it uses the same pun as my username, i admit it

I'm going to throw in my vote against that slogan, because it comes off as harsh. I might come to love it, but I think we'd better keep a positive face to other parties, because we are going to have to function alongside them.

I agree. A positive message is part of what will set our party apart.

How bout  "Ayes on the Future"

I'm sure you'd like that.

I've noticed something keeps coming up in some comments and conversations. And that is concerns over not having a party-wide platform on some issues. There is a perception that voting right or left help one choose what is more important for them, e.g. corporation (which provide jobs) or social issues. Of course that is not how it has to be. We could easily address concerns about where we stand without being partisan. If we are serious about getting elected, I think there are genuine concerns about having a too open-ended platform. We can show that we can offer stability and much better option than the partisan nature of our current system. While I don't agree with having a platform for every little issues - which tends to result in broken election promises - I believe some major issues critical to the running of a country need to be addressed.

So I would like to propose adding some mention of this in our platform. This can be accomplished by having something like - establishing an independent economic and commerce department to offer expertise and make policies related to economy and taxes. Working alongside or encompassing the monetary policy currently handled by Bank of Canada. It will be free from shifting ideologies with each new government. For example, the department would establish clear and transparent guideline on how minimum wage is determined, and how wage increase is defined based on inflation and clear economic indicator and past history.

Taxes for corporations, businesses, and individual citizens are also clearly defined. No sudden tax increase due to fiscal mismanagement or tax cut to influence votes, with no careful consideration for future consequences. This will promote a stable investment climate and improve workers productivity by minimizing uncertainties and insecurities. This would also minimize labour unrest and wages being unnecessarily frozen for years. This would encourage long term planning without constant political interference. The end result is a proactive rather than reactive approach. The policies should be dynamic not rigid.  For example, EI deductions could be increased or decreased taking into account surplus and factors such as possible downturn cycles or historical statistics (to have enough set aside as rainy days funds). EI and pension funds (public and private) should have restriction placed against those funds being diverted to cover budget deficit or corporation's bankruptcy, nor should large portions be put into risky investment. Such type of funds should be sacred and managed well.

This could be put under our open government platform, since it is about transparency. Policy decisions are transparent and based on measurable benchmarks. I have used economy as an example because that is likely going to be the number one concern for average voters. Economic policies is also not suitable for changing too often with the mood of voters. This is also a field that average voters would not have expertise on.

Of course those independent department should not be above everyone else and have to follow guidelines and get audited by independent body. I believe the best fiscal policy is what I would refer to as “Fiscally conservative with a social conscience”. Representatives and voters should still be able to have input on general intention and direction of what the priorities should be. The key is to create a co-operative democracy that is neither disruptive nor destructive as partisanship tends to be.

We want to be careful not to accuse people of not knowing better. Instead I think we should tap into what people can relate to then link it to show how we can solve that. You are right that  a lot of people don't understand the consequences of lots of the censorship/copyright law being passed. But the challenge will be to make them understand. Some tech challenged or older voter might say "oh they are just talking all about those computer stuff it does not affect me I don't use them much."

How bout  "Ayes on the Future"

I'm going to throw in my vote against that slogan, because it comes off as harsh. I might come to love it, but I think we'd better keep a positive face to other parties, because we are going to have to function alongside them.

[We will be the voice of people who aren't seeing the true benefits of the technology that surrounds them. Pirate Party is the Internet & Knowledge & Technology party. Naturally, pro net neutrality, digital rights, open source, eyes on the future. We should have our finger on the pulse of all internet issues. We are the reasonable, law-abiding couch-sitting revolution.]

The Pirate Party has a role to fill in contemporary politics.

We live in a new digital world, but our politics are out of touch. The world needs a tech-minded party for the benefit of the people. If when we fight in wars we're fighting for peace and democracy this is the inevitable future of humanity.

Pirate Party has to step up to the plate, and be the open minded, philosophical, tech-minded, internet understanding political party. We need to be champions of the new age of understanding, aided by the technological innovation of the previous generations. This is the new civil rights movement, we have hope of changing the world for the better, and making the future a better place for our children and their children. Justice, democracy, freedom.

We will be the voice of people who aren't seeing the true benefits of the technology that surrounds them. Pirate Party is the Internet & Knowledge & Technology party. Naturally, pro net neutrality, digital rights, open source, eyes on the future. We should have our finger on the pulse of all internet issues. We are the reasonable, law-abiding couch-sitting revolution.

The future has sent an e-mail to the present. Pirate Party.

This is big talk from a small man, I know, but I want to believe that these digital issues will have a voice stand up for them, and we will be that voice.

International trade is good for canada because we are mainly a resource producing country.

The problem with CETA and ACTA is that they aren't really free trade treaties but ways to hammer in IP law changes for few benefits.

I think another hot-topic button (either media overstated or understated I am not sure) is the whole caribou herd population number declining, as well as the polar bears being designated as endanger species, and the ban on seal-product from Europe.

You got the Inuits saying that declining are not happening and that numbers are actually increasing (caribou and polar bears) while scientists are saying the opposite. Could greater government transparency (federal and civic) actually help solves this? Or does this solution requires something else?

There are several different caribou herds and not all aboriginal groups are in agreement about the amount of the decline or what action to take.  Continuing seismic work and road building could have very serious adverse effect on the herds long term.

Government transparency is always beneficial but there are other issues that affect decision making: jurisdiction, unresolved land claims, lack of trust, and quite simply the food needs of some communities.

Polar bear population is more of a high profile concern in the eastern arctic but sport hunts are a source of much needed revenue in the communities around where I live.  Some of my wife's family has been involved in them for years, there aren't a lot of employment options in most northern community.  Subsistence hunting is a way of life for many and sport hunts are, as I said, a needed revenue source.  

I think it's perfectly acceptable to attack existing policy in moderation as an illustration why we're needed. Attacking the character and motives of others, on the other hand, is an unacceptable approach to politics.