not be beholden to electoral founders, or the emotional whims of the people. In this case consistency is an asset.
A senator could be removed by the province with a 75% vote in a provincial referendum.
Senate representation should be 2 senators per province – Ontario and Quebec, possibly even B.C. could have a case for splitting into multiple provinces.
Senate would be effective, with debates, news coverage and accountability. People talk about checks and Balances on the PMO, while the Senate is what Canada has. The Senators are not beholden to the PMO, and should not pass legislation that it does not consider wise. Likewise, the Senate should be originating legislation that it does deem wise.

Enact Canadian Election Reform

Switch to Single Transferable Vote – This would allow instant runoff style elections, a better proportion of intended vote to elected official, while maintaining regional representation, and an official who is responsive to his and her constituents.
Canadian Taxation Reform:

  • Taxes should not be charged on Taxes (As the GST is charged on City Taxes)
  • Taxes should not be charged on any Food
  • Taxes should not be charged on home heating IE gas, or electricity, but can be charged on gas or electricity used in manufacturing (such as fertilizer or a factory), but not for the portion going to heating. This might require multiple meters. 2024-04-01 Climate taxes have been in effect for several years now increasing the cost of gasoline and home heating fuels. While I appreciate that the intent for the environment I think the approach is poor, and I hate the cost of paying admin to create rebates, and the inequity of giving rebates to those who don’t pay. If I had to come up with a better way I would licence the businesses with over a million dollars in revenue. They would pay a rate based on their pollution levels, this would include delivery trucks, trains, planes, manufacturing plants, refineries etc.
  • School taxes should be incorporated into income tax, and the province should budget the amount schools get. 2024-04-01 – Manitoba has moved in this direction. I think this is a good thing.
  • Property taxes should be more transparent in their calculation and billing renters should be charged a “Property Tax” that is transparent to them. For example if the landlord currently pays $1200 per year in property tax for the rental property the single tenant would receive a $100 rent decrease/month and the tax bill. The landlord might still be required to pay the bill on behalf of the tenant, but the bill and the rent would be more transparent. In the case of a multi-home development the property tax would be split amongst the zoned residential capacity for the space, so an apartment building with 99 units, and 1 manager unit plus common space would split the tax proportional to the amount of space available for exclusive use of the tenants, and a proportional amount of the common space amongst the 100 units. Any unoccupied units or spaces unavailable to the tenants would be the paid by the landlord. This is similar to how condominiums are taxed with allocations for common area’s etc.
  • Accountability in taxation – Budget amounts would be transparent, where the money goes to and where it comes from. Sales tax would clearly go to certain government priorities (roads/infrastructure for instance) or Legislative salaries and office spaces. Income tax would then transparent as well, the government could estimate revenues, and budget accordingly. 2% to environmental efforts, 15% to health care etc. Any overages or shortages would be accounted in a deficit, and a new requirement would come out on the next budget setting .05% to cover the previous shortage, or a reduction to 1.95% as a result of the previous year overage. New spending and the cost to taxpayers would be transparent.
  • Everyone would have to pay taxes, whether fire/police/roads/welfare administration/taxation department/medical, people make use of the services the government provides, and so everyone even those who have nothing would be required to pay some taxes (maybe as low as $100). Now everyone is a contributor, and not a taker. Maybe they are a net taker, but they DO contribute.
  • No Sales Tax on local transit fares.
  • Implement full income splitting for spouses. I firmly believe that a household that makes $100,000 should pay the same tax as another household that earns $100,000. It makes no sense to me why a household where one spouse makes $80,000 and the other makes $20,000 should pay more tax than a couple earning $50,000 each. To suggest that it is unfair to low income people completely disregards the fact that even with income splitting these couples are paying not only more money in taxes, but a higher marginal tax rate than those who earn less. If a couple is not paying a higher marginal rate then it is likely that their household earns in the same tax bracket as the other household, they are not better off than the other household, and should not pay more for the same services from their government. Even if one spouse earned $500,000 and the earned $0 both spouses with income splitting would still beg paying at the highest 33% marginal tax rate. Taking more from one family that earns the same amount is unfair, and flips the social contract backwards sending the message that women (who tend to stay at home more) belong in in the workforce and not at home. 2024-04-01 This has recently been promoted as having the family unit be the centre of taxation. I also support this including having adult children who live in the same home included. My adult children are working to make ends meet, but spending most of their time studying and going to school. Why the money I spend on their education should be taxed at a higher rate than the money they would spend doesn’t make sense to me.
  • Taxes should be capped, so amounts that are paid over 50% of ones income are refunded. Individuals should not pay more to the government for their efforts/accomplishments than they get to keep. – 2024-04-01.

Canadian Foreign Aid

While a great tool for charitable, marketing, and influence, foreign aid should be restricted further than it currently is, and offered in the form of peacekeeping contributions to the U.N., military aid for disaster relief, assistance in developing sustainable agricultural practices and infrastructure, as opposed to gifts of cash, loans or forgiveness of debt.

2019-04-16: I would expand this more broadly than defined here. I still think managing the budget and deficit/debt is an issue that needs to be looked at, but I have seen that there is value for Canada and Canadians by creating allies and countries who might even be adversaries. This is more visible with US politics, but I think Canada also plays a part in averting crisis, economic collapse, poverty and other world events that are not consistent with Canadian values.

