Congratulations to PM Harper

[Urbane]

Today, February 6, 2013, marks the seventh anniversary of Stephen Harper becoming Prime Minister of Canada. We've had 22 prime ministers in this country and Harper is now 9th on the list in terms of time in office.

Despite all the talk about a hidden agenda it never materialized and in May of 2011 Harper got the majority that he had sought. His steady leadership has helped Canada through some difficult economic times:

But here’s the thing. Canada has a good story to tell on the economy. While Flaherty often says that “Canada is not an island,” this country has come through the great recession in better shape than most in the developed world.

As former clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch and his colleague Karen Miske of BMO Financial Group have written: “Canada withstood the financial crisis better than most other countries and has continued to be a leader in financial stability during the aftermath.”

Canada’s banking system has been ranked the strongest in the world for the last five years running by the World Economic Forum. The country’s fiscal framework is solid. Canada’s deficit as a percentage of GDP is only three per cent, compared to seven per cent in the U.S. and U.K.

Unemployment in Canada, at 7.1 per cent, is the lowest in four years, and lower than the U.S. at 7.7 per cent. All the jobs lost in the recession have been replaced, and then some. The consensus forecast for economic growth in Canada this year is 1.9 per cent — not spectacular, but still steady.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/M ... z2K9DWSuQF

[Gone_Fishin]

Hear hear!

PM Harper and his folks have done a remarkable job of positioning Canada so strongly.

An interesting commentary on why Canada is so strong while the US and EU flounder in debt and bankruptcy:


http://www.pierremp.ca/budget/

[grammafreddy]

I think Mark Carney deserves more credit for our banking system being ranked the strongest in the world for the last five years than Harper does. Its a shame we lost him to the Bank of England.

[Urbane]

I think Mark Carney deserves more credit for our banking system being ranked the strongest in the world for the last five years than Harper does. Its a shame we lost him to the Bank of England.

England's gain is our loss for sure.

[GrooveTunes]

*wrong forum/Jo*

[Merry]

I voted Conservative in the last election, and in many elections before that. But I will not be voting Conservative again. There are many reasons why, too numerous to list, but here's a few:

There have been far too many questionable incidents such as the Pierre Poutine robocall affair, and the most recent robocalling in the Prairies, that appear to threaten democracy and call into question the integrity of many in the party

The omnibus bills, while an easy way to further the Harper agenda, are also a threat to democracy. The airing of opposing views, and allowing time for sober second thought, are necessary components of a functioning democratic government. Using your majority to silence opposition and ram things through, without allowing for proper consultation and discussion, is the road to dictatorship. Even the government's own back benchers are often denied the opportunity for meaningful input.

Using their majority to arbitrarily deny Canadians OAS until 67, without any prior opportunity for public input, was disgraceful. They had no mandate to do such a thing. We hear a lot of talk about how this was a necessary fiscal move, yet the facts say otherwise. As the amount saved is a miniscule part of GDP, this is really about a partisan belief that OAS is a handout that should be abolished, as opposed to it being a necessary fiscal measure. While it's easy for folks with higher incomes and secure pensions to see it that way, those of us in the working and middle income class brackets might be forgiven for feeling otherwise. Taking into account the average Canadian wage, and the expensive cost of living, even prudent middle income workers who exercise good money management, are hard pressed to save enough not to require the additional help of OAS when the time comes. Much is made of the spendthrifts who run up a lot of debt, and we all know they exist. But what of those who do not fit into that category, who do not have a workplace pension, are only eligible for half of the maximum CPP, have worked hard and saved all their lives, yet still do not have enough for a comfortable retirement if denied OAS? No one ever talks about those people; it's as if they don't exist.

Some say, well just work until your 67. Well, that depends on your health, and what kind of work you do. Many construction workers, millwrights etc. have a hard time being able to continue to 65, let alone 67 (and now some talk about how it should be 70). But even workers with less physical jobs may be unable, for health reasons, to work that long. I know many, many older folks who have lost their "night vision" and are unable to drive in the dark. Given the often inadequate bus service in many towns and cities, how are such folks supposed to get themselves to and from work in winter?

