Canada's next Prime Minister?

[kEiThZ]

I tend to lean towards the Liberals, but that party has some serious soul searching to do. After 13 years in power, especially with a less than grand ending, I think it is fair to expect the Liberals to go away and come back with something new. I have some sympathy for Dion, as he has been maligned right from the get go by the Tories and even his own party. At the same time, he seems to have missed every opportunity he had to build reputation. His attempts at mud slinging were anemic at best and the constant threat of an election, only to abstain, really does hurt his image. You have to question what some of the Liberals are thinking. Their centerpiece, the so called "green-shift", is so riddled with compromises, spending promises, and flat out political opportunism (the "rural resident" clause comes to mind) that anybody with half a decent campaign team could tear it apart.

The Liberals are like the Leafs. They need to carry out a controlled burn, plan for the long term (NEXT election) and rebuild from the ground up. They have strong brand equity, but running with a few broken tires is ruining the undercarriage. (enough political folks-isms for you?

Pretty much exactly where I am at.....

 

[kEiThZ]

Well, the HRDC scandal involved a $200 million portion of the overal $1 billion fund. Not all of that $200 million was deemed to be spent improperly, either. So I think you're exaggerating more than bit.

Fair enough. But that's still more government funds than the Conservatives have supposedly lost.

You jumped in here second and I was responding to Brandon's argument that the scandals alone are apparently enough to disqualify the Cons. Now there's arguments about the policies that they have implemented....income trusts for example....but to argue that they were bigger thieves than the Liberals is a bit of a stretch. Even if you support the Liberals, you have to admit that the Conservatives have hardly benefited financially from the so-called scandals.....and none have cost the federal government money.

And if you're going to hold 9 year old scandals against the Liberals, can we go back to the Mulroney years for Conservative dirt?

See my previous comment. If the Liberals are going to run this time on allegations of corruption and mismanagement while many of their MPs are holdover from the Chretien era then the scandals from their preceding term directly applies...

I think the only Conservative funny business involving government money that's come to light so far is the $1.3 million they spent in excess of the spending cap in the 2006 election cap, which they want Elections Canada to reimburse.

And that's 1.3 million of their own funds which might not get reimbursed. Now let's talk about the Liberals skimming off the sponsorship scandal, which happened to be the funds of taxpayers.....

Well, I don't think an argument that simple really washes. What the heck are they spending the new money on? There was some things for the military, but then some of that was canceled a couple weeks ago...

Well, by your own chart program expenditure has not declined and had year over year growth of around 5% last budget, well above inflation. As to what their spending it on....health and social transfers are the fastest growing segment of the budget.....

Economic stimulus != good economic management. If they bought every Canadian a $100 gift certificate to Tim Hortons, that would be economic stimulus, but not good economic management. They cut the worst tax they could cut. Cutting Personal and corporate income taxes would have had as immediate an effect as the GST cut (lowering amounts withheld means bigger paycheques), and would have been much better for the economy in the long term.

I have already said I disagreed with the GST cut. That being said, adding money to the economy (by tax cut or spending) is stimulus period. Even if its giving everyone a 100 dollar tim card. And stimulus in a downturn is good economic management. Ask any economist. They might have achieved stimulus by sheer dumb luck. But they did it none the less. That being said....what are you proposing here...that the cuts should be reversed?

Well, the chart doesn't 'prove' anything. And, as Stephen notes in his blog, the data is noisy enough that I don't think you can draw such conclusions from the lines on the chart.

You're right the graph doesnt show much, but he has made some rather simplistic assumptions. He assumes that revenue shows 0 growth through 2008 and that government will maintain the same level of expenditure growth through forecast time frame. Drawing those straight line assumptions out to reach an uh-oh point is very simplistic and politically convenient. Any government that believed that a deficit was a real threat will probably sharply curtail spending. And no economist is predicting 0 revenue growth for 2008 either.

As he also points out on his site, and I have mentioned here before, any deficit that occurs will be in part because of an economic downturn. You have attributed the growth during the Harris years not to his tax cuts but to US economic growth. And on that you are right. The reverse is also true. A flat revenue line can also be attributed to poor economic conditions for our largest trading partner.