Canadian Healthcare

  1. Address Drug Costs – The government needs to renegotiate cost of medicine with drug providers. While it is the intent of the government to reward research, development, and innovation with a fair price for drugs under patent, and further to encourage that research and development within the Nation, it is not in the governments best interest to overpay for those drugs. Legislation needs to be introduced such that a “fair market value” is determined for the cost of a drug, perhaps based on the cost that other countries pay for those drugs, perhaps based on the investment made by the patenting company, that is unclear. However if the government is found to be overpaying by more than 20% of the “fair market value”, then the government may at it’s discretion utilize “generic” drugs in proportion to the overcharge, such that the cost of the patented drug, and the “generic” drug are equal to 100% of the “fair market value” of an equal amount of the drug.. so basically, if you overcharge us, we will order less and empower your competition with generic orders. This may fly in the face of Intellectual property rights, and will have some issues there but I don’t consider them insurmountable.
  2. Small Co-pays in Canada for Doctors visits. $5 – $20 per visit. It is important that the Doctors know that you are a customer. They have to earn your business as the Doctors in the US do. It shouldn’t be a big deal to go to the doctor, but people shouldn’t run to the doctor for everything just because it is free, it places an undue burden on the insurance system, and the doctors.
  3. The system should include a method for people to use private services. Doctors who participate in private services must still provide at least 50% of their visits/time to the public health system. However those who wish to bypass waiting lists and pay will be able to do so, thereby reducing the wait list for the public system. Private hospitals must provide access to their facilities and equipment for public patients and doctors who are practicing for the public at rates established by the government. This method allows less burden on the public health system, while taking advantage of private sector efficiencies and ideas; a hybrid-system.

Child Custody and Child Support

  1. There should be a presumption that both parents have an equal right to have care and control of the children.
  2. The amounts of child support need to be adjusted so the higher income parent is not supporting their ex spouse. While it makes sense that the children should not “suffer” while at another parents home, the couple are no longer married or together, because they have a child together should not obligate the higher income spouse to pay the equivalent of a mortgage that the entire family enjoys. Rather the higher income spouse should contribute only to a proportional increase in the additional costs of having care and control of the child during the times the child is with the family. Having children costs money, and ending a marriage or a relationship has costs. Imposing high child support costs on higher income parents serves to obscure the cost of that failed relationship, and encourages divorce. While there is value in spouses being free to escape an unhealthy relationship, an equal amount of burden has been placed on higher income spouses in unhealthy relationships who feel trapped by existing regulations.

Canadian Holidays

  1. Every February 29th, would be a Statutory Holiday
  2. In Manitoba Louis Reil Day would be renamed Family Day and ideally would be co-ordinated with the other western provinces

Canadian Employment Insurance Reform

  1. I would roll back the special cases for Seasonal Workers, logging, fishing, farming, etc. Jobs that are seasonal would only be eligible for EI during the months that their work is carried out. If benefits were available, the worker could continue to claim them when that work was in back at the beginning of the next season.
  2. Additionally, EI would be loosened for Employees who had not claimed it before, or not made a claim in a long period.
  3. EI would not be extended because of a collapse of industry or natural disaster. The government would need to fund any such releif under a seperate disater relief program not EI.

Canada Pension Plan Reform

  1. CPP needs to be beefed up. It was a mistake to start providing benefits to people who never contributed to CPP, and to pay for it with the contributions of the current generation. CPP needs to work like a bank account or insurance policy, people who contribute to it should receive those benefits like a bank account, while those who did not should not enjoy the benefits of CPP, but would need to rely on OAS Supplement or other welfare provisions.
  2. As such the child rearing provision would be repealed.
  3. Employees and employers would still need to make their basic 4.95% contribution, however both the employee and the employer would have the option of paying addition funds into CPP, and eliminating the yearly maximum contribution amount (if they chose to do so). Employees who contribute over the yearly maximum would bank/buy insurance for a higher payment when they retired. Spousal/survivor retirement benefits would be reduced on basic CPP, however extra payment CPP benefits would be paid out at full for the life expectancy (if they had not died) of the employee. 2024-04-01 rates have increased to 5.95% and maximums have been raised, in addition supplementary amounts above the maximum have been introduced. Oof.
  4. I would roll back the higher mandatory amounts for CPP, as well as the rolling back the payment for incomes beyond the traditional maximums. Canadians should have a choice about where they invest their money, and raising CPP beyond the 4.95% mandatory or increasing payments from those who make more in order to support those who haven’t invested at all doesn’t seem right.
  5. Supplementary amounts should be offset by amounts paid into another registered product, these amounts are a straight out tax as they go into the pool and the people paying for them won’t necessarily see. I have concerns that this will be around when I retire, I should be able to put those amounts where I feel I get the best value – 2024-04-01

Canadian Economy

  1. Revalue trades – Having more students pursue trades will help boost wages and productivity by employing students with higher paying positions than they would otherwise.
    It may also decrease crime by providing increased training, and opportunity to those who might otherwise drop out of school, or complete school and not continue on to university.
    More tradespeople will have additional impacts making it more affordable and with less delay to build a home, or a business, which will have additional positive economic consequences.
    Additionally as discussed in infrastructure Manitoba should seek a pipeline and oil refinery.
    I would re-instate a Barber Certificate and curriculum that provided a certificate showing that the possessor had sufficient skills to cut mens hair and provide relates services like shaving. Since the elimination of this certificate, it has become increasingly more expensive and difficult to find someone to cut mens hair. Hair dressers who provide a great service are increasingly seeing more men, but take much longer using different skills and so must charge more. In addition, many people who would practice as a Barber are put off by the extended requirements and different skillset required for a certificate in hair dressing. This would attempt to provide additional employment opportunities, revive a dying art form (shaving, and hair sculpting for men), and benefit consumers through additional choice and competition.

