Jerry J. Fortin

This is not about reason or logic, it is about governing. It is about politics, which is to say that it is all about talking to the public in a manner that provides support for the positions you have undertaken. This is what it is all about, not the actual policies, but the way in which public perception is manipulated.

I place my faith in God, not the government. When I used the word we, I meant as citizens. Citizens are represented in government by elected officials. Elected officials are in fact accountable to the citizens. We make them responsible through a system of laws and policies. All of those laws and policies are subject to change at the whim of the government. Therefore by extension the people tell the civil service what to do, and yet these are huge and rambling bureaucracies that leave the perception that they are in control when little could be further for the truth. When was the last time a bureaucrat was fired for going over the budget allotted to that department? How about his boss the Minister in charge? Where is the accountability in this regard? It does not exist. It exists to the same extent that I place my faith in a government composed of greedy bureaucratic sheep. We need leadership on the order of Harry Trumans "the buck stops here".

What do you do Argus?

That is exactly why they need a new mandate of service delivery. These bureaucracies need to be rationalized to the point where there is complete accountability and responsibility. From the top down the public service needs to understand that they live on our wages, and are as a result our employees. It is we who tell them how to do their jobs. It is we who determine what their jobs are.

There is some truth in the statement though. If Canada lags behind other nations in its efforts to stem the tide of economic downward spiral, then we will likely lose some of our market shares to nations that have reacted differently. Its all about the ability of the private sector to compete. It is that competition that is relevant in the greater scheme of things. The entire key being the cost and capacity of productive capabilities. Currently we are losing both jobs and productive efforts to nations with lower productive costs, and the only way out of that little problem is to respond in kind with lower production costs. We have an edge in raw materials so we can avoid some of the initial expense, and we have a well developed transportation system to move resources into and production out of the nation. What we need is a greater development of our secondary industries to produce more goods for consumption and we need to do that with lowered production costs. Given that labour is a large component of that cost, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. We cannot simply lower our wages because that has an adverse impact on lifestyles and the cost of living is already high enough to restrict the ability of our own citizens to purchase and consume goods to form the internal or domestic consumption of goods that is the basis of any economy. What we can do is eliminate to the extent technologically possible the labour component of the equation with advanced automation and the use of robotics for as much of our productive effort as we can. The other strategic method would be of the political nature with the elimination of regressive taxation that would serve to increase both personal and business disposable incomes that would allow to a greater degree the freedom to consume more expensive value added production of domestic nature. We need a buy Canadian policy and stacked menu of goods and services that are domestically produced and delivered to accomplish this.

We have gone forward, we have got over it. Yet still, it hurt us. Perhaps one of the things that has become known as a lesson learned from this tragedy, was that our government is far less likely to become involved in something itself, we are now wise enough to let private enterprise lead the way and take the risks. Long live the memory of the Arrow.

I am glad you brought it up. It is a matter of our heritage. We accomplished something very great, on our own. They said it could not be done, but we did it anyways. It proves that we can do things, very difficult things. The way the cards were played we lost our little dream in fact, but in reality the dream will never die. We know we can do these kind of things, and someday we will again. Maybe not a plane, maybe something else, but it proves that we can lead, not just follow. It proves that we can innovate not just copy or piggy back on the work of others. Some folks think Avro had to stop building airliners and be forced into building the Arrow; Poor fools no not what they are talking about. Avro did build one passenger jet, but because of its UK roots it was prevented from flying it until after the UK company took the first flight. Avro never produced a single production passenger jet. The ill-conceived and poorly implemented interceptor exceeded its design specifications with only the smaller less powerful American engines, the big engines in RL206 never say the air, they cut it up before it flew, and those engine would have taken RL206 beyond mach 2.25 without question. It was not the fault of the plane or the design team that the project was cancelled. It was a very political decision made by the government of the day. That was Dief the Chief.

I also realize that they are a nation of terrorists, governed by terrorists that were elected by terrorists. Perhaps you have heard of a little disturbance humbly called the war on terror? With that in mind, "the war on terror", Afghanistan and Iraq have lost their entire nations to military efforts of very powerful nations that were sanctioned by UN efforts. The UN doesn't seem to have declared Israel a terrorist organization, but yet the same cannot be said about Gaza and Hamas. Laws change, people change, and nations change. Even more important than this is that public opinion an international opinions change. Hamas, and its supporters must cease to exist.

If peace was truly desired, then there should be a single choice of location for the Palestinians, the west bank or Gaza. As it stands no other nation either Arab or Jew is willing to give these people some land. Perhaps because they are terrorists, I don't know.

That constituency is less than 15 kms from me. I for one do not agree with him.

Well for the 4 billion dollars I figure we could get one good bird in the air. Then we could point at it and say, I told you so!

