Jerry J. Fortin

For starters, I would not be in favour of sewer upgrades or construction, that is a municipal responsibility. Roads and bridges that are part of the Trans-Canada system are another matter, but I don't think that is the big bang for the buck either. Federal dollars need to be spent on national programs to avoid the perception that any single district or locality is receiving a disproportional amount of investment. To that end, there are few opportunities that exist which can provide the needed employment and yet produce any revenue. Things like energy production, as in wind and solar power systems make sense because they will provide power which is a necessity in this nation. Perhaps tidal power on the coastal regions makes more sense for them. Perhaps hydro power for inland areas makes more sense for them. At any rate energy is a prime consideration in terms of return on investment. The simple fact of the matter is that there can and should be spinoffs from the efforts. With all due respect folks, there is no magic bullet.

Trying to spend your way out of debt is an unreasonable and illogical solution to the problem of recession. Infrastructure development makes sense in terms of nation building, but in terms of ending a recession it is lacking any kind of sense whatsoever. I do however advocate infrastructure programs, yet they must be focused in order to provide both benefit to the economy and return on investment to the tax payer.

A naval port in Churchill? Sure, just as long as we can some nuclear subs and a whole new fleet of ice breakers. Lets add a northern carrier battle group to the list while we are at it. Perhaps a couple of Raptor Squadrons for air cover and a whole new Arctic Land Force to protect it. That should be doable for a mere trillion dollars.

Like the soon to be extinct folks in Gaza?

I am okay with that because I agree with their position. Please be so kind as to allow me to explain my view. First of all, you have to admit to yourself that Hamas was breaking international law by firing rockets at Israel. Secondly you have to admit that in the same position you would react in the same manner, striking back. Thirdly you have to admit to yourself that you are an outside observer, nothing more and nothing less and then apply your own morals to the situation, in my case that means treating others as you would have them treat you.

Keep in mind contracts go to the lowest bidders. Cheap labour, lower cost products, simple math. That is how we do business. Now if you want to buy Canadian.....lets just start with building some airplanes, like a CF105 maybe...................

Proportional representation is a myth. It simply should never be considered, here is why. It destroys democracy by negating the majority of a constituency in favour of some larger demographic. That is simply insane. From my perspective what is needed is not electoral reforms, the process of elections is fine. The problem that I would focus upon is term limits, electoral recalls, and citizens initiatives. There needs to be a way for the public to interact with government as it relates to legislative efforts and representative integrity. Perhaps of even more relevance would be to reform the parliamentary system to enable citizens the opportunity to choose a leader for the nation independent of partisan choice. The PMO's office is already separate from government, why not take a page from the republic system?

The long and the short of this issue is simply that everyone feels that there are sides to be taken. I am as guilty as the next person in this regard. The truth is that the only ones that SHOULD take one side or the other are the people living there. The rest of us are mere arm chair critics, putting our noses where they really don't belong. Having said that, both sides are in the wrong, and both feel justified in their actions. To each their own I guess. Yet, I for one would take great exception to another nation mounting attacks on my home or my nation. I would feel justified in doing whatever it was that I decided, and I don't think I would give a damn what the people that were not involved in the conflict thought.

They were invited to stay when the state was created. Most elected to leave.

I must agree with you on this statement at least. Here as well I find myself in agreement with you, this is not a common thin CR. Yet the issue of entitlement looms as large before us corporatism. Universality would address this but some say that is not a fair approach, I disagree. I want the government blind with respect to telling citizens apart. That is the kind of equality I desire. There will always be rich folks and there will always be poor folks. That is not an issue, some get to choose their station and some do not. My point was directed toward the reality of a class system within our society. While we have the opportunity to rise above where we find ourselves, I suggest that society itself needs to recognize the reality of our class structure. I do think that rights apply to all citizens, but privilege is another matter. Perhaps if privilege was accepted as the reality enfranchised in law then we could do a little more social engineering to improve the human condition. Such improvement is the responsibility of society. Working toward it is a path of enlightenment. This is where I desire that citizens and government together go.

The media will spin left or right depending on who owns it. News is not really news anymore, its political journalism.

Get control of the Tories? Control you say? So much for the separation of church and state. I certainly hope you do not speak for a majority of Conservatives.

Iggy isn't my guy ........ yet. Even so I agree with what you have said.

That requires a little effort, most Canadians would not bother to do it. Further this it goes toward a transparency that all citizens desire from their government. This government, no. Yet a government with a little foresight could be so inclined. Yes I do expect them to be that smart. Is that not what they say they are? That would to the intended direction to work in. Something to hold them to account for.