And the list goes on,far too lengthy for me to list here. But you can rest assured that, despite Canada's apparently fairing so well through the great recession, I do NOT believe Stephen Harper is deserving of congratulations. Far from it.

[Urbane]

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 . . .

[Gone_Fishin]

Some say, well just work until your 67. Well, that depends on your health, and what kind of work you do. Many construction workers, millwrights etc. have a hard time being able to continue to 65, let alone 67 (and now some talk about how it should be 70).

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.

[SurplusElect]

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. Just saying . . .

Define "living".

If you mean we spend 4 more years "alive" instead of 2 while in a nursing home having our diapers changed, I would question your definition of living.

Fact is, you are young and able only once. Now that we retire at 67 you have to work 2 more years of your "good years" just to rot away even slower while hooked up to medical equipment. Hooray!

The majority of Canadians will be on welfare by the time they retire. You need approx 500,000 dollars saved up to pull a 2 grand investment income for retirement - and 2 grand does not go far today - imagine in 25 years.

The government knows this, but will be long gone by the time it hits the fan

[logicalview]

I hear what Merry is saying, but then who do you vote for instead? We could use a much more effective opposition in this country. The federal NDP seems to be on a disastrous course towards encouraging Quebec to separate while also polarizing the country with their views on the oilsands. The Liberals are a rudderless ship and going nowhere fast. So who do we vote for?

[SurplusElect]

... polarizing the country with their views on the oilsands.

Can say the same thing about the Conservatives. They want to jam it through without talking about it and hiding laws in giant Omnibus bills - "trust us".

And I say that to be balanced.

You can say the NDP are polarizing by encouraging debate (their job), but its Conservative "divide and conquer" governing that has become par for the course.

"Either you let us snoop through your emails without warrants or you support child molesters" - pretty polarizing.

[Urbane]

Define "living".

If you mean we spend 4 more years "alive" instead of 2 while in a nursing home having our diapers changed, I would question your definition of living.

Fact is, you are young and able only once. Now that we retire at 67 you have to work 2 more years of your "good years" just to rot away even slower while hooked up to medical equipment. Hooray!

The majority of Canadians will be on welfare by the time they retire. You need approx 500,000 dollars saved up to pull a 2 grand investment income for retirement - and 2 grand does not go far today - imagine in 25 years.

The government knows this, but will be long gone by the time it hits the fan

Remember that you don't have to retire at 67. Your Canada Pension is not being changed - just the OAS. As you know you can start collecting your Canada Pension when you turn 60. And I would encourage people to invest for their retirement during their working years as my wife and I did. People these days are just expecting the government to do everything for them and so even a minor change such as the Harper government is making sets them off. Granted, changing the OAS isn't likely a big vote-getter. Nor is fiscal prudence in general so I give Harper credit for making the adjustment.

Finally, whether one approves or disapproves of Harper's policies he deserves credit for being PM for seven years. Only eight people have served in that office longer so good for him. He's also acquitted himself very well personally. I'm not aware of any affairs with interns that he's had or any other untoward personal issues. So I congratulate him!

[SurplusElect]

Finally, whether one approves or disapproves of Harper's policies he deserves credit for being PM for seven years. So I congratulate him!

Well, don't hold your breath. His government is illegitimate.

His party violated campaign spending laws (multiple MP's), convicted.

Lest we forget the ongoing investigation to the "It-only-happened-once-in-Guelph-even-though-Elections-Canada-was warning-us-about-Robocalls-3-days-before-the-election-across-Canada", situation.

They cheated to win a majority election by a few thousand votes.

Should we also celebrate Lance Armstrong's multiple wins as well and call it a sign of the times?

[Gone_Fishin]

Investigation = guilty?

My goodness. By that token, Glenn Clark was guilty of influence peddling, and Mike Harcourt was guilty of theft, but you'll fight to the death to protect their honour.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[SmokeOnTheWater]

Yes. You have to be proud of Harper. Announcing his intentions to the world before announcing it to us Canadians.


http://www.westislandchronicle.com/Blog-Article/b/21412/Harper-wants-to-cut-Old-Age-Security