Canadian Finance Laws

  1. Lenders should be empowered to reject borrower coming to them for loans if the lender believes they are a high risk of default, or if they believe that the borrower is likely to be a risk to themselves or others with the money being borrowed. Thus if a person shows a pattern of spending their retirement, savings, or income on gambling or drugs, to the point that the spending on those things has resulted in debt, or an inability to meet other obligations, those reasons should be valid reasons to not offer the borrower a loan. This is somewhat paternalistic, but also a valid risk mitigation strategy, and puts the good of the borrower ahead of the potential gain by the financial institution. The point is not to punish the borrower, nor to judge them, if in the opinion of the lender the person is believed to have reformed and put their life on track, even if such reform means they can manage their addiction and still meet their other financial goals then the loan can be approved all other factors being equal, but if the loan will simply be blown and subject to borrower or others to further hardship, even if the loan itself is likely to be repaid, then the loan should be denied, and these concerns should be cited as reason for the denial.

Canadian Crown Corporations

  1. I do believe in free enterprise, but I also see the value in publicly owned businesses. Examples of these include public interest businesses like health, technology, and natural resources. Where a private enterprise can both succeed, and succeed with the tools that make private enterprises good for the public interest, I think private enterprise is the way to go. If there is no competition and it is in the public interest then a crown corporation is the way to go.

One such example is Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba does not have a lot of natural resources, but one we have plenty of is water. Not wanting to sell our water, I suggest Manitoba Taxpayers capitalize on Manitoba Hydro by selling clean, renewable energy to others, at a profit. Manitoba Hydro should be run as a business at arms length from the government. While the Government would be the sole shareholder in Hydro, it should be left to an independent board of directors that includes a government representative to issue dividends periodically to the Government, but to grow the business for profit, and under the certain directives, including a vigilant focus on the environment, and a desire to return dividends (not cheap electricity) to the taxpayers of Manitoba.

Another example of a possible crown corporation might be the oil refinery discussed below in infrastructure.

Canadian Infrastructure

  1. I would support a train infrastructure in North America, this would include things like an Elevated Train Line in Winnipeg, and a High Speed rail line across Canada.
  2. I would support an oil pipeline from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Manitoba where …
  3. I would support an an oil refinery. The oil refinery would be ideally, a short pipeline away from the source of the oil in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba minimizes the distance the oil has to travel to a refinery, and minimizes the risk through a well regulated pipeline as opposed to multiple higher risk trucks or trains. Manitoba is best suited to supply fuel back to both Western Canada, and the bigger Canadian market in Ontario, while providing access to the NAFTA superhighway from Canada to Mexico, and the sea at Hudson’s Bay. Additionally non fuel petroleum products like plastics would be well placed for export to manufacturers.

Northern and Rural Services in Canada

Northern and Rural areas simply do not have the population to support the same level of services are more dense population centre’s, overly expensive attempts to make these rural areas have the same services as the denser areas is simply lying to ourselves, rural people, and the taxpayers. This isn’t new information, people in rural areas have always known that there are trade-offs with living in denser centre’s. Most I believe choose to live in the rural areas because of the advantages it offers over living in a city, not because they have no choice. Under my government, we would acknowledge that simple fact. Rather than implementing complex busing and schools alternative methods of education would be discussed. Solutions would likely include a certain amount of deferment to local governments, businesses, and expertise. Solutions would attempt to provide parents or teachers with a core set of skills thought valuable by rural people and specific to their needs. People in southern rural communities likely have different needs than northern rural, and likewise those closer to lakes and oceans vs those further away. For those students and parents intent on a full academic education, programs would be implemented to make these accessible, based on demand and availability, but not necessarily at no cost to the parents. Solutions might include regional education centre’s, and/or boarding school options, and may depend on admissibility testing.

Likewise, other services like policing, courts, telecommunication, and health and other services would be adjusted based on cost, sustainability, and demand.

The fact that this is in a platform and policy document should show that this is a matter that is important to the people of northern and rural communities. This is not an attempt to dump support for those communities, but rather to highlight the importance and distinct nature of their communities, and to empower those communities to come up with effective solutions that fit their individual needs.

French and English Canada

Canada is a bilingual country. I grew up as an English speaker, however I admire and love the French language. Services in Canada should be both “available”, and “reasonably accessible” in both official languages. This does not mean every person in the government needs to be bilingual. Sometimes it might mean calling a translator, or using a special phone to speak to an agent who speaks your preferred language. Equally, information should be available in both languages, but not necessarily at the exact same time, or in the same document. Efforts should be made, financially, to provide cost effective availability of information. Information going to Calgary AB, should primarily be in English, possibly exclusively in English. If there are areas that have a high french population, then french documentation should be sent there only if there is a demand for that documentation. Equally, if there is little or no demand for the English documentation, then the information should only be available on request, or online.

Vice Versa information in Quebec, QC should be available primarily in French. Only if there is a demand in a specific area should some documentation be made available in English.