You can't ignore the fact that they cut revenues by about ten billion vs. where they would be otherwise (excluding the taxes they raised, I suppose).

First, that was not revenue, that was a surplus, money they did not and should not have counted on. That's the Liberals made a virtue of lying about the size of the surplus is not reason enough to make it a standard practice. A well managed government balances its books as close as possible. It does not run huge surpluses which means it's overtaxing and it does not run deficits which means its undertaxing.

Second...So what if they run a small deficit? If we hit a recession, would that not be acceptable to run a deficit of a few billion? The debt/GDP ratio would likely still fall if the deficit was small enough. Moreover if the bar is so high for the federal government, why aren't you attacking the Ontario Liberals for being at similar risk of a deficit?

Well, the 'uh oh' point is at the end of the year. Mayhaps this why Steve was in a hurry to cash in those votes. He better hope for a majority if things turn pear shaped....

When it comes to issues like this...I say good on him. If the public has as simplistic an understanding as deficit=bad, surplus=good, then he should go early and take the budget out of the electoral equation. If the public can't debate economic principles maturely and expects every government to run surpluses regardless of the economic conditions, and they can't understand Keynesian applications than they aren't capable of having intelligent debates on this topic at all.

 

[Brandon716]

I know that I'm American, but I have a deep understanding of Canadian politics, Canadian culture, and Canadian history. It also helps that I want to be a citizen of Canada. This isn't something new for me, I've kept up with Canadian issues ever since I got interested in politics in general coming out of high school.

With that said, keith, I wanted to make a statement in regards to your consistent topics about how Liberals have lost their way. I agree that Liberals have not always been perfect. A matter of fact, I think sponsorship really damaged the party beyond the money issue.

But at the end of the day, after 13 years of power the Liberal party quite honestly had minimal corruption. When you measure provincial governments (especially the extremely corrupt conservatives in Alberta who have more of a stranglehold on that province than any other provincial party in Canada), when you measure previous and present track records with the old Progressive Conservatives in the 1980's with Mulroney and what Harper has went through in just 3 years... There has been significant scandal for his less than 3 year old administration, and its a minority administration for crying out loud. Just think of the corruption after he gets a majority. I just fail to see how the Liberals have such of a huge reputation for corruption in your head.

Sponsorship for all intents and purposes wasn't the largest amount of money in history to be spent that ended up in questionable pockets. I'm not saying it was right for the Chretien government to do what it did, but the point is get over it. This scandal is now coming on 10 years of age after coming out about 5 years ago.

The overall record is clear: Liberals balanced budgets, reversed the Mulroney era of consistent recession, and until sponsorship did a darn good job of keeping Canada together and getting Quebec really away from separation and toward national unity. I'm aware of sponsorship, but regardless it was the federal Liberals that unified the country during a time of turmoil. People are going to have to get over sponsorship eventually.

Symbolically I think it was amazing when Chretien stood up and kept Canada out of Iraq. Canada was right, the US was wrong, and it was the federal Liberals that kept Canada out of that conflict.

If Harper were in power at that time, Canada would have chosen a different path.

And people want to trust Harper with the government when he's plunging the nation toward deficit?

Be careful what you wish for, because recession is around the corner and a weak national budget is a certain way to make for an extension of bad times. Just look south of the border where wreckless public policy after the Dot.Com crash of 2000/2001 caused the largest real estate disaster since the Great Depression. And its public policy that allowed it to happen. President Bush told us to shop after that crash, and he slammed us into a huge deficit spending in Iraq. Monetary policy, fiscal policy, and words from Bush himself encouraged Americans to mindlessly start putting all their money into homes they couldn't afford and using the housing market as a stock market, pushing housing beyond the reach of anyone with even a high middle class income.

When I was in San Francisco late last year, I was in awe that virtually brand new communities were over 50% vacant with an average selling price in far-out suburbs of $650,000 to $1 million for little 2 or modest 3 bedroom homes. And this in a zip code where average family multi-income households earn $65,000 USD a year. Something just doesn't calculate, especially when those kinds of homes went for $250,000 only 10 years ago.

Maybe you don't want to hear stories from south of the border, and maybe it isn't relevant in your head. But Harper is leading you down that same path. Short term pennies being fetched to Canadians via 1% GST cut, for example. Dion's green shift plan offers significant income tax reductions while taxing carbon, and its a real bold plan by comparison.

