I’m very sorry for his family’s loss.
That’s terrible.
I didn’t always agree with his policies, but no-one could doubt his dedication. It is awful that he died so soon after retiring for health reasons. It sounds like he quite literally worked himself to death. 
Truly saddening. While prominent ministers like Peter Mackay always struck me as flashy playboys doing everything but their job; throughout the years I always thought of Jim Flaherty as the man who quietly focused on his job.
It must not have been easy, but it was an important job nonetheless. I wish he got more rest time with his family.
We had seen him in the news a couple of months ago (I don’t recall why - I don’t think it was a budget or anything like that), and I remarked to my husband that he really wasn’t looking well. It sounds like he saw the writing on the wall (that he had to retire for his health) a little too late.
I think (and I hope someone will set me straight if I’m wrong) that Jim Flaherty is one of the reasons Canada came through the Depression of 2008 as well as we did.
I’d give more credit to the Bank of Canada and the fiscal position the government found themselves in. Remember originally the government had no conception of how bad the global economic situation was. He did work with the BoC to strengthen down payment requirements and amortization periods as we moved through the crisis.
The conservative party took budget surpluses and turned them into deficits before the financial meltdown. They then used the deficit they created as an excuse to cut science, social spending, health care, Canada Post, the CBC, the environment… Meanwhile, the gap between Canada’s highest earners and Canada’s lowest earners continues to widen.
As I say, I’m sorry for his family’s loss - I cannot bring myself to say anything positive about his management of his portfolio as Minister of Finance.
But only after he reduced the standards to insane levels himself when the crisis began. 0% down, 40 year amortizations. Total madness, and the CMCH (and by extension the Government of Canada) is IMO in for a world of hurt when housing prices start falling in Canada.
Agreed. I think I was in favour of the GST cut, or at least didn’t see an issue with it at the time. Looking back I’m doubtful that it was the right thing to do.
As for the loosening of the housing criteria, I couldn’t find a cite but that’s my recollection as well. He at least brought it back to what it was and spoke out against income splitting. I think you could call him a decent politician in a party I’ve been completely underwhelmed by.
Well you couldn’t but the edit window is closing and I can’t clean my post up in time. :o
Cite?
Sure.
Don’t forget to add this Financial crisis of 2007–08 AKA The Global Financial Crisis
Now, I’m not a very educated person when it comes economics and global financial crashes, but I believe the jist of it was since we are part of the global economy. No country was exempt from the damaged done. Some faired better than others, and actually Canada was one of the countries that made it through that crisis better than most countries.
So I don’t think Mr.Flaherty, Nor Harper or the Conservatives was responsible for that.
I liked Mr Flaherty, out of a lot of the MP’s on the hill he seemed like a man that wanted to do his job, and do it the best of his ability, stay away from the mudslinging but not afraid to defend his position but do so in a respectful manner. Even Mr Mulclair was on the verge of tears when talking about his passing yesterday.
Those nasty Conservatives
2006 - Surplus $13.8 B
2007 - Surplus $9.6 B
2008 - Deficit - $5.8 B (When the global economy started to tank)
2009 - Deficit - $55.6 B due to stimulus spending to help maintain the economy
And we’ve been clawing our way back ever since with a projected balanced budget this year, and fairing better than any of the other G8 economies the whole time.
Canada’s GDP is 20% higher than it was in 2008. In fact, it took only 1 year for Canada’s economy to recover from the crisis; Canada’s GDP in 2010 was marginally higher than it was in 2008.
The deficit today has a lot more to do with the Conservatives cutting taxes too far than it does about the financial crisis.
I stand behind lower taxes myself.
That’s pretty much a mum and apple pie statement.
In my view a better way to frame it is, are you behind the services provided within the current tax framework? I’m not, though not by much. The cutting of the GST and effective removal of 10-15 billion dollars led directly to the structural deficit we’re working with now. Had the GST not been cut the discussion could have been around what to do with that $12 billion dollars every year. Debt reduction would be my first choice followed by infrastructure improvements and, possibly, a reduction in actual income tax. Instead we’re saddled with a self imposed budget hole that we’ll wind up levelling services down tom, as if there was no other choice.
We were lucky going into the crisis - oil, potash, old fashioned banking and years of budget surpluses put us in a position to weather a balance book crisis.
Who isn’t? But, do you also stand behind having a deficit as a result of lower taxes?
I must admit, I wasn’t for the GST cut either. It meant little to individuals, but did mean a lot to the bottom line of the government.
At least they promised to cut it and did: as opposed to promising to eliminate it and didn’t.
Well, in theory, any deficit can be solved by higher taxes.
The real issue is whether the tax rate and the services provided by government are balanced with economic growth in the right mix, taking into account current and future economic realities. Which is, of course, the very stuff of politics, since everyone has a different idea of the proper mix - until harsh reality in one form or another points out deficiencies in the system in a way that cannot be ignored.
During Mr. Flaherty’s watch, the “harsh reality” was the global recession. I have no real idea of the science behind the economics, and in a sense it doesn’t matter - what does is that, for whatever reason, the Canadian economy survived in pretty good shape, comparatively.
Now, it could well be true that it survived because of inherent, underlying economic realities that have nothing to do with, and were not affected by, his policies. Again, I can’t say, not being an economist. However, just as I’m likely to have condemned his policies if economic disaster ensued (even though I may not know exactly why or if his policies caused the disaster), I must give him credit when it didn’t - deserved or not.
In short, I may not know whether he got the “mix” right, but I do know that the ship of state did not break up on the rocks of the recession, which looks like an achievement - it’s sort of the ultimate test for an economic policy.
As I’m learning from living in Calgary, lower taxes are not a good thing if your taxes are so low that you can’t pay for the services that we as the collective public expect.
Well, move to Ontario where you’re taxed on everything and still don’t receive the services you want!