There isn't too much to be said that isn't said in the headline or detailed in the link.

http://finance.sympatico.ca/home/george_weston_to_hike_food_prices/b11fe9a3

Danmick and I got on to this conversation this past weekend.. the prices raise up again and in turn, the government will look to increase minimum wage to help out the people who are making a minimal amount of moolah... leaving the burden on everyone else to pay more while earning the same amount of money.  Thanks Mr Harper - I didn't really need any additional incentive to not vote for you in the upcoming election.

In any case, this wasn't meant to be about Harper, or the government in general... it was meant as an FYI for anyone who hadn't heard the constant threats of imminent rising food costs that have been forewarned since new years (or earlier).

I somehow suspect that as minimum wage rises, stores will increase the food prices again to compensate for their losses..so likely the average individual will be not further ahead..

That's how it always works; it's a downward spiral.  As minimum wage increases (usually due to government mandate, in order to get votes from the low income earners), the employers of those earning minimum wage increase their prices to offset the extra overhead.  So those people are certainly no further ahead as far as their purchasing power goes.  Meanwhile, the people who make more than minimum wage don't get raises, so their purchasing power actually decreases, and the average standard of living drops.  Unless it's offset by the raises politicians give themselves.  Maybe that's why they do that.

In any case, the conversation Shabadu and I were having on the topic began because of a rant I was on about how out of touch our politicians are, and how food, fuel and energy costs are increasing, and our standard of living is going to drop, but the government is probably going to continue to tax us to death, and waste the money they take on things like glass domes for parliament to meet in (instead of renting a conference room somewhere when needed - considering the number of MP's who show up in parliament on any given day), and spending upwards of $5 Billion on renovations for Parliament Hill, when I'm certain it could be done for much less than that.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/lot-of-hot-air-under-glass-dome-117045013.html

The original article I read quoted the designer saying something to the effect of "Canada's highest level of government needs a dignified place to meet".  I think it's going to take a lot more than a glass dome to bring dignity to Canadian politics.

Unfortunately that spiral is unavoidable for some.  Let's look at the other two scenarios:
1) No raise in minimum wage -> Employers raise the price of their goods to increase profit and please shareholders.  Average purchasing power decreases.
2) Reduction in minimum wage -> Employers feel less pressure to raise prices (since profit margin is already increased).  Lower class workers realize decreased purchasing power.
So, regardless of what the government does to minimum wage, lower class workers suffer.  Only by raising it, does the lower class have any respite (and only during the short period while the market adjusts to the higher incomes).  Middle class workers have to stand up and demand proportional increases (either from their current or future employers).
Upper class makes money no matter what happens, so long as money keeps moving.

As for the government under glass, excessive spending during a recession is the best way to deal with the economy.  However, excessive spending once recovery is already underway (as I believe it is) is detrimental and actually harms our economy.
Canada came through this latest disaster nearly unscathed (thanks to the long-standing checks and balances the Conversatives are trying to remove).  I'd really hate for Harper to pull us down just to buy a little dignity (which would require a few times our annual GDP).

I agreet hat excessive spending when times are lean is a good way to stimulate the economy, but even if that was the reason for this project, I believe it's a case of all the eggs going into one basket.  If they want to stimulate the economy, spread the $5 billion around to different areas of the country.  Construction projects are great for job creation, which has a good trickle down effect, but putting it all in to one big project makes me think that a few companies are likely to make big money, which translates into the rich getting richer, and fewer new jobs.  loads of money in a company owner's bank account doesn't do much for the economy.