Keith, its those kinds of systemic changes with Dion's plan that lays the groundwork for a future. Taxing a bad thing (carbon) while giving you more of your income is a good thing, because it encourages a shift away from energy that is unstable and unclean. And when that kind of incentive reaches the market, it creates new markets for alternative energy and will open up hundreds of thousands of new green collar jobs. All because of a stroke of the pen in Ottawa. Ottawa sets the policy, the market takes care of itself by creating entirely new markets and new jobs while letting people keep more of their income.

Harper is a do-nothing politician who wants to offer carrots on a stick in the form of pathetic tax cuts that don't amount to anything, and certainly don't create new industries.

I don't know if you've heard, but Ontario needs a new green engine because its manufacturing engine from the past is sputtering. A green collar job economy is the next wave of the future after information technology fueled much of the western world in the 1990's.

Oh yea, and then there is that whole thing about global warming and the destruction of the environment, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

Don't let Harper's poor public policy translate into a Mulroney-malaise for the next ten years.

Its time to get over sponsorship. The future is whats important.

 

[afransen]

"They might have achieved stimulus by sheer dumb luck. But they did it none the less. That being said....what are you proposing here...that the cuts should be reversed?"

No... I'm just not going to pat them on the back for implementing bad policy. And it was bad policy.

"Drawing those straight line assumptions out to reach an uh-oh point is very simplistic and politically convenient. Any government that believed that a deficit was a real threat will probably sharply curtail spending. And no economist is predicting 0 revenue growth for 2008 either."

Well, I think labelling it 'uh oh' was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, which I'd second. I don't think it is so unreasonable to expect relatively flat revenues, though. The economy isn't really growing (OECD is projecting 0.8%), and significant sources of government revenue are declining in value--oil prices and one would presume gasoline eventually. We'll have to see.

"As he also points out on his site, and I have mentioned here before, any deficit that occurs will be in part because of an economic downturn. You have attributed the growth during the Harris years not to his tax cuts but to US economic growth. And on that you are right. The reverse is also true. A flat revenue line can also be attributed to poor economic conditions for our largest trading partner."

True, certainly. Only difference is that had he not cut the tax, we wouldn't be flirting so close with deficit. This point isn't meant to be contentious. I'm not saying he shouldn't have cut tax (not GST!).

"First, that was not revenue, that was a surplus"

Uhm... alright.

"That's the Liberals made a virtue of lying about the size of the surplus is not reason enough to make it a standard practice."

The Conservatives have done the same thing by being very conservative with growth estimates. That the surplus is so small at the moment has more to do with the fact that growth is substantially lower than economists' forecasts around budget time. Both parties play this game, cynically or not so cynically.

"Second...So what if they run a small deficit? If we hit a recession, would that not be acceptable to run a deficit of a few billion? The debt/GDP ratio would likely still fall if the deficit was small enough. Moreover if the bar is so high for the federal government, why aren't you attacking the Ontario Liberals for being at similar risk of a deficit?"

I'm not really attacking the deficit. But, the Ontario Liberals have improved Ontario's fiscal position while the Conservatives have decreased Canada's. Both were probably appropriate.

"If the public has as simplistic an understanding as deficit=bad, surplus=good, then he should go early and take the budget out of the electoral equation. If the public can't debate economic principles maturely and expects every government to run surpluses regardless of the economic conditions, and they can't understand Keynesian applications than they aren't capable of having intelligent debates on this topic at all."

I think this is somewhere you, I and Steve all agree. This is why Steve is pandering--Canadians aren't really smart enough to know what is for their own good. I am somewhat concerned what this says about democracy in this country.

It will be interesting to see how things shape up. So far Harper has been claiming to be the party of low taxes, although income taxes would be significantly lower under the Liberal fiscal plan. So far, I think objective analysis indicates that the Liberals have a better tax policy, from an economic theory POV. I know you have implementation concerns, but from a steady-state POV, they do have better policies.

 

[kEiThZ]

I know that I'm American, but I have a deep understanding of Canadian politics, Canadian culture, and Canadian history. It also helps that I want to be a citizen of Canada. This isn't something new for me, I've kept up with Canadian issues ever since I got interested in politics in general coming out of high school.

