I have quite a few creative ideas, but am too tired to write them down rn. I'll go the easy, lazy way (and write about more legislation ideas tomorrow):

Proportional representation like Germany. In every election, the voter votes for an individual and a party. The individual is chosen to represent the riding through STAR voting (my version). After all MPs are elected, to ensure proportional representation according to the party votes (the second vote that voters cast), individuals from party lists are put into parliament.

This way, we get riding representation and party representation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RodgeGrabTheCat@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

About the funding:

Many years ago there was a Conservative politician named Hugh Segal who lead a study about UBI. The calculations showed that if the 60 over-lapping government handouts were elimated, Canada would save millions (or billions idk it's been a while since I read it) of dollars every year.

Sounds too good to be true until you realize that just for UI each city across Canada has a least one office with multiple employees. These office all pay rent, insurance, power, etc. Most cities likely have 10 or more UI offices.

Multiple that by all the other programs and it adds up to quite a bit on money.

Edit: I found this from CBC https://www.cbc.ca/radio/sunday/the-sunday-edition-for-march-29-2020-1.5509908/amidst-a-global-pandemic-hugh-segal-s-call-for-a-guaranteed-annual-income-is-even-more-timely-1.5509938

From the article:

"The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it would probably cost about $60 billion without counting those federal and provincial programs. It would replace those and produce substantial savings for the taxpayer. That would bring the number down to about $25 billion nationally. That's less than 10 per cent of Canada's total economic cost in terms of running the store. That would be a very efficient investment, not only in reducing poverty, but also in reducing all the negative pathologies of poverty, like bad healthcare, health status, education outcomes and family difficulties, difficulty with the law — all of which cost taxpayers a tremendous amount of money."