MadX

Good point, not all small businesses pay minimum wage.

The owners wages would be the businesses' profits, its the same thing. Who would disagree with higher wages for workers and lower taxes for small business. It's a win win situation.

If small businesses are offered tax cuts to raise wages this will offset the higher cost of labour.

Obama is a conservative. You don't believe all that crap about him being a socialist. His healthcare reform was just a huge "b**w job" to the insurance companies to quote Bill Maher. Obama is a moderate conservative, he just looks like a socialist to americans because their political spectrum is skewed so far to the right.

Walmart doesn't pay above minimum wage in my home province. It's the bare minimum here. They treat their employees like crap too, my buddy used to work for them.

The certain standard of living I refer to is a living wage. This means a clean safe home, enough food to eat, and a small amount of money for recreation. It doesn't mean going on expensive vacations or eating at fancy restaurants. It means not having to go into debt to meet basic needs. In a country as well off as Canada, its not much to ask.

We have guarantees by laws but those laws aren't always enforced. Like I said earlier, workplace bullying is rampant and women tend to be prime targets as do minorities and people who are not assertive. I think as far as tax cuts go, small and medium businesses need it more because they are not as profitable as large corporations. Also when small and medium businesses do well the money is more likely to stay in the communities.

Teachers do have it pretty tough. Several of my relatives were teachers and I know how tough they have it. Kids can be very stressful to deal with sometimes and teachers don't just work their 35 hours a week in the classroom. There is designing lesson plans, correcting tests, often extra-curricular activities. It's not an easy job. The reason teachers oppose the conservatives is because conservatives are anti-union and anti-government jobs. Of course they are going to be opposed to that, its just common sense. Still not all teachers are Liberal or NDP, there are actually teachers out there that are conservative, at least on social issues anyways.

Wow, Harper's backbenchers are defying him. I thought that they were forced to send out these attack advertisements. I know Harper has his MPs on a pretty tight leash and they are told what to think, what to say, and I assumed what to do as well.

I suppose you support the complete depopulation of the Maritimes. And no my feelings aren't hurt. I'm a big guy who lifts weights and plays sports. Masculine men don't get their feelings hurt. It's not hurting anyone if a few thousand fisherman take out EI every year. It doesn't cost the government anything. I wonder if you get as ticked off about Harper trying to privatize our water and interfering in labour disputes as you do about frequent EI users.

I never said unions were perfect, and yes if the union wouldn't "allow" teachers to take part in extra-curricular activities, then yes, it is bullying and it is wrong. I oppose bullying in all environments, unionized and nonunionized alike. However, I think that bullying thrives in nonunionized environments because workers have less rights in such environments and the power differences between workers and employers are also magnified greatly. I don't oppose bullying because wages aren't good, I oppose both bullying and low wages. Are you stating you are in favour of low wages? Bullying isn't an issue for me as I am fairly large and assertive. I see it happen to my co-workers who are in a more precarious situation. I'm still young living at home so if I get fired it would suck but life wouldn't be over. Some of my co-workers are older, female, and have kids. They need the job more and as a result are forced to take more abuse. The supervisors bully the people who can't afford to leave more as well because they know they can.

Valid point, I am a fan of small business. Not a big booster of corporations. I think a solution to this problem would be to offset minimum wage with a substantial tax break to small and medium businesses.

In that aspect it probably wouldn't but wages would be higher, job satisfaction would be higher, poverty would be lower, and workplace bullying would be reduced. I never said unions were perfect but I can tell you what a non-unionized environment is like and its horrible. I think tenure is important but it shouldn't be the only determining factor in whether someone gets a job. So I agree with you on that point.

It would have been a poor political decision but it would have been the right thing for the country. I've followed politics ever since I was a young teen and even back in 2006, I figured these cuts were a bad idea. I didn't know that the 2008 meltdown was going to happen. I was 15 years old at the time, but my mindset was that debt should be reduced and eliminated. We can't give out "goodies" like tax breaks until all our bills are paid. I'm not saying we had to pay down the debt completely, that would probably take 40 years, but it should have been at least reduced by 20 or 30% before we started handing out tax breaks. I wish the Canadian public would have seen it that way too. We need to plan for the long-term not give out short term bonuses that aren't sustainable. I think in hindsight more people might see it that way now. Its unfortunate that politics work the way they do. And yes, I do support giving out EI to seasonal workers. By forcing seasonal workers off EI, it will depopulate Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. These workers will take their money and be forced to move away to Alberta, which is what many Martimers have already been forced to do, they will then take their money with them and it will impact our economy. I realize that remittances from Alberta do sometimes make their way back home but I know many people from the east coast who have moved out there permanently and never came back. Not that I can blame them, the employment situation out here is deplorable. I think taking EI away from seasonal workers though is another nail in the coffin for this region. I think it shows Harper's disdain for Atlantic Canada. He did call us lazy one time, saying we had a "culture of defeat". What an arrogant condescending, well I'll let you fill in the rest.

That's not going to happen in the nonunionized environment I work in at this time. It is only temporary though and I will move on to better things soon. I think in a hostile anti-union environment like that the only way to have your rights respected is to know your province's labour laws and not allow anyone to assert dominance over you. I'm a pretty big guy and don't take crap off people so I'm not a target for bullying. Even though I'm young, I'm smarter than a lot of the bosses there (people get promoted because of internal politics, not capabilities) and I'm bigger than most of the people who work there. Size intimidates people. Fighting for better wages won't happen in such an environment. They only way to get higher wages if for workers of all low-paying occupations to unite and demand the government increase minimum wage.