I never claimed otherwise.....

With that said, keith, I wanted to make a statement in regards to your consistent topics about how Liberals have lost their way. I agree that Liberals have not always been perfect. A matter of fact, I think sponsorship really damaged the party beyond the money issue.

And here's crux of the matter. They still think they are entitled to govern as the 'natural governing party'. They still have to undergo renewal as a party.

But at the end of the day, after 13 years of power the Liberal party quite honestly had minimal corruption.

They were lucky the economy worked out for them or I suspect they would be more than a little unpopular. You cant honestly say given all those scandals that 'Oh its okay, it was minimal.' That's some flexible ethics for a voter.

When you measure provincial governments (especially the extremely corrupt conservatives in Alberta who have more of a stranglehold on that province than any other provincial party in Canada), when you measure previous and present track records with the old Progressive Conservatives in the 1980's with Mulroney

And we should judge each government on their record. You pick the Alberta Tories. Ever been to Alberta? The tories really are popular there. And the Libs supporters there just don't show up to vote. Why don't you talk about the Conservative government of John Hamm or Bernard Lord? You know as well as I do, that provincial governments are a different entity altogether and have no relevance to federal politics.

and what Harper has went through in just 3 years... There has been significant scandal for his less than 3 year old administration, and its a minority administration for crying out loud. Just think of the corruption after he gets a majority. I just fail to see how the Liberals have such of a huge reputation for corruption in your head.

Maybe because for me, scandals that explicitly rob taxpayers of their money are a lot more incredulous. Guess what, I have no problem with a Cabinet minister leaving a document at his gf's house. Why? Because civil servants in Ottawa have committed worse breaches and not gotten fired for it, thanks to union protection. I have an issue with the way income trusts were implemented. But I have no problem with the government deciding to tax them suddenly when some of Canada's largest companies decide their going to dodge taxes by setting up trusts. The only issue in my mind that requires more insight is the Cadman affair.

Sponsorship for all intents and purposes wasn't the largest amount of money in history to be spent that ended up in questionable pockets. I'm not saying it was right for the Chretien government to do what it did, but the point is get over it. This scandal is now coming on 10 years of age after coming out about 5 years ago.

Like I noted, many of the MPs from that era are still around. And they have some rather sleazy reputation around Ottawa....come to Ottawa, ask some of their former staff. The same can't be said about the Conservatives...how many of their MPs are around from the Mulroney era?

The overall record is clear: Liberals balanced budgets, reversed the Mulroney era of consistent recession,

So when they make the largest cuts in social spending to balance the books that's okay. When the Conservatives simply lower the surplus they are irresponsible? You are hardly being balanced here.

And I am not going to blame Mulroney for the recession. Are we going to credit the Liberals for an economic boom that was largely the result of a strong US economy.

and until sponsorship did a darn good job of keeping Canada together and getting Quebec really away from separation and toward national unity. I'm aware of sponsorship, but regardless it was the federal Liberals that unified the country during a time of turmoil. People are going to have to get over sponsorship eventually.

Apparently I am not the only one...seems to me many Quebecers think that way too.....

Symbolically I think it was amazing when Chretien stood up and kept Canada out of Iraq. Canada was right, the US was wrong, and it was the federal Liberals that kept Canada out of that conflict.

If Harper were in power at that time, Canada would have chosen a different path.

And were he elected PM, that would be his right. If a Conservative govt were in power, I expect them to implement their agenda the same as a Liberal govt would.

And people want to trust Harper with the government when he's plunging the nation toward deficit?

We've already discussed this.....if the budget is balanced will you start retracting these comments? And I am willing to bet that the budget will be balanced.

Be careful what you wish for, because recession is around the corner and a weak national budget is a certain way to make for an extension of bad times.

Even if they run a small deficit, percentage wise it'll be less than some provinces with Liberal administrations.....because the feds won't be the only ones in that boat. I don't see how a deficit between 0.1% to 1% of GDP is on par with US fiscal policy.

