Jerry J. Fortin

I would like to see the government show us how this should be done. Give them the free hand as to how this unfolds now. Some folks have mentioned Canadian content and I agree with them. This is a very expensive project and I would like to think that our government knows how much of this money being spent has to actually leave the country. Is it not reasonable to suggest the public interest could best be served by spending as little money outside of the country as possible? There are more than simply two dimensions to this question regarding defense procurements. The F 35 is the best choice before counting the dollars, but those same dollars may in fact be the reason for the demise of the program in Canada. Other options can be explored, there is the potential for building the aircraft in Canada under license. It has been elsewhere suggested that Bombardier could partner with a European firm to build one of their aircraft here. There are in fact many ways to get this done, the F 35 may or may not be the governments choice, but the citizens are now looking at the programs costs and are asking questions. That is a good thing. The F 35 program has problems in the USA, that is known. Costs have escalated, that is known. Canadians now have the opportunity to pause and rethink the purchase. Where we go from here is important because the expense is very significant and sharply in public focus. The Harper government may have created more of a public relations problem than they think now that the media is bringing Canadian content into the question. The backside of the proposals I have read are the involvement of Bombardier is the very real existing debt the company has with the nation. Throwing good money after bad will have traction, but of course from my view Bombardier would get the chance to PAY BACK what they already owe. Is not the question of Canadian content in this program of vital relevance?

Odd unless you consider the dollar bill portion of the equation.

Isn't that the way it is anyway?

Dumb...? There is a reason the UN is ineffective, you must know this. The Security Council has the power to veto, its a democracy killer. The UN needs to be revamped, giving them the teeth of a military would make them able to be the world police that is so very needed. I believe there are only two kinds of politics; local and not. If it isn't our own little corner of the world then its everyone else's corner too isn't it?

You really feel threatened by the UN ? I mean really ,,,,, giving the UN the Canadian military makes them scary then.....or are they scary now?

We can't defend the nation now. Why not donate the army to the UN?

I would rather donate it to the UN instead of disband it. I don't like the idea of wasting the money. Give the UN an army. I would suggest we keep paying, feeding, housing our guys, but equipping them should fall to the UN.

The phrase "military industrial complex" comes to mind.

The people that like war are the people in the institutions of power.

Ask the right question and you get the right answer. Statistics are designed, not researched. Its time for a reality check here. We are talking about the weather. Modern science has us at about fifty percent accuracy in forecasting local weather three days in advance. We are talking about trends that may or may not manifest themselves in specific or general terms over a period of time measured in years not days. Half the time we get it right over a few days and someone wants you to believe they will be right about the weather how far into the future? Got a quarter? You too can be a weather man! Or a climate predicting scientist for that matter. Impact and consequences is what must be qualified first before making any judgements. Impact can be drawn from historical references and consequences are a matter of historical record as well. When it is all said and done and the time comes to face reality, we will be able to say that the weather is changing and it will impact us in a detrimental manner. We will be able to say that we can identify what the problems will be. We will be able to say that we know why the weather changed. We are not there yet. The function of the scientific community is to identify and resolve issues. Research is focused on funded and identified problems for the most part. Discovery takes a back seat to practical application. In this case the efforts are well funded but the data is not functionally organized, leading to false trails being explored. To resolve the problem an international organization is required to administer an effort that would avoid wasted effort. The impact of climate change is adverse, there is no upside at all. Our society is geared toward our climate, changing one changes the other.

There is no peace. There never has been a peace in the middle east only a lull between storms. That is the entire point. The only solution is peace, the only question is how to attain it. Israel needs to give up Jerusalem and Gaza, the former to the world, just like the Vatican, the latter to Palestine. Palestine needs to give up the West Bank to Israel and Jerusalem to the world. The key is the "Holy City", if both give the city to its residents, then the high ground in the ideological battlefield is removed. A level playing field exists, enabling the next step in negotiations to take place. Round one of negotiations passes with both sides losing equally and not to each other, a subtle point. Round two of negotiations provides a fair trade where Israel is completely out of Gaza, no presence within established borders, no check points, no towers, no Israelis in Gaza. Gaza borders to be expanded to include equal amount of territory lost from Jerusalem and the West Bank, on the Israeli side of the border with Egypt, new lands for the nation of Palestine. Round three of negotiations would be the desperately needed military/economic alliances needed in the region to maintain and preserve the peace. All of this is possible with the proper carrot. That carrot is the very lives of those involved in this historic struggle. Those lives depend on peace to survive and the will to live is strong. There is sufficient political will available to achieve this now after the Arab Spring has brought democratic principles to the region in an acceptable form. The will of the people in the region makes all the difference. If peace is what they want they can now have it.

