Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsEnvironmentStarted 5yrs agoActive 1yr ago

Should the government spend $1 billion on freshwater research to restore and protect large lakes and rivers?

The amount of sewage and wastewater Canada discharges into its waterways is increasing. This is despite regulations introduced in 2012 to curb the problem. Concern is growing among those who fear for the health of Canadians and the environment. Each year, Canada discharges 200 billion liters of raw sewage into its waterways, rivers and oceans.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 157 Vancouver Kingsway voters.

85%
Yes
15%
No
82%
Yes
11%
No
3%
Yes, but the $1 billion budget is too high
3%
No, instead pursue those directly responsible for damage to lakes and rivers
1%
No, we need it but cannot afford it right now
0%
No, and drastically reduce government spending

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 157 Vancouver Kingsway voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 157 Vancouver Kingsway voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Vancouver Kingsway voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8VWB93Rfrom British Columbia  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, and pursue those directly responsible for damage to lakes and rivers

 @B4VB3F3from Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, although we need it, we cannot afford it right now, also pursue those directly responsible for damage to lakes and rivers and and drastically reduce government spending wherever and whenever possible ethically and realistically

 @B38NWBTfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

They don't need to spend any money on the research. They already know where most of it comes from (animal agriculture).

 @B27F3VNfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

Yes, but the $1 billion budget is too high, and the government should also actively pursue those directly responsible for damage to lakes and rivers so that they can cut the problem off at the roots and prevent future repeats of this spending.

 @9ZNXRCYfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes but significantly reduce the budget and also pursue those who are directly responsible for damage to lakes and rivers

 @9SLJBJVfrom British Columbia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, , but the price is too high for government funding. Have those responsible for the damage pay as well to exceed the $1 billion

 @9MJ9RZFfrom British Columbia  answered…2yrs2Y

no because if they do that they wont have neough money fi something like covid 19 comes again then tehy will amke nromal peolle pay alot of taxes.

 @9MC4BQLfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes but 1 billion sounds high. I'd have to compare to the budget and the allocation of the other funds.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies

About This Data

Based on 157 responses to this question.

These results come from iSideWith's ongoing political issues survey. We collect over a million responses per day, filter out duplicate and multiple submissions, and break the results down by political party, ideology, age, state, and census demographics (income, race, education, household).

iSideWith is non-partisan — we don't advocate for any party, candidate, or position. We report what the public tells us.

Read Our Full Methodology →