Distinct Society – I personally find the idea of a distinct society as being too divisive, but maybe that is splitting hairs through an English lens. In English I would say that certain areas could be defined as “Distinct Cultural Areas”. Provinces, or cities/municipalities (if the province empowered them) could declare certain neighbourhoods as Distinct Cultural areas, possibly through the use of a plebiscite. A Distinct cultural area would be granted additional powers or to reasonably regulate and possibly infringe on laws or rights which are consistent with the cultural distinction for which they represent. For example, a DCA could say that no signs on main street in the DCA could have any English on them, or might say that all signs must be primarily in French. They might also say that all businesses must first greet a customer in French before greeting them or communicating in another language. They could not however make it illegal to speak another language at all. Likewise they could require all public signs, menus etc in the business be in French, they could not however say only people who were natively born French, or were born in Quebec could own/operate/employ or be employed in those businesses. DCA’s could require certain architectural styles for new buildings, but could not require that existing residents alter or change their structures if they were present prior to the area becoming a DCA.

In Winnipeg, MB, DCA’s might consist of French St. Boniface for example, and also China Town. There might even be some areas with large native populations that wish to preserve or promote their culture. Equally, certain neighbourhoods in Montreal, QC might be designated English DCA’s, or areas on Calgary, AB, Rodeo DCA’s.

DCA’s would be funded on their own and neither the federal govt, the provincial govt, nor even the city/municipal government that created them would be required to fund them, though they might choose to (with street signs, traffic signs etc)

Additionally DCA’s must not be considered be overly broad. So the Quebec government could not simply declare all of Quebec a DCA, or even the entire city of Quebec or Montreal a DCA, some factor of reasonableness must be derived that allows for both the ability to honor and cultivate a culture and to allow for free expression.

A DCA’s ability to infringe on freedom of speech and expression (in limited ways), would be derived from the not-withstanding clause of the charter.

Canadian Cultural Identity

The United States describes itself as a mixing bowl country. Every culture or immigrant who comes to the US, is an extra ingredient that gets mixed up and adds something to the country, but in the end everyone is an American. Canada is different, Canada is more a buffet of cultures that are supposed to work with each other and respect the distinctness of each other without altering the flavour of any other. This has worked reasonably well over the past Century and a half, but has really started to stumble over the decade or two. Things link hijab’s, burkas, genital mutilation, honour killings, gay marriage, polygamy, child labour, and other cultural or religious traits have conflicted with the laws of the country or the social identity of the country.

As an immigrant developing country the buffet of cultures seemed to work, but as a nation with 150 years of history Canada has developed it’s own cultural identity.

Canada needs to recognize that it does have it’s own social, cultural identity. It needs to develop and document what that identity is, and it will be able to justify it’s laws based on that identity. Examples of how this would work include:

  • Canada as a nation does not believe in genital mutilation for any reason, this social identity supercedes any freedom of religion or expression.
  • Canada as a nation recognizes men and women to be equal, and does not require women to stay at home, cover in a burka or a hijab unless the women freely wish to do so.
  • Canada as a nation, (does or does not) require people to remove their religious headdress, or uncover their face in court.
  • Canada as a nation (does or does not) accept accept same sex couples as equal to hetero sexual couples.
  • Canada as a nation (does or does not) require businesses to serve all customers, even if they disagree with how the customer will use their product.
  • Canada as a nation (does or does not) tolerate assault and battery violence of any sort even if required by religion or tradition. Etc.

This identity, unlike laws which define careful rules of specific crimes or rules, is a tool to more generally announce Canada’s social and moral positions, and a priority of competing rights and obligations. The social/cultural identity of the nation would help clarify, inspire, and advertise laws and identity to others. Similar to a vision statement at a corporation.

I would also add that there seems to be a systemic effort on the parts of some countries to control the emigrants from their countries in other countries including Canada. China is shown to have massive control of their population using “remote police stations”, threating and coercing people to vote a certain way in elections, even controlling Chinese members of the legislature. It seems as if there could be similar behaviour by India and other countries. I don’t see myself as being xenophobic, I would like to be exposed to new cultures, in a cycle of continuous improvement, but I am not keen to taken over as part of a replacement strategy either. 2024-04-01

Canada and US Freedom of the Press/Speech

We deserve news we can count on. To that effect I would recommend an implementation of the following:
I would create or stiffen penalties for forms of press, including tabloids and TV that run stories that are proven to be untrue, beyond libel.
I would also require that “news” outlets clearly differentiate “news” from “opinions”, or “panels”. News portions must show a well rounded, impartial, representation of the different sides of a story, and the differing layers. This used to be “basic” journalism. News stories that do not meet this criteria must identify their content as “biased” or “incomplete”.

2019-04-19: In the age of Donald Trump weaponizing against the free press, I am less anxious to punish the press for “untrue” stories. I do think organizations need to really source their stories, but how is something like this enforced without revealing sources, or punishing news outlets for errors that are made in good faith. I think  the idea is valid but it would need to be refined with input from meta news organizations on how such a thing could be enforced with the intent that people get all the information as soon as possible, in such a way as they can trust and expect the “news” they are getting is truthful, complete, and valid.

2024-04-01: With more “deep fakes” in video and audio, and now AI art this has become more worrisome. Half the population of the US is being spoonfed lies by various media outlets, trust in the US Supreme Court is at an all time low. A concerted initiative to establish the value of truth and a respect for facts and impartial media is critical. It is difficult to trust any government to help enact this type of agenda.

