Congratulations to PM Harper

[SurplusElect]

Do you want to see the emails that Elections Canada sent to Conservatives Headquarters, asking them why they were getting Robocalls complaints across Canada days before the election, and only targeting people who are known not to vote Conservative?

They are a matter of public record now, aside from the 20 or so lies told in the House denying there was even a single Robocall made.

[Merry]

Fair enough, Merry, but I'll just mention a couple of things:

1. I was listening to a political analyst a year or two ago who said that every single Prime Minister of Canada who was in office for any length of time was eventually called a dictator. PM's do have a lot of power and of course with our parliamentary system it's easy to view any PM as something of a dictator. As for the omnibus bills I'm not a fan either and yet I've read that the Liberals when in government did exactly the same thing. Doesn't make it right but perhaps it's the system that needs to be adjusted.

2. As for moving the OAS from 65 to 67 (with many years notice) doesn't that make some sense given that most people are in fact living longer? It just seems as if any government that tries exercise fiscal prudence ends up losing votes. The Ontario NDP, for example, is proposing a 15% cut in auto insurance rates. Never mind that if adopted those cuts will benefit those with more expensive cars and/or more vehicles and won't help people with no vehicles at all but it is a vote-getting policy. It just seems that every time I turn around people are mad about any cuts to services or benefits (if anything they want more services and benefits) while wanting someone else to pay for these things. Just saying . . .

1. While it is true that every PM has those who approve and those who disapprove, some of the things I refer to go far beyond individual partisan likes and dislikes. They are things that can have a direct, negative effect on the democratic process and which seem to have been far more in evidence since the Conservatives came to power than before.
2. As for the OAS change being a form of "fiscal prudence" that is a matter of personal opinion. The Government has x amount of dollars, and it has to prioritize what to spend those dollars on. Forcing half the nations seniors into poverty doesn't seem wise to me, because in a consumer driven economy such as ours, we should remember that seniors are consumers too. So having such a large segment of the population unable to spend on anything above the subsistance level is bound to have a negative effect on the overall economy. Besides which, unless we plan on watching many of them slowly starve or freeze to death, the state will probably wind up having to bail them out a bit anyway. So why take away with the one hand, only to wind up giving it back with the other?

[Merry]

Millwrights that I know make $120,000 - $150,000 a year. Do they really HAVE to work until 67 with a history of earnings like that? I doubt the extra 2 years is going to be necessary for 99.9% of them.

While I don't doubt there are some millwrights who work in the oil sands and also work a ton of OT make very generous salaries, it isn't the norm. Certainly millwrights who live and work in the valley don't make anything LIKE that amount of money. I'd say somewhere between $58,000 and $75,000 depending on their employer and how much OT they make. And while that's still a pretty decent salary, it hardly puts them in the top income bracket.
But regardless, what you're not taking into account is the heavy nature of the work and the toll that takes on the human body. Most millwrights I know have bad knees and bad backs by the time they're in their mid to late fifties, and consequently have a very difficult time continuing in their profession to 65. Many of them wind up having to go on light duty. They certainly are in no shape to continue on until 67 and beyond. I doubt places like the oil sands would even interview anyone over 60 for that kind of heavy work.

[steven lloyd]

Fair enough, Merry, but I'll just mention a couple of things:

1. I was listening to a political analyst a year or two ago who said that every single Prime Minister of Canada who was in office for any length of time was eventually called a dictator. PM's do have a lot of power and of course with our parliamentary system it's easy to view any PM as something of a dictator. As for the omnibus bills I'm not a fan either and yet I've read that the Liberals when in government did exactly the same thing. Doesn't make it right but perhaps it's the system that needs to be adjusted.

2. As for moving the OAS from 65 to 67 (with many years notice) doesn't that make some sense given that most people are in fact living longer? It just seems as if any government that tries exercise fiscal prudence ends up losing votes. The Ontario NDP, for example, is proposing a 15% cut in auto insurance rates. Never mind that if adopted those cuts will benefit those with more expensive cars and/or more vehicles and won't help people with no vehicles at all but it is a vote-getting policy. It just seems that every time I turn around people are mad about any cuts to services or benefits (if anything they want more services and benefits) while wanting someone else to pay for these things. Just saying . . .