Just look south of the border where wreckless public policy after the Dot.Com crash of 2000/2001 caused the largest real estate disaster since the Great Depression. And its public policy that allowed it to happen. President Bush told us to shop after that crash, and he slammed us into a huge deficit spending in Iraq. Monetary policy, fiscal policy, and words from Bush himself encouraged Americans to mindlessly start putting all their money into homes they couldn't afford and using the housing market as a stock market, pushing housing beyond the reach of anyone with even a high middle class income.

You claim to want to discuss Canada and inevitably start bringing up the US. Canada isn't anything like the US and the Conservatives are nowhere close to the US Republicans, get over it. We'll have a recession here....we are overdue for one. It'll be fairly mild, not because of anything the government does, but because of Alberta's oil wealth keeping us afloat and we'll pull out of it.

When I was in San Francisco late last year, I was in awe that virtually brand new communities were over 50% vacant with an average selling price in far-out suburbs of $650,000 to $1 million for little 2 or modest 3 bedroom homes. And this in a zip code where average family multi-income households earn $65,000 USD a year. Something just doesn't calculate, especially when those kinds of homes went for $250,000 only 10 years ago.

In Canada CMHC prevents situations like that from even starting up....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have nothing on a little Canada building on Montreal Road in Ottawa.

Maybe you don't want to hear stories from south of the border, and maybe it isn't relevant in your head. But Harper is leading you down that same path. Short term pennies being fetched to Canadians via 1% GST cut, for example.

How is the 2% GST cut anything like the Bush tax cuts? By any metric you use, percentage of GDP, percentage of government revenue etc. they arent close. What's more you are still ignoring the fact that all it would take is some differed expenditure to balance the books....Ottawa is not seriously in the red by any stretch of the imagination.

Dion's green shift plan offers significant income tax reductions while taxing carbon, and its a real bold plan by comparison.

Right plan. Wrong time. That's my view. And might exacerbate the recession. Where does he expect companies in a recession to get funds to recapitalize to his green standards from? And why is it that his tax cuts, which he is promising are going to be more than the Conservatives are not an issue. How is that not risking a deficit?

I don't know if you've heard, but Ontario needs a new green engine because its manufacturing engine from the past is sputtering. A green collar job economy is the next wave of the future after information technology fueled much of the western world in the 1990's.

Really? And that's why Dalton Mc Guinty doesn't seem to be jumping to the front of the pack to endorse the Liberals....and he is somebody who has earned my vote in the past...and someone I really respect.....

Oh yea, and then there is that whole thing about global warming and the destruction of the environment, but I'll leave that discussion for another day.

I might care about climate change. But it's one of many issues in an election. And I have nothing but scorn for Kyoto which simply wants to outsource industry and pollution to the developing world.

Don't let Harper's poor public policy translate into a Mulroney-malaise for the next ten years.

Yes, the malaise that was a result of Trudeau's runaway spending? This time around the economy and government's books are a lot stronger.

Its time to get over sponsorship. The future is whats important.

By that reasoning, should you not drop the complaints about Mulroney? And are you not going to bring the Conservative record in the next election.

Anyway this election, I'll probably park my vote with the Greens....because I do have some policy issues with the Conservatives....but I refuse to blindly vote Liberal....just because they feel they have the natural right to govern Canada. If you want my vote, run on a strong platform with a strong leader. If your policy plank is going to be I am going to raise taxes in the middle of a recession and use that money to buy Kyoto credits outside Canada, you've lost my vote....sorry.

 

[kEiThZ]

What really bothers me though, is the Liberal claim that the Conservatives are somehow un-Canadian. That sounds eerily similar to the Republican claim that the Democracts are un-American.

 

[Brandon716]

What

Will

really bothers me though

you

, is the Liberal claim

stop

that the Conservatives are somehow un-Canadian.

doing

That sounds eerily similar to the Republican claim that the Democracts are un-American.

this to every post?

 

[Brandon716]

With that said, I want to focus on something you said last.

I will stop focusing on Mulroney's scandal when people move beyond sponsorship. Sponsorship is a dead issue IMO.

Now in regards to policy, I think its worth comparing. Mulroney-malaise is a reference to the repeated recessions under his leadership, without him actually doing much about it. I don't think its fair to blame recessions under Mulroney on Trudeau, especially when Trudeau tried to take serious action for the problems during his economic era. Oil shocks took hold in the 1970's that shook the world market, and Trudeau actually tried to address it with National Energy Policy. Unfortunately Albertans threw a fit and the rest is history.