Canada and US Domestic Disaster Aid

Clearly in the event of a disaster emergency personnel need to be dispatched to reduce and prevent loss of life and property. However it is not the job of the government to make people whole for their losses in the event of an emergency. There are businesses who provide insurance for those reasons, and for those reasons people for hundreds of years have avoided areas that are prone to flood or disaster, but have recently started being occupied because they are cheaper (for good reason) than more sound locations. Property owners need to buy insurance, it is the job of the government to regulate those insurance providers to ensure they honour their agreements with the insurance holders. The government should not be in the business of providing free insurance.

Canada and US Copyright Reform

I believe that authors and artists deserve fair compensation for their work, accordingly I would step up funding for enforcement of copyright violations. I would fund this by taking a percentage or flat fee from the primary users of copyright legislation, publishers, music studios, and movie studios. Fees would be increased on those found to have violated copyright terms, even casual offenders would be caught and punished. However, copyright has gotten too long, both the scope, and the duration of copyright would be reduced. An author would have existing copyright for 20 years, plus an additional year for each derivative work that is not simply a re-performance, summary or retelling of the original performance. In addition the author if the author is still alive would have an additional 20 years with reduced rights, during this period fan works can be created, or performed based on the works, with a royalty (to be determined later.. maybe 50%) going to the author, corporate or large ventures or productions or distributions would still be subject to authors rights as per the original 20 years. This model would see the authors/publishers protected as per normal for 20 years, plus it would encourage new works for the subsequent 20 years, compensating the artist/publisher by increasing (potentially exponentially) the money that could be earned over the next 20 years. After 40 years the work would become part of the public domain, encouraging whole new works. Authors or artists will need to continue to innovate, write or publish to have those works protected for longer, and to extend their original works.

Canadian and US Education Reform

Not all people are educationally oriented, some are gifted, others not so.
Children who are gifted should be separated from those who are not so gifted, and they should be educated at a faster pace than those who are not as gifted. Let these children live up to their potential, while not leaving those who are not as gifted in the dust.
Average and gifted students should not be taught techniques that hinder their speed, flexibility, or abstract thinking skills for the sake of making them more relatable. I am specifically thinking of math here.
Likewise, some children are slower. Those children should also be separated, and *some* additional resources should be spent helping them get caught up, or providing *some* additional time to help them meet learning objectives. Each struggling child should not have their own Teaching assistant. The slow students should not slow down the average students, or the gifted students, that only harms those who learn more easily.
A move away from academic requirements is in order, students should be given the option to pursue apprenticeship programs starting at age 16, and some students should be encouraged to pursue those avenues.
Students progress should be based more on their accomplishments, with a direct and relatable correlation between their achievements (grades/testings/assignments) and their progress. It should be easier to hold students back, and some students should be held back. Moreover students who are not mentally, emotionally, socially, or of a mature metric should be held back until those skills meet the pre-requisites of the next grade. Education staff should not be loaded with students who do not measure up to the pre-requisites, and expected to deliver quality education to the remainder of the students, never mind the ones that did not come with the requisite skills.
Students strengths and weaknesses should be recognized. The ability to identify strengths and weaknesses should be taught, students should be able to take advantage of their strengths, and accommodate or work on their weaknesses. Additionally students should be able to recognize and accommodate strengths and weaknesses in their peers. Bullying needs to be handled by teaching empathy, not by blinding students or teaching students that everyone is equal when they are not.
Teaching should have an emphasis on the basics, students should not be saddled with politically motivated initiatives. In my area there is an over-emphasis on aboriginal education. The thought being that the source of aboriginal problems and racism is a poor understanding of the aboriginal culture and the experience of the aboriginal people. This should be one unit, or perhaps one unit early on, and another at a middle school or high school level. Focussing on these subjects is only pandering and infringes on the time available to students for other studies.
Winning and Losing would become teaching points. Students would be encouraged to achieve their best, with specific excercises to ensure each student wins something they care about, and loses something they care about, without letting the student know that the point is that they either win or lose. Students need to learn how to deal with losing, and students need to feel good about winning, without being a poor winner, or a poor loser.

Canadian and US Tort Reform

Lawsuits, blame, and finding fault are ruining a lot of opportunities that were previously common place in both countries. The US especially has large punitive damage amounts, but simple accidents result in millions of dollars of judgement. It is awful when someone dies in an accident, and it is harmful to the family. But sometimes it is just a tragic accident, other times there might be some small degree of negligence (forgetting to lock the door), and sometimes there is just inherent risk in the activity and the participants (or their parents) have agreed to the activity (skiing, a flight somewhere, a bus ride etc). To help everyone’s lives, and encourage activities in life, I would propose to eliminate judgments on tragic accidents, small acts of negligence (including medical), activities with inherent risk. I would also update punitive damages to reduce the amounts, and to make them necessary only in exceptional cases, and even then as payments to the court. I would also try to reduce the amount payable from their current levels for perceived losses.
As I mentioned above medical negligence or error would also be included, as would the amounts awarded, however the hospitals or practitioner would additionally be responsible for all methods to “make it right”, if further medical treatment is required rectify the mistake. Hopefully this will decrease the constant risk and fear of lawsuit, and also reduce the cost of insurance, and thereby the cost of visiting doctors, hospitals, and undergoing activities.