Those are good points Urbane. Like Merry, I definitely had some concerns with the lack of debate over the omnibus bills – about the only credible point being made in the “idle no more” protests – but as you point out, that could very well be just as much a systemic problem. As for moving the OAS from 65 to 67 it only makes sense. Something has to be done to keep the system sustainable and that’s at least one step while still giving people plenty of time to adjust to the change. We still need to look at other ideas from both the cost-cutting and revenue-increasing sides of the equation but that is a necessary start. No Prime Minister is going to be perfect and it certainly seems that for most the longer they are around the greater the criticism levelled their way. For myself, in spite of what criticisms I could level here (but not going to) I’ve really come to appreciate the job the Harper government has done overall in managing the state of our nation under current global circumstances.

[Urbane]

Here's an editorial from the Chicago Tribune that is nice to read:

February 4, 2013

The Chicago Bears were watching instead of playing in Sunday's Super Bowl, but that could change next year now that the team has hired a coach from a rising star among nations: Canada.

Yes, Canada. Boring, eager-to-please Canada is taking Chicago by storm — in a nice way, of course.

It isn't just the arrival of Marc Trestman from the Montreal Alouettes as head coach of the Bears that heralds Canada's ascension to the ranks of Chicago cool.

Consider poutine. This homely dish, a tradition in Quebec, has become a popular menu item at some of Chicago's trendiest eateries. Take a mess of french fries, sprinkle on cheese curds then ladle brown gravy all over it. Embellishments range from foie gras to kimchi. Reactions range from "Yuck" to "Yum."

Poutine commands attention, like so many imports from the land of moose and maples.

Often ignored and taken for granted, Canada is on a roll. From the U.S. point of view, the tail is wagging the dog in North America, and that's not so bad. The economic activity helps both countries.

The key to Canada's success has been avoiding some of the worst mistakes made by its neighbor to the south.

Americans failed to regulate their banks. Canada's banks are stable.

Americans overinflated their real estate market. Canada's housing market never went pop.

Americans can't get their elected officials to straighten out health care and entitlement IOUs. Canada's got it better covered, having kept its debt and spending at more sustainable levels than the U.S.

Petrochemicals have helped. Canada is experiencing a gold-rush-style energy boom. The oil sands of Alberta contain enough petroleum to rate serious comparisons with Saudi Arabia. Improved drilling technology has made it practical to tap that vast resource. Money is pouring in, despite lower oil prices.

On a per capita basis, Canada is among the world's most prosperous countries. The Canadian dollar, nicknamed the loonie for the aquatic bird pictured on it, trades at an equal value to the U.S. dollar. Used to be, loonies traded at a substantial discount, but that was before Americans racked up a $16-trillion-plus national debt.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (we know many Americans have never heard of him) has pursued an ambitious trade agenda. He has sought to improve relations with China, enhancing economic ties. He also is expected to ink a free-trade agreement with the European Union this year. That will put pressure on the U.S. to follow suit, as well it should, for the substantial benefits that flow from tearing down commercial barriers and harmonizing regulations.

A lingering frustration is the Obama administration's opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, an important cross-border infrastructure project needed to move oil from Canada to U.S. refineries and beyond.

One sticking point recently gave way when Nebraska lifted its objections to the pipeline's traverse of the state.

Now it's up to the U.S. State Department to stop pandering to environmental lobbyists and give the go-ahead. Can't happen soon enough.

While Canada waits, at least its citizens can take solace in the National Hockey League's return to the ice after a frustrating labor dispute.

Chicagoans who cheer for the resurgent Blackhawks should keep in mind that half the team hails from Canada, as does "Coach Q," the Ontario-born Joel Quenneville.

Land of the north, Chicago is calling to you. Calling your sesame bagels, smoked meat and Tim Hortons double-doubles. Calling your low rates of gun crime, and universal health care. Calling your oil, especially your oil. We hope some of that Canadian good fortune rubs off on our city.