I would make the point that Trudeau took action, Mulroney did not.

That's not corruption I'm speaking to, its just policy. On the contrary, when you speak of policy for the previous Liberal government its quite the opposite. They were in tune with what Canadians wanted: no Iraq, a steady hand, and no deficit.

Policy is fair to compare, and I think if we can move beyond sponsorship the discussion will be better. The Liberals admitted something went wrong, Paul Martin opened up an inquiry, and it was dealt with. What more can be done? Its history.

 

[Brandon716]

You know, this discussion is getting rather rediculous.

Mulroney was such of a do-nothing politician he spawned the creation of the Reform Party. All the Reform Party was is a bunch of raging Albertans who hated the National Energy Program.

The Reform Party morphed into the Canadian Alliance, and one of the only two leaders of the Alliance is none other than Stephen Harper.

Can we not forget who Stephen Harper is and what he stands for? History bears repeating, and I can't believe how high his poll numbers have been getting lately.

I've never said the Conservatives are un-Canadian. But its pretty clear that the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance didn't have all of Canada in mind and at heart in their governing policy. There's a reason Belinda Stronach bolted the party and left flying out the door into Liberal hands after Stephen Harper took control of the merged PC takeover Cons, never to return despite her new Liberal party's opposition status.

Its fair to say that a Harper led party doesn't have Canadian interests at heart, he's got a history of caring about Alberta's interests first centered around oil. I don't care where Harper grew up, I'm aware he's from the GTA. But I'm not a native Canadian and I care more about the GTA than Harper ever has.

And besides that, you mentioned provincial politics has nothing to do with federal politics. Yet many of the people in the Harper government are part of Mike Harris' old PC government that was an abysmal failure. On the other side of the coin, if Dion fails to get a majority, I support Gerard Kennedy to become the new face of a refreshed Liberal party, and he's a face from the provincial Liberals in Ontario as you well know. Don't tell me there is a total disconnect. Things do relate.

I fail to see why its a null and void point to bring these facts up. They need to be repeated.

Harper's GST cuts benefit nearly nobody, and they cause the government to cut necessary programs during a recession. Cutting government jobs when a recession is going on isn't my idea of stimulus.

But I disgress, if you want to continue this charade where you think you "could" be a Liberal but aren't voting Liberal, fine. I am not yet Canadian so I don't technically have a ball in this game, but viewing from the outside is a rather interesting perk.

At least you get to see what kind of idiocy and circus goes on down here south of the border. Its a much more depressing situation.

 

[kEiThZ]

It will be interesting to see how things shape up. So far Harper has been claiming to be the party of low taxes, although income taxes would be significantly lower under the Liberal fiscal plan. So far, I think objective analysis indicates that the Liberals have a better tax policy, from an economic theory POV. I know you have implementation concerns, but from a steady-state POV, they do have better policies.

On the fiscal front, they have largely governed as red tories. A 2% GST cut and tinkering with some income tax rates is no a really conservative fiscal platform by any stretch of the imagination. The Liberals might well have implemented those very same policies. Albeit, they would have done it later so as not to risk a deficit or even a lower surplus. And that's to their credit.
But you and I both know that the GST cut was key plank in the Cons platform which they had to fulfill quickly in this precarious minority situation. We can deride it as irresponsible but the voters of this country decided they wanted that platform, so we can't now paint the Conservatives as being reckless. The average Joe probably appreciates that cut, even if simply for the symbolism of keeping a promise.
I can appreciate that the Liberals of yester year were fiscally prudent. But there's no guarantee today's more left leaning Libs have any of the same inclinations. And there are fiscal holes in the Green Shift that should be explained.....number one among them is how the government will rely on a declining revenue base to maintain a steady state of spending. Sure I disagree with elements of it, but I like the Green Shift for what it is, an economic policy incorporating environmental principles. But as a fiscal platform it creates more questions than it answers.

I will stop focusing on Mulroney's scandal when people move beyond sponsorship. Sponsorship is a dead issue IMO.
Policy is fair to compare, and I think if we can move beyond sponsorship the discussion will be better. The Liberals admitted something went wrong, Paul Martin opened up an inquiry, and it was dealt with. What more can be done? Its history.

