Jerry J. Fortin

The "they" I am referring to is the spin doctors, not the stats guys. I did not try to define a recession, there is enough said about that anyway, and I do agree with your definition. Even so, I am not convinced that the fat lady has sung her song yet. There is another real estate bubble in the states to burst really soon. That is the commercial one, look at the malls that are closing due to the retail slump. Look at the apartments and condos for rent sitting there vacant with expensive mortgage costs to cover. There is at least as much lost value there as there was with homes. Wait for it, because nobody even sees round two coming, and it will be worse than most folks think. On the production side of the equation, domestic capacity is still being lost to foreign locations with reduced labour expenses, and those lost jobs do little to improve consumer spending which is the largest component of US GDP. The other side of the equation is resource harvesting and you don't need to go very far to see foreign nationals buying up endangered Canadian and US companies left right and centre. Things are not looking real good folks, despite what the spin doctors are saying.

Bring on the talk of a coalition I want to watch the Tories bounce off the walls!

Look folks, the reason that they are declaring the recession over is because corporate profits are up. That is the long and the short of it. With less workers you get increased productivity, looks real nice on a graph too. With things like statistics to support your assertions you can go a long ways on very little fuel. The harsh reality is that job reductions are in fact a part of a recovery plan for business. When you think about it then you can see that this makes sense. Once the process begins economic recovery is on the way, which in turn will bring a return to employment numbers in time. The whole problem here is that the public perception is what is played upon and manipulated to the advantage of those making the efforts. So the entire process looks bad for government and good for the opposition.

Let the fur begin to fly! Thank God!

Given the present legislation in place and the governments public policies with respect to the issue, the poll is meaningless. No party will step over that line.

I would tend to think that the NDP would love to see the government face an election at every opportunity.

A jobless recovery is not what the citizens want or desire. It is not what the citizens will call a recovery at all. This issue can be manipulated into the limelight by the first party with the brains to do so. This issue is the one the government of Harper cannot defend against.

That would be smallc's argument all right.

Certainly. A system far more developed with checks and balances including defined roles and responsibilities for government.

Really? You mean shifting to a republican system?

The flaws of having any form of appointed government. I favour democracy at the hands of the citizens not at the hands of the politicians.

Smallc and I have a long standing dispute about government reforms. He contends that our government is functioning well enough to be left alone, I emphatically disagree. Hence the requirement for changes escape him.

Justice is about retribution for crimes committed, not about the potential of crimes to be committed. Aside from that I would dispute your premise that criminals do not in majority reoffend.

This very question is the meat on the bone of bureaucracy. We have triplication of efforts from the federal to the provincial and finally to the municipal level. Federal government should be all about setting national standards or baselines of minimum levels. The provinces should administer these things and the cities or counties should undertake the operational delivery of services. If all forms of programs and services were designed this way we could cut billions from the three levels of government budgets and reduce the numbers of bureaucrats by the thousands.

There is simply no doubt that America influences both the Canadian economy and the Canadian society in general. In political terms we have always been much different than America due to the nature of our political system, yet we are still heavily influenced by America. The smart move for Canada is to remain different from America.

The effort is not one which you are worthy of my friend. That effort should be reserved for those of us who have lived and worked in this nation for many years. It would take much life experience to know what is needed and what is required for this nation, not merely surmise and opinion. The harsh reality is that this nation has rested upon its own flawed laurels for far too long. There is an anticipation of entitlement and an attitude of nearly religious belief in the government's perceived duty to the citizenry which has lead us down the path of creating the ultimate nanny state with all the craddle to grave benefits that goes with it. The Senate should be a place of regional representation where all provinces are equal and none has any more say or influence than the other. The Constitution should have an amending formula to be utilized in ONLY the Senate, where all provinces are equal. To do this requires an elected Senate, which itself requires the Constitution to be opened and "FIXED".

The same one that escapes you my friend.

Citizens that commit violent acts need to be removed from society, permanently. Granted there will always be circumstances that require discernment by the courts. In those cases, rare as they may be, a jury is able to represent the public and apply reason to the results of the trial. Justice can be dispensed and the public can be defended.

Yes it does. It means the sheeple of the rest of the nation can't see the political reality of the situation.

Violent offenders are a danger to society. They need to be removed from society.

With all due respect folks in terms of justice one size does fit all.

Of course there is another way to do it! It just takes a little integrity. Harper can appoint whoever he wants to the senate, so the constitution say. He can appoint the folks that the provinces tell him to. He can appoint the people that provincial citizens decide through democratic process. The fact that he does not speaks volumes doesn't it?

Interesting point but what does it have to do with putting him on trial?

Given the current economic circumstances it would not surprise me to see a rise of support during an election for the NDP.

Guilt or innocence is determined by a court of law. Bring him "home" and try him. Every person on this planet is entitled to due process.