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

[Gone_Fishin]

Millwrights that I know make $120,000 - $150,000 a year. Do they really HAVE to work until 67 with a history of earnings like that? I doubt the extra 2 years is going to be necessary for 99.9% of them.

While I don't doubt there are some millwrights who work in the oil sands and also work a ton of OT make very generous salaries, it isn't the norm. Certainly millwrights who live and work in the valley don't make anything LIKE that amount of money. I'd say somewhere between $58,000 and $75,000 depending on their employer and how much OT they make. And while that's still a pretty decent salary, it hardly puts them in the top income bracket.
But regardless, what you're not taking into account is the heavy nature of the work and the toll that takes on the human body. Most millwrights I know have bad knees and bad backs by the time they're in their mid to late fifties, and consequently have a very difficult time continuing in their profession to 65. Many of them wind up having to go on light duty. They certainly are in no shape to continue on until 67 and beyond. I doubt places like the oil sands would even interview anyone over 60 for that kind of heavy work.

Millrights I worked with in Kelowna 15 years ago made $120,000+ . It's a very lucrative trade. I guess you haven't had any experience detremining what to pay these folks and costing them into production or job costing them for projects. And, that wage is exclusive of pension and benefits. I doubt there is a skilled millwright in this town that doesn't have a good benefit and pension plan - they are just too in demand for gypo places to attract them sans pension and benefits.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

This is also an interesting read :

http://pushedleft.blogspot.ca/2011/02/jim-flaherty-and-goldman-sachs-cooling.html

[Merry]

Millrights I worked with in Kelowna 15 years ago made $120,000+ . It's a very lucrative trade. I guess you haven't had any experience detremining what to pay these folks and costing them into production or job costing them for projects. And, that wage is exclusive of pension and benefits. I doubt there is a skilled millwright in this town that doesn't have a good benefit and pension plan - they are just too in demand for gypo places to attract them sans pension and benefits.

I have friends who are millwrights who don't make anywhere near that kind of money. Most of the millwrights who work in the valley tend to work for small business, and the pay is less than half the figure you quote. But regardless, this discussion is sidetracking from my original point, which was that the Harper Government has done some things while in office that fly in the face of democracy. And it has cost them my vote.

[Merry]

As for moving the OAS from 65 to 67 it only makes sense. Something has to be done to keep the system sustainable and that’s at least one step

The Harper Government commissioned a report in 2011which looked at Canada's pension system and compared it to that of other nations. In Section 5 it specifically discussed the sustainability of OAS

FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Canada currently spends around 4.5% of national income on pensioners. This is significantly below the average for the 30 OECD countries of 7.4%. Of the 12 countries under study here, only Australia and Ireland have lower public pension expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, France spends 13% of GDP on pensions, and Italy, 14%. The 27 EU member states currently spend nearly 9% of GDP on pensions on average, well above the average figure for the OECD countries. By 2060, this is expected to increase to nearly 13% of GDP.
The increase is, of course, driven primarily by population ageing. Indeed, the forecasts suggest that, holding everything else constant, demographic change would approximately double public pension spending to an average of 18%. The main reason that a smaller increase is expected is the series of pension reforms that have taken place over the past two decades, many of which will mean lower public pensions for future generations of retirees than are paid today and/or an increase in pension eligibility ages. Thus, Italy's public pension spending is expected to fall slightly as a share of national income by 2060 and the increase in spending in France is relatively modest.

National financial projections for Canada show an increase in pensions spending from around 4.5% of GDP now to 6.2% by 2060. This is a sizeable increase, but the growth in spending is at a slower rate than most of the other countries in Figure 2 for which comparable forecasts are available. One of the main drivers is the expectation of continued inward migration of around 0.5% of population per year, which gives Canada a more favourable demographic outlook than many European countries. The analysis suggests that Canada does not face major challenges of financial sustainability with its public pension schemes.