Updated: After further reflection, I wouldn’t eliminate all judgement, peoples medical costs for instance would need to be covered if a ladder fell on them or other accident. But a ski lodge would not be held liable for someone breaking a leg while skiing down a mountain unless there was large negligence. I would appreciate your comments on how to adequately address this separation of fault, opportunity without abuse on either side.

Canadian and US Corporate Taxes

Corporate taxes are an interesting thing, corporations were set up to be “like” people. I can’t imagine anyone ever thought that a court would find them to be people. But corporations aren’t taxed like people. Some countries charge corporations less than people, other countries charge more than people. Many countries charge a separate capital gains tax because those capital gains have been taxed once at the corporation level, and once again when it reaches the shareholders. In any event it is complicated, and many if not most corporations feel a duty to maximize their return to shareholders and thereby reduce their taxes that are payable. For this reason companies move their head offices other countries, or they buy/create offshore companies in countries where the tax rate is lower, give those entities, or register their intellectual property as owned by those entities and pay licensing fees to those entities for the use of that IP. Thereby transferring the earnings to the lower taxing country and minimizing their taxes. Other methods are used, but the goal is always the same to minimize the taxes paid.

For this reason I would suggest a new model of a flat tax on sales. A low tax of say 6-8% on revenue as opposed to profits. Deductions would not be allowed except on wages paid to employees who pay taxes in the country where the income is earned, or goods or services that are purchased from an entity that pays taxes to the country where the business is registered or a country to which a tax treaty is established that ensures the goods are taxed fairly as per the treaty. This would mean that health care expenses if made to a business that operates in the country and pays taxes in the country would be 100% deductible, and expenses to a country with a tax treat would be taxed at the rate set by the treaty.

I am not intending to be protectionist here, this is not an attempt to raise the cost of goods from other countries by 6-8%, rather it is trying to minimize the tax burden on local businesses by not overtaxing them on purchases that will be taxed by another business. The idea of the tax treaty is intended to allow a business in say the USA to buy goods from a Canadian company and be able to deduct those goods (and vice-versa) because the government would know that those goods were being taxed “fairly” in Canada. If Canada were found to be an “unfair” taxation country where businesses were creating expenses to lower their tax burden, then the tax law might allow only 50% or 75% of the purchases from Canada to be deducted. Businesses no longer be able to hide expenses because all purchases would be taxed at a rate that removed the incentive to hide that revenue.

Duties are considered an evil protectionist idea, something of years gone by that don’t help, and in a way this would be like a ‘duty’ but is not a duty for a few different reasons.

There is no change to the cost of the goods.
This is an income tax measure not a customs measure, its aim, like it’s implementation is to reduce the tax burden on the local business being charged a flat tax, not to increase the cost of the goods. The flat tax is aimed at ensuring businesses have no incentive to hide profits.
The deduction is not based on the type of good or service, rather it is based on the existence of a tax treaty that determines the “fairness” of taxes.
Individuals consumers wouldn’t need to pay the flat tax, they could continue with a different system.
This is intended to further encourage employment in the country where the business resides, after all that revenue is not for wages paid to the worker, and the worker does pay taxes on their wages. This would reduce the incentive for businesses to outsource to countries with lower wages as it would reduce the amount being deducted (because wages are lower) and might also not be deductible at all if there is no fair tax treaty.

The 6-8% rate would need to be both “fair” and “competitive” in a multinational globalized world. Competitive because if the amount is too high, businesses would go to other countries and would export their goods to your country (consumers wouldn’t need to pay the flat tax only businesses), and would need to be “fair” because if it was too low this country might not get a fair tax treaty with the other country. In the event those businesses went elsewhere, I would think that in most cases those goods would be sold to the individual consumer by a business in this country however.

This taxation method does have some problems,

having to organize deductions based on taxation country of the vendor is overly complex especially when compared to the simplicity of the 6-8% flat taxation rate that makes up its roots.
The taxation rate seems in many cases to be a duty, (despite the fact it has many differences from a duty) and would undoubtedly be pursued as a duty by countries that have ‘unfair’ tax rates and free trade agreements.
This would disproportionately affect businesses with a high volume of sales from countries that do not have a fair tax treaty.
This would disproportionately affect businesses with a high volume of sales, but low margins.

Canadian and US Employment Reform and Labour

I support right to work legislation. I believe that unions can be a positive force, but I don’t believe that an employee must be part of a union in order to work.
Additionally, I find that in many cases unions hurt workers more than help them, poor employees are protected due to seniority, while harder working, more competent junior employees are dismissed unfairly. Demands keep rising even when the businesses become noncompetitive with their competition, or when the business is losing money. The business if forced to give in or face a public relations battle as being “unfair” to the workers, or face a loss of revenue while their own employees heckle and harass customers or temporary workers crossing a picket line.