Exactly, "lucky" to still be employed. That's what it is too sometimes, luck. You are actually correct about Clinton, he repealed the Glass-Stegall Act in 1999 which opened up the floodgates allowing this to happen. Further deregulation happened under the Bush regime. You are right about the opposition parties as well, they should have voted down corporate tax cuts and the GST. I'm not against tax cuts such as the GST because it would have saved me money but I think we should have had the debt paid down more before we offered any tax cuts. I realize the government had a surplus at that time but it wasn't that big. I'll criticize my own side when they screw up and you are right, the opposition dropped the ball when they should have took it and ran with it. They should have voted down Harper's tax cuts because they were reckless fiscal policy. Even so though, the cuts were Harper's idea and it doesn't let him off the hook.

Yes, there are people who pay into EI who never use it but most of them are well off and don't need to draw from it. I'll give Harper a pass for the deficits run in 2008 and 2009. I actually happen to be a big fan of Keynesian economics, its a more humane form of capitalism. Neoliberalism is just pure evil in my opinion. I realize that George W. Bush and the Republican party actually caused the 2008 global meltdown by deregulating the housing industry. So yeah Harper is off the hook for the first couple of years after the meltdown. However, his surpluses during the first two years in office were smaller than those under the late Chretien and Martin years. By cutting the GST and corporate taxes, Harper reduced the amount of revenue to the government and therefore increased the deficit when we hit an economic crisis. Also, Harper hasn't run a surplus since 2007. Harper should raise taxes on millionaires and profitable corporations. Why should they get a tax break while the rest of us have to suffer. I'm actually glad he's going after tax havens but he's probably only doing it because the government is broke. He also gave the rich people plenty of warning. He's doing it out of necessity, not ideology. A link to our anti-Harper forum with a topic about the debt and deficit under the Harper government. http://www.antiharper.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13

That makes a lot of sense. I think that rather than being envious people should demand the same wages. I also believe that government should increase minimum wage to a living wage to reduce poverty. I'm not against tax cuts to business but only if they are conditional tax cuts that lead to more jobs and higher wages. I'm pro-union as well, some peoples arguments against them make sense in certain situations but I still feel corporations are worse. I work in a non-unionized environment, wages are a dollar above minimum wage and people are bullied, especially if they are young, female, physically small, non-assertive, or are a minority. I think even a bad union would be better than that.

Why are so many people on these forums hostile to unions. From what I understand, and I'm only a dumb kid in my early 20s so I'm probably still pretty stupid, unions raise wages and benefits for workers compared to non-unionized workers in the same occupations. I realize that they are not perfect and may possibly get greedy in certain situations. I can't say that about the prison guards in Alberta who are only protesting for safer working conditions, that doesn't seem like much to ask for. Besides I can't see unions being as bad as corporations. They are much more powerful and have the ability to inflict much more damage on the economy.

EI is self sustaining by the way. The program is paid for by the workers and is only managed by the government. I don't think Harper has the right to tamper with a system that is already sustainable. I think he should balance the budget the government books rather than reaching into our pockets and taking away a program that we the workers already paid for. True their are some abuses of the system and they should be stopped but I'm far more concerned with corporate corruption which costs the taxpayers more money as well as the government's mismanagement of our tax dollars that took us from a surplus in 2006 to five consecutive deficits since 2008.

I found that comment earlier about east coasters "having their feelings hurt" quite offensive. This person isn't from the east coast and has no right commenting on something that they possibly couldn't comprehend. People from the Maritimes and Newfoundland are probably the hardest working people in the country. Many people who work in Alberta are from the east coast. I think what Harper said regarding us having a defeatist attitude and being lazy were highly offensive and just demonstrates his disdain and feelings of superiority he feels towards Atlantic Canada. I wonder if the rest of Canada views us that way as well.

You'll never had drugs legal under a Harper government. I think its a pretty important issue. Pot legalization will free up the justice system to go after more dangerous and harmful criminals, it will raise tax revenue, and will reduce violent crime. It is a well known fact that pot mellows most people out. Why would anyone in their right mind vote for Harper. He took us from surpluses to deficits, he took away EI to millions of deserving people, he is ignoring native treaty rights, he refuses to legalize marijuana, his party was implicated in a robocall scandal and he is a union-buster.

Are you sure the majority of Canadians want unions brought down a peg or two. What's wrong with unions. They are certainly not perfect and they may not always do whats in the best interest of workers but they do a h*ll of a better job than employers do. Do you think non-unionized workers make as much as unionized ones in the same occupations. I don't think so. Also where did you get the statistics saying the majority of Canadians are opposed to unions. Maybe out west in Harperland but I guarantee it isn't the majority on the East Coast. Cleaning up EI, really, the program pays for itself, Harper didn't need to touch it. He just wants to get seasonal workers like fisherman to work at McDonald's during the off season.

Lol, that April 5th cartoon was pretty funny. http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion/cartoons/article/913356--april-5-cartoon

We won't have legal cannabis as long as Harper is in. We need either the New Democrats or Liberals to be in power in order to make pot legal. Here is a link to a recently created Anti-Harper forum which explains Harper's views on marijuana. http://www.antiharper.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8