If you'd like to read the entire report, here's the link:
http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/pubs/pensi ... se-eng.asp

This illustrates my original point that raising the age of OAS eligibiligy was driven more by partisan belief than by a lack of sustainability. And given that they did not campaign on this issue in the last election, they did not have a mandate to make the changes they did. The fact that they misled the Public about why they did it only makes it that much worse.

[logicalview]

Do you want to see the emails that Elections Canada sent to Conservatives Headquarters, asking them why they were getting Robocalls complaints across Canada days before the election, and only targeting people who are known not to vote Conservative?

They are a matter of public record now, aside from the 20 or so lies told in the House denying there was even a single Robocall made.

Talk about grasping at straws. Rather than perpetuate this Robocall nonsense, why not work with your NDP brethren to move the party more to the centre and therefore quasi -electable. You are just coming off as a major sore loser.

[logicalview]

I see no one responded to my who else is there to vote for. The silence is deafening. As long as the answer is "no one", Harper will continue to win majorities, no matter how many straw men Bago throws up. It's just that simple.

[Merry]

I see no one responded to my who else is there to vote for. The silence is deafening. As long as the answer is "no one", Harper will continue to win majorities, no matter how many straw men Bago throws up. It's just that simple.

I'll respond logical; I've been giving a lot of thought to this lately, and am begining to pay a lot more attention to the other two parties and their position on certain subjects. I've also been looking at their leaders, because in today's system the leader seems to have an awful lot of sway in how the party governs (more than he should have IMO, but nevertheless that's the way it is).
Personality of the leader wise I'm very impressed with Tom Mulcair. He seems to have what it takes, and doesn't strike me as being a left wing radical; more middle of the road I'd say. Which isn't surprising given that he used to be a Liberal. If he can keep the left wingnuts in his party under control I think he'd make a credible PM. And if anyone can turn the NDP into an effective Federal Government, I'm sure he's the man to do it.
The Liberals are harder to judge, given the current disarry caused, in part, by their current leadership campaign. Bob Rae has done a fairly decent job of helping the party re-establish itself following their recent decimation at the polls, and I suspect that Justin T will wind up with the permanent job. He lacks experience IMO, but one can't argue that he has a certain amount of "star power", and maybe this disillusioned country of ours needs a bit of that these days. It's surprising what a boost in public morale can do to the overall economy.
I haven't decided yet which one I'm going to vote for. I like what I'm currently seeing in the NDP but, like you, I'm wary of the left wing element in that party. However, if they continue to keep those guys on a tight leash, and keep on their current path, I'm seriously leaning towards giving them a chance.

[French Castanut]

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Your thinking is really wacky, mockhair is a typicall qubecor who will help seperation,think again.

That's funny. Pretty much everyone knows that Québec hasn't talked about separation in ages. Pretty much everyone knows that the shift from Bloc to NDP was a sign of wanting a change. They voted for Jack. As for Marois, she didn't win majority. Again, Québec wanted a change. But not separation. She's the only one talking about it. It's quite comical to watch actually.
What would Mulcair gain with separation ?

[Glacier]

If I recall correctly, Merry was a soft Conservative voter last time. She held her nose and voted, hoping that Harper would be different from the status quo. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, she sees that this has not been the case.

If you go from a minority to a majority, you have to win people over who previously voted for other parties. If you were able to win over these extra voters by promising better transparency and more open government, and you fail to deliver, a second majority term will not be easy to obtain. And no one will be to blame except the prime minister who failed to deliver on his promises.

Political parties don't give a rip about Bagotricks or Fisher-Dude, but they do care about Merry because she is a swing voter who is willing to change her vote if the government doesn't live up to her expectations.

I'm not making a value judgment on Harper's performance, only that when swing voters are not happy with what they see (real or perceived), the government better take notice and figure out what they are doing wrong.

In my view, the Harper government has done some things right, but they have made some screw ups as well. I like that they didn't bring in yet another expensive social program, but cutting the HST was short sighted. They have done good on immigration, but omnibus bills are a strike against them. Those are a couple of examples off the top of my head.