Jerry J. Fortin

The Canadian system needs a lot of work. Its better than the American system and in some cases not as good as a European system. The only thing certain is that it is expensive to operate any such system.

Alberta came out on the wrong side of the balance sheet last budget. So we are spending more than we were taking in. The Americans are in serious trouble right now. More trouble than most people know. Their debt was being financed with the purchase of U.S. T-Bills purchased by and large by the Chinese. Interesting that they were the true cause of their trade deficit and the major source of the outflow of cash leaving their nation. The USA has been departing the manufacturing sector in terms of consumer goods for some time. The reason for this is simply an economic one, costs of production are lower outside of the country than in. Of course this was not a government decision but instead a corporate one. This translates into less jobs which also impacts the revenue stream for the fed with a shortfall of humans to tax. At the same time the feds get to pay for unemployment and welfare which also hits the health care corner with increased expenses as well. So while they are expanding their expenditures they are reducing their income, a sure ticket to massive fiscal problems. Add to that the baby boomer's are just now starting to collect their social security or government pension checks, just wait till the full slate of these citizens kicks in. Now here is where the waters get a little muddy because none of these things have anything to do with the current financial crisis which originated with the financial system, and the feds know this. Yet you certainly don't hear them talking about this problem. The financial problems of this world could be resolved with a general amnesty on debt, the Romans did this on occasion when things were getting out of hand but there is a large difference between a city state and the entire independent international community. Such a move would expose the real power holders on this planet, not a likely scenario at all.

Fair enough, yet the relevance of your or perhaps Waldo's escapes me. It makes no difference where they come from, because so far they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. Seem is the operative word. Granted there are differences between the partisan factions, and their origins as well, but in all cases these folks go into politics for their own reasons. The citizens have made no desire known to these politicians what we demand from them. Apathy is the real boss and the largest demographic in the nation by far. The truth is that once elected these representatives have the run of the house and do as they please. They do not make legislation that curtails their activities and they do not make legislation that provides and realistic public accountability. These are the folks that we ALLOW ourselves to be represented by.

Quebec is indeed unique in this nation. No reasonable person would dispute this. That does not make them second class citizens. In fact the opposite is true.

What point are you trying to make? What difference does a political entrance make to the citizens of the nation?

With an increase of that size my guess is that the Alberta deficit will disappear very quickly!

I live outside of a small village in rural Alberta. There is no racism here. Your planet is somewhere away from here.

His educational background is part of it, but you need to look at what he has done since graduation. He has an interesting work history, diverse as well as successful and lucrative. He is capable, but is he ready?

To "fix" the system we need more medical staff. That is the key to resolving the "wait times" issue. More to the point we need to do a major service delivery reform if we have any hope of dealing with the problems we have. Look at the cost of delivering those services. How many people are going to "emergency" departments at hospitals for non-critical care! The cost is horrific and the system is slowed down through the effort of this type of service delivery. This is more of a problem than most people realize.

All true, yet the reality is that government has a responsibility to act in defense of its citizens. That means doing something now that has immediate effect and long term benefit. I maintain that making prisons things to be avoided is the quickest and cheapest fix to the immediate problem. We can make gang related crime a dangerous offender status with more strict sentencing. We can make weapons use during crimes have the same status. We can have property confiscation a consequence of conviction for all violent crimes. There are many ways to deal with the immediate problems we just need the will to pursue the problem in the proper fashion. The best deterrent is the consequence of conviction. To most people that is a two fold issue, the duration and extent of punishment.

I am not convinced that he is ready to govern. I am sure he thinks he can but that is not the same thing. He has the brains, but he does not have much political experience. This maybe a problem, then again it may not.

We need to call our MLA's and MP's and get on their case to reform the system.