Canadian and US Affirmative Action

Under representation (numerically) of certain minorities or groups within businesses, government or institutions may be an indicator that something is wrong. Moreover the under representation may be the result of racism, sexism or other bigotry that currently exists, has previously existed, or the result of circumstances that currently exist, caused by those same forms of discrimination.
As a result it is very appealing to use race, gender, or even possibly sexual orientation to help level the field and provide opportunities to help those that are the victims of discrimination. The best example of this that I can think of is of colleges who provide a certain number of slots for African Americans in the US. The colleges recognize that these very deserving people have had to overcome a great deal to get where they are, Much of what they have had to overcome is either a direct or indirect result of years of racism and discrimination that have resulted in poverty for African american people and communities as well as parents who have not had the opportunity or resources to educate themselves. In this situation the use of affirmative action would seem like an excellent choice to break the cycle and introduce new opportunities for the next generation of African Americans.
I do not believe that segregation or preferential treatment for any group will stop the use of segregation or discrimination. I would therefore disallow affirmative action.
I am not racist, my heart truly goes out to those who are the victims of discrimination. I propose the elimination of affirmative action solely to unite those groups as people, and not people of different races or skin colors. I won’t stop there however, because wishful thinking isn’t going to solve the very real problems that exist for these groups. I would further suggest that those businesses, governments and institutions implement programs to assist people to gain employment or education. For example, if a group needs a score of 700 on an entry exam but there is a lower proportion of African Americans getting in the school than desired, then help them get a score of 700. I would suggest doing this by targeting schools with a high number of African Americans or communities with a high number of African Americans.

2019-04-19: On this I have softened as well, never before have I seen so much racism as under Donald Trump. In addition the Me Too movement for women, especially in the workplace. It does seem apparent to me now that racism, sexism, or just in inadvertent racial bias or gender bias exists in company culture or at high levels of a company or organization. It may be necessary to relax certain “admission” or “hiring” practices to obtain the voices of the people who need to help fix the problems. This is again difficult, I stand by much of what I said above, and I wouldn’t want the problem “over corrected” so it overly favoured a different gender or race, I would want to ensure that everyone was treated fairly.

Canadian and US Equal Rights for Men and Women

This may not be the right heading for this subject, but it is a subject I feel strongly about. I absolutely believe in equal rights, I think most of the laws on the books are good ones. What I don’t agree with is forced integration of men and women, and specifically I am think of the boy scouts & girl scouts/guides, but I would also extend this to mens clubs (including golf courses), and schools. I don’t believe it is sexist to have clubs where boys can go without the distraction of girls, or girls without the distraction of boys. I actually think it is a very good thing to be able to do just that. People who want their children to be able to participate in a club with boys and girls should either enroll their child in a group like that, or start their own. The same principle applies to mens / womens clubs and schools.
I think that acceptance on a sports team should NOT be based on gender, but based on performance. The problem with that however is that men, based on their hormones tend to have a higher muscle mass than girls, and tend then to be able to hit/throw a ball harder or run faster. I don’t have a prescriptive answer for this situation, but what I would recommend would be ONE varsity team with all the best players, if a girl or boy can make the team on her merits then they should be able to play. Then 2 Junior Varsity teams separated by gender to ensure the best of each gender have an opportunity to play. Would the same rules be in place if this was a math competition, or if the group doing better was of a specific ethnicity, and how many groups should there be? I don’t know the answers to these questions, sometimes there isn’t a perfect answer.

Canadian and US Racism

This is a huge issue. I have no cure for this, though I do believe that time and younger generations are beginning to grow up without many of these preconceptions, there is still much work to be done.
I did want to take a moment to say that I don’t believe that naming a sports team after The Vikings, The Indians, The Eskimos, The Patriots, The Saints, The Titans, The Packers, The Bombers or any other group is racist. People may choose to see these names, or the depictions of these groups as offensive, but they have the right to be offended. They don’t have the right to control other people however.

2019-04-19: Recently the McGill University Redmen were pressured into changing their name. It was to find that they had been named Redmen, not as a reference to indigenous persons, but because they wore red uniforms.

US Supreme Court

Allow simple restrictions on firearms, fall back to the idea that a well regulated militia has the right to bear arms. Failure to recognize that some restrictions must be placed on firearms, not just to protect the innocent, but to also protect the right to bear arms would eventually result in an effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
Reversal of Citizens United.

Enact US Senate Reform

Similar to Canada the US senate (and perhaps even the house of representatives) would have days where the opposition could choose the agenda. Perhaps even days set out for individual members on a rotating basis to set out an agenda or a vote.
The Senate would be required to hold up or down votes on presidential nominees within 90 days except in cases of a recess, where the president can make recess appointments. Nominees not voted on within 90 days may take their position as per a recess appointment.
Recess appointments can be rescinded by the senate through an up or down vote after the appointment.
Failure to pass a budget will result in Senator pay being withheld.
Neither chamber of the legislature may recess pro forma without the consent of the other (re Article I, Section V of the constitution), and pro forma sessions are considered recess days per Article II, Section II of the constitution.
Filibusters must occur on the senate floor, a vote that is moved and seconded must be conducted before other senate business may resume. Debate on that issue or related issues may be conducted, but no other votes may occur, nor any new business addressed prior to the vote occurring.
Riders would be prohibited, all language, sections or conditions of a bill must be relevant or a consequence of the primary reason for the bill. Funding for unrelated projects, language to effect change, create, or fund otherwise unrelated bills, laws, projects or objectives would be prohibited.

2019-04-19: Donald Trump has appointed 2 Supreme court justices with only a 50% +1 margin. Both of those justices seem utterly wrong for the court. It is nice to think that you should be able to get support from both parties to find Justices who decide cases based on the law, and not on their ideology or the ideology of a political party. Unfortunately the partisanship that exists between the two parties seems to be getting worse not better. Parties weaponize and refuse to support good bipartisan nominees (Merrick Garland). I think 50% +1 should work for these votes, but ideally candidates should be multi partisan.