You know what folks? I would rather toss 4 billion into rebuilding the Arrow than hand over that money to auto companies going bust!

Let me put it this way. With nukes, all other weapons pale in comparison. Yet we have no nukes! All of this fancy military hardware are expensive toys, that I will grant you. Sure we are better off spending tax dollars on social programs and improving the human condition for our citizens, there is no question of that. All I am saying is that the decision to cancel the project cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs. The project itself was successful but the implementation of it as a procurement method failed for political reasons. There was nothing wrong with the plane. The proof is in the pudding in as much as the "proper solution" as many advocate, that we were advised to undertake by the Americans was the purchase of much cheaper Bormac missiles. How good of a solution it was is born out in the cancellation of that little program in favour of manned aircraft within mere months of the deployment of these obsolete weapons. The point being that we created something that was in fact every little bit as good as the American product, and that scared a lot of people. People with money, people with power, and people both inside and outside of this nation with interests beyond that of the average citizen had the influence to prevent our emergence as a world leader in a field of endeavour that only a very select few were able to undertake. Our puny little nation had done what only far more massive economies could do, and we did it in a manner that literally threatened them. It was not about the bird, it was about the man. It was politics, nothing more and nothing less. That is why the legend won't die, because it was something we did in spite of ourselves. It isn't so much the plane itself as much as the utter incompetence of government that would waste so much money for no realizable benefit to the citizens. The program was an enigma.

I am currently dealing with the CRA. They have had more than 3 months to do what they do and still have not got it done, so I know what you mean. On the other hand I am against income taxes in the first place and would gladly see an end to your agency. I think consumption taxes are the way to go, beside I would get to eliminate your job by doing so!

Government is too big, I agree. To be more precise, the number of the employees on the government payroll is too high. With respect to the number of elected representatives, as in "government" I do not believe that the number is too high, I believe it is to low. The Senate needs to be elected, but the number of Senators should be reduced, there should be no more than 65 people in that chamber. As to the number of employees on the government payroll, I believe that much of the public service should be rolled over into crown corporations, with all attending wages, benefits and pensions transferred to the new employer. Each elected representative in the House of Commons should be responsible for a specific crown corporation and sit as a CEO for that corporation being responsible and accountable for the actions and delivery systems for the programs operated by that crown corporation. In addition, there should be a form of electoral recall available to citizens to remove individuals from these positions. On this issue of "income" taxes, I believe they should eliminated for both persons and business, replaced with a new form of consumption taxes with base levels to include exemptions for the basic necessities, unprepared food stuffs, personal hygiene items, childrens clothing, utilities, and shelter. Create a tax haven for citizens and companies to provide massive incentive for relocation to this country.

You really think so?

My apologies, yes it does seem low but have you ever met the man? It seems kinda high after that.

Those of us who have actually read the books, there are several of them, have already concluded that it was a political decision that cost the tax payer dearly, and that is no joke.

Consumption taxes need not adversely impact the poor! Even the GST needs a remake, there should be more things tax exempt. Childrens clothing, baby food, diapers, personal toiletries and non prepared foods all of these things need to be tax free. This is what the poor spend money on, basic necessities so make them tax exempt. Tax everything else, short of utility payments for private dwellings. The government would collect taxes based upon consumption, the taxes would be applied equally.

The Canadian government should have a single policy in cases like this. Humanitarian aid, period. Take no political stand whatsoever. This is nothing more or less than a civil war, we should take no side as a government. Of course in my opinion Hamas are a bunch of terrorists, and I have no use or concern for them, but that is a personal opinion.

Over capacity? You must be joking! What of the homeless folks, and all of the folks who rent because they can't afford to buy? Your view is very short term and fixed upon your own specific situation. You most likely either own your home outright as in are mortgage free or choose to rent instead of buying for you own reasons.

IQ is only a single measure and not a complete and functional test at that.

Now what would happen if we converted the public service into crown corporations? We offer two choices to the former employees; 1) you get a buyout of your pension contributions doubled to reflect the employer portion, or 2) you go to work for the new company and transfer your pension to a different plan of your own choice? Of course the new corporation may or may not be paying the same wqages and have the same work rules. There would have to be some radical rationalization of employment opportunity in a new not for profit company.

The deficit exists because the government has spending issues. Taxes are regressive and they oppress economies, that is a well known and accepted fact. The most astute move the government could make would be to outright eliminate income taxes and convert to consumption taxes. You want to spur the economy, and attract foreign and domestic investment, that will do it for you.i

I rather like the idea of eliminating huge chuncks of the civil service. Too much bureaucracy and to many public sector employees translates into high levels of taxation and corruption from political types. Argus, if you are in that line of work I am sorry, but you are on my payroll as a citizen, and I would like to start being a little more fiscally conservative and eliminate your job.