The entire world grows weary of the troubles in the middle east. Reason and goodwill will always be absent functional concepts in negotiations regarding everybody's favorite "Holy Land", The opinions of the peoples of the west and of the east are not relevant. What is relevant is the opinions of those that live there. The UN has opened the door and are now required to accept responsibility for all that transpires within. I have yet to hear from any credible source how in the world a nation can be created out of Gaza and the West Bank. A two part country? What of the "Holy City" A three part country. I think the only feasible solution is for both sides to bite the bullet and compromise themselves, place their trust and their faith, even their very lives at stake in the quest for peace. Israel loses Gaza and it becomes Palestine, that is the only solution. Israel and Palestine both lose the "Holy City", because the city and its people must be respected and protected by all. Palestine must lose the West Bank. Palestine must become a state, a nation in its own right. There will be no peace without that becoming a reality. Israel must be a state, a nation in its own right as well. There will be no peace outside of that reality. Gaza is the place to build a nation for Palestine. Its a sea port, it borders Egypt and it is expandable from either side. It is Egypt and Israel that can make this happen, nobody else. Egypt is the largest nation in the area, the most influential, and between Egypt and Israel there has always been Palestine. That is the reality that all need to accept. This isn't just about Palestine, or Israel, or even Egypt. Its about the humans that live in those places. They all have the right to live, that is reality. That is the whole story, wrapped up and put in a nutshell. Nobody deserves to die, and everyone deserves to live. It is a fools dream to believe in a win/win situation here. How about a reality check, we are looking at everybody losing in order to make possible anyone winning. This is the middle east, it ain't Kansas Dorthy. The long and harsh history of the region should lead all to believe that lives have, are, and will continue to be lost until peace is realized. When there is conflict everyone loses, all the time. It always has been that way and it always will be that way.

There were more than a couple of people that showed up in Edmonton. Perhaps more to the point is that this is a leadership race for the Liberal Party of Canada. This is not a general election where anything meaningful is taking place, This is just the media hype promoting partisan political participation in the democratic process. As Mr. Harder says this is nothing but politics. I am an Albertan, and I support Justin in his quest for leadership. I want to see what he can do. I have seen what Harper has done. The future is unknown but I prefer to think that the country could do worse than having Steve and Justin duke it out over the months to come before the next election. This is the fight the nation needs to be front and centre. The diverging ideologies between the left and the right create a political hole in the middle. That middle ground is where Justin's father sought to create the "Just Society". Oddly enough those concepts are becoming more relevant the older they become. That probably indicates the truth in the principles as conceived by its author. The idea of a nation moving forward in a manner such as.... " No one in the society should be entitled to superfluous or luxury goods until the essentials of life are made available to everyone. At first glance, that distribution would appear to [exist] in Canada. Thanks to our abundant natural wealth and to the techniques of the industrial era, it no longer seems necessary to trample on one another in the scramble for riches. Consequently, most people take it for granted that every Canadian is assured a reasonable standard of living. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Just Society will be one in which all of our people will have the means and the motivation to participate. The Just Society will be one in which personal and political freedom will be more securely ensured than it has ever been in the past. The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities. The Just Society will one in which those regions and groups which have not fully shared in the country’s affluence will be given a better opportunity. The Just Society will be one where such urban problems as housing and pollution will be attacked through the application of new knowledge and new techniques. The Just Society will be one in which our Indian and Inuit population will be encouraged to assume the full rights of citizenship through policies which will give them both greater responsibility for their own future and more meaningful equality of opportunity. The Just Society will be a united Canada, united because all of its citizens will be actively involved in the development of a country where equality of opportunity is ensured and individuals are permitted to fulfill themselves in the fashion they judge best……On the never-ending road to perfect justice we will, in other words, succeed in creating the most humane and compassionate society. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, as cited in The Essential Trudeau, ed. Ron Graham. (pp.16 – 20)." It seems to me that the people of Canada want to move forward. What is needed is the political vision of a road map to prosperity. We as a people have yet to define to ourselves what that really means. The Just Society concept is worth looking into at least once, especially for the citizens of this nation.

Why unravel it at tax payers expense? Just run as much media at it as you can for as long as you can. Then stop when its no longer getting attention put it in a can and move on to the next boondoggle. I hope the next contender is the one smart enough to understand that there are no points to be made from the backbenches. We get one shot every half a decade and then we give the keys to the next guy. Break out the canned goods at the beginning of the next campaign, but not before. Were rules / laws broken ? Certainly, but the net impact is zero...so move on. They cheated, is that news?

I hope they don't buy the birds.

My issues with this problem stem from the question of which tax is better. Lets be honest with each other here at least. Its a tax levied on citizens (personal or business) that goes into general revenues. From there the money is dispersed as per the will of the PM by both budgetary and discretionary means. Lets not bother to think this is a targeted effort to reduce the effects of industrial development and the detrimental impact to the environment by means of the perfect science of politics. Its a tax grab, pure and simple. Another scape goat policy designed to take more money out of the economy and the hands of citizens and place the economic power deeper into the pockets of the government. Wrong policy, wrong concept. Politicians should be seeking solutions that provide simply reduced expense of society to the citizen while improving the benefits of that society. That should be the goal of government instead of seeking new ways to do old things.

In my view the government has simply failed to inspire us, as if they ever have. I do not believe the government has much control over the economies of this world.Therefore I don't think they can and or will do very much for us. The government can and does play with monetary policy everyonce and a while, but their track record is not very helpfull. Their attempts at monetary matters are usually defferd to committees and groups, well hidden from public view. The banks are the real governments,and we need to deal with that reality.