Enact US Election Reform

Switch to Single Transferable Vote – This would allow instant runoff style elections, a better proportion of intended vote to elected official, while maintaining regional representation, and an official who is responsive to his and her constituents.
The Electoral college would be replaced with popular vote for President.
Campaign finance would have a close look as well. Anybody should be able to run for office, not just the wealthy, and candidates should be focused on selling themselves and their policies or platforms to voters. Candidates should not be beholden or dependent on contributors before or after they enter office. One possible way of leveling the field is spending limits on campaigns. $10,000 – $100,000 depending on size for City/County elections, $100,000 – $1,000,000 for state elections, and $1,000,000 – $10,000,000 for federal elections.

US Labour Law

I would create an Employment Insurance EI System, similar to Canada’s but more sparse and at arms length from the government. Workers and employers would both pay into the system which would provide paid maternity leave of 3 months, and paid paternity leave of 1 month if the worker had accumulated enough time in work. For the maternity and paternity it would act like a bank account. For loss of employment it would cover involuntary loss of non-seasonal/contract employment for an insured duration.

US Budget

I would work to balance the budget, however I would remove the need for congress to extend the borrowing limit of the US. Rather, I would make it clear that the treasury department (as if it were not clear already) that the treasury cannot borrow money for goods that have not been passed in a budget.
The budget would be cut by removing non essential funding elements and yes, possibly increasing taxes or removing tax cuts like the mortgage interest deduction.
The rest of the world would be encouraged to solve their problems without the U.S. though the U.S. would still contribute to the UN, and would stand with and behind it’s allies.
Social Security would be addressed (see below) this would have a huge impact on the budget, this change would make the cost of social security very visible. While some might say it might increase the debt and deficit, I suggest that this amount is already owed to the American taxpayer, this change simply makes it visible, and provides an opportunity to plan for it, and to ensure that the program will be there for future generations.

US Mexico Border

I would secure the border. I would clear portions of the border with approx 20 to 30′ spans where us vehicles could run, or simply cleared area if the vehicles cannot run and set up simple fences to stop animals from entering the area where feasible. If the border itself was not able to be fenced, I would protect the nearest area within the US. These cleared zones would be like a demilitarized area. Wireless networked cameras, seismic sensors, and and heat sensors would monitor the area gathering information on illegal crossings. The information would then be used as intelligence to deploy INS, or DEA as appropriate.
Illegal aliens in the country would be encouraged to register with INS through the incentive of a 10 year work VISA giving them legal status in the US. In addition, those individuals who are not convicted of a crime during that 10 year period, would be eligible for a permanent green card after the 10 years. After receiving a green card, those individuals could apply for citizenship through the normal process of a green card holder. This “amnesty” program would only be valid for one year. Those found to be in the US illegally after the one year period would be deported without regard to children or family.

2019-04-19: I would need to re-evaluate my clearing of land proposals, again Donald Trump and his crazy wall. I’ve come to realize that many farmers use this land and access to the river for cattle, businesses etc. It seems a shame to shut off access to the River or take away peoples land unnecessarily. I still support a secure border, and electronic surveillance the length of the border, but I would accept more specific monitoring of “problem” areas that would not deprive people of access to their land or the river.

US Social Security

One small problem with social security that I am aware of is the teacher hole. The teacher hold says that certain teachers who have their own pension plans cannot withdraw from Social Security even if they have contributed to it in the past, and even if they are receiving survivor benefits for a spouse how contributed all of their lives. I would change this so teachers can receive survivor benefits as per anyone else, and they could utilize social security in the “new social security” that I define below.
Yes, if you read the bullet above you will know that there needs to be a “new” social security. The first thing I want people to understand is this is not a “scaled down” social security, it is in everyway a new and improved social security. The second thing I want people to understand is that not everybody will move to the “new” social security. Adults eligible for social security over the age of 40 when the legislation passes will receive “classic” social security, except that social security will be updated to live in a “protected” account. It will be necessary for the US congress to issue a bond to “classic” social security for the amount that individuals who are eligible are are expected to be paid over their lifetimes. The protected account will be administered at arms length from the government similar to company pension with similar reporting requirements. Users currently receiving social security would transition to this new “classic” social security system.
Users younger than 40 would move to the “new” social security system. The federal government would be required to pay in cash, the amount paid into for all social security users under the age of 40. This account would be managed similar to a defined contribution pension account, with a life insurance twist. The account would be invested in low risk ventures, with the profits going tax free to grow the users social security. The plan would be administered by an arms length taxpayer owned pension fund. Users would then be paid out their pension over their estimated lifetimes. Users who die before the end of their lifetimes would have half of their remaining amounts contributed to any survivor spouse plan who would then recalculate their payments based on the additional funds (If the survivor spouse is part of the classic system then they would simply continue with the classic system). The remaining 1/2 of funds would be recontributed to the long living fund, which would fund those who live beyond their expected lifetime. Users who live beyond their expected lifetime would continue to receive benefits, however the payments of those benefits might be lower (never higher) than their pre-life expectancy benefits. If someone lives beyond their life expectancy, they will have been paid out every cent they and their employers contributed, plus gains based on investments, minus any fund costs for administering the fund (as per any pension fund).

Leave a Reply