Trudeau was both good and bad for this nation, as are most Prime Ministers. What he did in political terms was convert us into a multi-cultural nation. That is the legacy of his terms of office. Nearly everything he did worked toward that end game. His goal was to unite both of our recognized heritages into a single unified entity, in this I believe he succeeded. What he failed to do was incorporate the First Nations into the equation and that has had some very real lasting consequences, it was a serious error on his part. One for which we will ultimately pay dearly for. A serious nation building politician would embrace the concept and run with that ball. We do need a new direction and that one is as good as any. Tag a "green" label to it and capture another demographic. Slip a technological perspective on top of it with a economic development plan and you have a winning platform that appeals to nearly every single demographic without the appearance of indulgence or bias toward any single group. Yet our politicians seem bent on self development and quests for power and control instead of what is best for the nation. There are so many areas where this nation needs to focus that it boggles the imagination. A functional platform that unifies instead of divides the partisan factions is what is needed. All of our social programs need work, our judicial system needs work, our military needs work, the entire system needs work! The question is how to get the job done, and I will suggest that the way to do it is to first bring the citizens together by creating an iconic type of political platform that transcends partisan politics. That would be the foundation from which many things could be done. A political platform that is idealistic in nature, yet achievable through non-partisan means. This nation needs a political vision that is supported with a national will, nothing else will do.

I must agree that confinement is the best deterrent. For violent offenses such as; sex crimes, assaults, murder and attempted murder, I will suggest solitary confinement for the duration of their natural life. In addition those non-violent offenders should be made to work as a means of paying their debt to society. Prisons should become known as places to avoid.

I am against the death penalty. I am in favour of much harsher sentences for convicted criminals.

The same one you live on. Just what is it that you failed to comprehend about that statement Argus?

Iggy has a large task ahead of him. One which I do believe he is capable of achieving. There is no doubt in my mind he is Harper's intellectual superior and I think most Canadians will see this once an election is called.

It is my hope that politicians do increase the level in trust bewtween themselves and the citizens. That would mean a higher quality of representatives, which cannot be a bad thing.

I find it hard to believe there are still racists out there. Its no wonder that the HRC's are busy.

It has been said on this thread that government should be "endowed with certain privileges over and above the rights of an individual". I simply cannot agree with this statement. I believe that this is exactly the folly we have engaged in over the decades, which has brought us to this point in time. We are concentrating the power back into the hands of the few, this position will take us back centuries. Political power needs to be distributed over ever increasing dimensions to prevent the kind of control which leads toward the erosion of rights. The poster quoted goes on to say that these things are necessary for the best interests of society. Provided you believe in the nanny state and have no problem with a big brother society then this could be a true statement. Otherwise the conclusion that our elected represents preform their self sacrificing duties for puritanical public service without desire for personal gain or reward, becomes the only viable explanation for their behavior. Politicians are no better than the rest of us, subject to all the diversions and temptations made available to them. They are human and make mistakes. The difference between "them" and "us" is that they can cause us great harm and we are not allow to touch them. They are given right and privilege beyond that of regular citizens, and they abuse these things on a regular basis. There is no public recourse to corrupt officials. There is no recall legislation, there are no fixed election dates, and there is no term limits to public office. When they finally do leave the public trough they immediately seek to sell their inside knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. Is our government flawed? In a word, a resounding YES. Knowing the existence of the flawed system, can a reasonable person be expected to trust the system with their very lives? Now if the system cannot be trusted, then who is responsible and who should be held accountable?

The Gitmo detainees are not in the USA for good reason. Under US law there are a number of rights that would serve to free these people. Henceforth they were never on US soil that is subject to civilian law.

The legislation does nothing to solve the problem of itself. It does make the consumer more aware of the extent of usury involved.

I believe that you need to consider that in both cases; high treason and treason, that the offense is committed in Canada. The wording is relevant and in both cases of the definition each instance prefaces that definition with "in Canada"

There is literally no doubt that partisan distinctions blur in this regard. One is as bad as the other, but is not the correct question to ask "Why must we play this game?" I will suggest that it would not be done if there was no hope of success. Since it is being done there is cause to believe that to some degree there is at leeast the chance of success. It is a political tactic, no more and no less. The citizens whose votes are being courted are in fact the jury on this matter. The decide whether or not they approve of this tactic.

I will suggest that at the time the crime was committed the individual was not in Canada.