It is one thing to provide funding to the arts, and another to fund pornography and other little tidbits found within the art community. If the "art" has any cultural value, then it may be considered for public funding, art galleries, symphonies and the like come to mind. However, in my view the "art" considered for public funding should have in its roots some "Canadian" aspect that makes it stand alone from other cultures.

It is my belief that we to this day still live within a class structured society. The upper class is more affluent, the lower class is poor, and the middle class carries the load of society in their numbers. Further to this I think that there is also a social structure to consider within our current society. There is a certain class within our society that believe they have some entitlement to programs and services at government expense. In my view these are by choice the true lower class of citizens. The upper class, in my view are the citizens that desire to work for what they want. The middle class within our society are those who simply work for a living but do not desire to put more effort into their own lives or into their communities. Again in my view, society tends to sort itself out with the hard working citizens achieving more and realizing a higher standard of living by rewarding themselves with their own efforts. As a matter of fact, for the most part our government has socially engineered our Canadian culture to provide a foundation in which no citizen is allowed to fall into complete poverty. The government will feed and cloth citizens, pay for their utilities, as well as their education and their health care. Their standard of living is very low, yet they are allowed to survive at the expense of society. While this is happening the most affluent pay less taxes and have more opportunity even as the majority of citizens cover the burden of funding society. Even so there is room for even more social engineering, through legislative effort. The age of entitlement is gradually coming to an end, we simply can no longer afford, nor do we any longer care to subsidize the lowest class of our society. The first nations will likely be the first to come to this realization. As it currently stands numerous bands have begun casino operations, and yet some of these pay no taxes. Soon the day will come when these bands will be compelled to make a decision, either pay taxes and receive benefits, or not. Then there are the generational welfare citizens, who have never lifted a finger to help themselves, they too shall discover a new reality and be compelled to make a decision. In my view, those who desire to live high on the fat of the public hog, should expect to be relegated into a separated society of their own. There they would receive what they deserve which is very little.

The EI fund was changed into a separate entity, that said it certainly does not mean that surpluses or shortfalls will not occur. In fact they will become a very public matter of record, far easier to locate and determine fiscal balances than they were in the first place being hidden within a far greater general revenue account. Which is why the Liberals were able to skim from it in the first place. On the other hand those funds that were in surplus went to debt retirement and that is not such a bad thing either. Unfortunately the entire matter of surplus funds needs to be legislated into some semblance of order and fiscal prudence. As much as I would love yo see tax reductions, considering debts and deficits, the best that I may be able to hope for is that taxation levels remain at current levels with all surplus revenues being put to debt repayment.

These words are both true and wise.

Make prostitution legal, regulate it and tax it. Clean it up, stop the spread of social diseases, get rid of the pimps and dope. Most of these women have fallen into the trap of selling their bodies, that is what it is a trap. It should not be a crime. If prostitution was legal, imagine what we could do in terms of sex crimes? Look at the benefits of making it legal.

I agree with him and the government on this issue.

I blame nobody. I am against the corporate welfare system. In my view they are all out to lunch on this issue. Why not just convert to communism? At least that way we could have it all! Free health care, no employment issues, no tax issues, that should make everybody happy.........................not.

The arts are a matter of culture and as such deserve public funding.

Perhaps it is only an insult to you, and therefore of little consequence to him. The Liberals are indeed in rough shape. That is changing rapidly though, perhaps not soon enough for an election but I am willing to bet that Iggy will play for time. I think he will use the big stick threat to keep Harper in line, because he knows Harper will do almost anything to retain power. So why not wait, and just give Steve a nudge and a wink every now and then to get him to do what he wants, when he wants it? The only thing I find disgusting is people spewing their moral opinions all over the place and insulting those who do not conform to their ideals of morality. I find the position of the fanatic religious sorts to be a mix of compromised ideals. For example anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. These kinds of things frustrate me, but I do understand them.

In your opinion. Please keep in mind that Iggy pursued academics first and then moved into private ventures. Now he challenges himself with public servie after having seen and worked in other places in this world. Knowing this, you should understand that he is educated well, to the point of being able to teach at a post secondary level. He has lived and worked outside of Canada so he has experienced life on a broader scale than many folks, and then elected to return to Canada. If this is such a bad place, why come back? Why apply himself to public service in a nation that he does not have to live in? Mr. Canada, in my opinion you have missed the boat on this. He is a good candidate for office, more qualified than Harper.

Economic stimulus? You mean corporate welfare don't you. Let theses failing companies meet their destiny without the tax payer having to fund it. If they are viable then banks can give them money, if not, oh well. The government should concern itself with citizens not business ventures. The social program spending is not what is causing a deficit, its a stimulus package that is. Check your numbers.