Transfer payments are the very essence of Canadian politics. Its a strange world where the wealth of our nation is dispersed. The intent is to provide an economic balance within our society where an individual can live where ever they want and get comparable programs and services. Nice thought, from a social engineering perspective. bad concept from any form of practical viewpoint. Reality and Canadian politics are interesting bedfellows. In my view this is all very well and good for those folks that like; high taxes, large budget deficits, and servicing huge debt loads. However it does not sit well with me. I can simply not understand how we can allow our government to live outside of their means and leave the citizen to hold the tab.

Don't kid yourself the Wildrose is more alive than dead. They have succeeded in splitting the right, discrediting the left, and playing with the media. They did not win, but look at how close the actually came. The big difference in the division between rural and urban voters is a red herring. The demographics break down to one third rural, one third Calgary, and one third Edmonton. It has been that way for some time.

I must disagree. I believe that Harper is using the PMO as the Canadian version of a Ministry of Propaganda. This is not the first such manifestation and it will not be the last. That Harper has any public support at all is still an amazing thing. You need a playbook to follow all the political flip flops this man who never worked a day in his life has made in his very well published public life. In an answer to the title question, its because he can. He is working within the confines of both historical and more current precedents. The citizens should understand that the PMO is the real government of Canada, and that office is very well funded and very well empowered. There are damned few things that come out of the PMO that either cabinet or the entire partisan caucus do not promote. The real power of this nation is actually confined to the PMO. The day to day operation of government is supervised from there.

My take on this subject is my realization of an economic opportunity. What I want the government to do is create the framework for a public consensus to resolve the question of whether or not to decriminalize pot. Should the public desire to act in favour of decriminalization, a very lucrative tax grab may be realized. Instead of adding realized revenues to the general income stream provided by the tax paying public, legislation could be devised to divert realized income from the new revenue stream to be applied to debt reduction. Debt reduction is the single most important issue of citizens with respect to program service delivery. It is those programs and services that account for a vast portion of government expenditures. Those programs are the social safety net we have devised and created for the universal access of federal programs and services to all Canadian citizens. Every dollar paid for debt serving is a dollar removed from that social safety net. In order to preserve and maintain this safety net we are required to examine the potential opportunities associated with the addition of a new revenue stream, one created through the decriminalization of specific drugs. Given that the industry already exists that is designed to produce large profits outside of the framework of legal taxation, the time may have come to realize the folly that we call the war on drugs. The war on drugs has been funded through tax dollars that literally deprives the social safety net, the governments single greatest expense. Instead of creating funding security for all Canadians programs and services we find ourselves continuing to throw good money after bad. I will suggest that the Federal Government of Canada undertake a new policy path that will lead to a viable means of not merely protecting and maintaining the social safety net, but instead designing a method of funding that is completely transferable from one fiscal problem to another. Is it a tax grab, certainly. It deprives illegal efforts of profiteering and reduces the expenses associated with law enforcement. That is a win/win scenario for the tax payer. The product is taxable, the business that sells the product is taxable. The people working in the industry are taxable. We are talking about a revenue stream that delivers massive profits under all economic conditions, an industry that is exactly like the alcohol industry.

Calgary. No really, I do mean Calgary. That will be an issue for Harper, if Redford crashes and burns.

Harper is still here. Net impact to chosen course of action, zero. At least so far anyway. No sign of the government doing a flip flop for now.

Bullshit of the most pure unadulterated variety. We can and my prediction is that we will build this in Canada. Why, because we are talking billions of dollars of investment in a military industrial complex that would benefit the nation. I am actually opposed to military spending in the first place but it is a necessary evil that must be expected. Until we change our political environment we are compelled to retain armed forces as a means of national defense.

May have something to do with the economic impact, don't you think? I mean really. Damned near everything in the ship program has a literal return on effort with the reality of taxation accounted for. The same is not true with the aircraft program. In this latest biggest ever military procurement program, all things are now virtually visible. To prove it we just have to look up your favorite news feed and see what happens. Jobs here or jobs there is the real question. There are many ways to look at things, its called perspective. With a tax expenditure of this magnitude the people should certainly have some say in this. We are the guys paying the bill for crying out loud. This is what is supposed to happens when the government does things in a manner that is not acceptable to the public. Popular support is what any government needs to corner the market on in order to evade the public outcry. These public out cries will continue to shape the course of our political future as we learn to communicate. The nation state is about to become as extinct as the city state. We have as much of a clue as to what will come next as those that came before us, which is zilch. It is becoming clear that we are living in interesting times. Just as when Parliament became supreme in England, the evolution of democracy in our time will seek larger forums of regional support. It is a logical conclusion to draw, it provides the ultimate political authority, a new layer of government and that is the international level. In order to accomplish this popular support for the extra level of government, they will need to convince the public that the ELIMINATION of all military expenditures outside of salaries for the warriors. This is how we force the changes that NEED to take place in the greater good of society. The only sane policy toward the military is purely defensive in nature. To do more is to is literally offensive and intended to harm. That cannot be the human policy anywhere on the planet.