It maybe dead for you...but it isnt for many of us who vote. Especially since it wasn't that long ago and many of the folks involved are still hanging around the Libs. Next election. Different story.

Now in regards to policy, I think its worth comparing. Mulroney-malaise is a reference to the repeated recessions under his leadership, without him actually doing much about it. I don't think its fair to blame recessions under Mulroney on Trudeau, especially when Trudeau tried to take serious action for the problems during his economic era. Oil shocks took hold in the 1970's that shook the world market, and Trudeau actually tried to address it with National Energy Policy. Unfortunately Albertans threw a fit and the rest is history.
I would make the point that Trudeau took action, Mulroney did not.

1) Price controls. That was going back on his word....and a poor way to fight the onset of stagflation.
2) The NEP wiped out some $50 - $100 billion in todays dollars of GDP in Alberta. They didnt recover till the 1990s. Kind of hard not to throw a fit, when that happens. I'd be up in arms if that happened in Ontario. And it violated the spirit of our laws and constitution, where resources belong to the province not the country. Now we can debate this and we should, but slapping it one province with no debate is very unfair.
3) I am not going to give credit to the Liberals for a boom and tarnish Mulroney with a recession. That was simply part of the business cycle. What did he do that made it worse? http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001130 Apparently, by your reasoning he was responsible for Black Tuesday as well.....
Indeed, free trade derided by the Libs was exapanded by them and helped the subsequent boom. What else? The GST which you now say is a really good tax was implemented by Mulroney. De-nationalization of Bell Canada, Air Canada and Canada Post. Mulroney. He set the foundation and took the flak. And the Libs get the credit? If you want to criticize him on corruption, sure, but aim your sights at the right target.

That's not corruption I'm speaking to, its just policy. On the contrary, when you speak of policy for the previous Liberal government its quite the opposite. They were in tune with what Canadians wanted: no Iraq, a steady hand, and no deficit.

Fortune by Chretien's anti-american bent is not really a good thing. Yes, it kept us out of Iraq...officially..... But with Martin at the helm, we would have been there in full form. So let's not go down that road. As to their fiscal policy. They were good, there is no denying that. But its a little rich to say that they deserve all the credit without putting it in context. When you savage social spending, and ride the longest economic expansion in the US, do you really deserve that much credit. If the Cons cut social spending tommorrow, you'd be all over them, right? So why the pass for the Liberals?

 

[unimaginative2]

That NEP propaganda is conventional wisdom but, sorry to say it, complete bullshit. Why did Texas suffer a massive recession at the same time? Alberta had a recession because it's the highest-cost oil jurisdiction in the world (because of the oil sands), and the world oil price plummeted by more than 50% in the early 80s.

Canada had the most severe recession since the great depression during a relatively minor global downturn. That had everything to do with Mulroney's policies, in addition to the monetary policies followed by the Bank of Canada chairman that he appointed. Interestingly enough, the early 80s recession hit Canada less hard than some of its G7 peers. Might that have something to do with the government in charge?

The Conservatives racked up hundreds of billions in debt during the economic boom of the late 80s. The Liberals eliminated the deficit during the rather weak economy of the mid 90s.

By the way, Bell Canada was never nationalized, and Canada Post was never de-nationalized.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The point about Iraq is an interesting one, and makes me wonder if there isn't some credence to the claim that Harper wanted his election before the American one. If McCain does win in November, there's a chance that we may see US troops involved in Iran within the next four years. (Remember, McCain is the 'Bomb Iran... Bomb Bomb Iran' guy.) And I can't see Harper not supporting that if it comes about.

Chretien standing up to America and refusing to support the Iraq mission is one of his definitive legacy moments. Canada needs a leader like that again.

 

[Brandon716]

That NEP propaganda is conventional wisdom but, sorry to say it, complete bullshit. Why did Texas suffer a massive recession at the same time? Alberta had a recession because it's the highest-cost oil jurisdiction in the world (because of the oil sands), and the world oil price plummeted by more than 50% in the early 80s.

Canada had the most severe recession since the great depression during a relatively minor global downturn. That had everything to do with Mulroney's policies, in addition to the monetary policies followed by the Bank of Canada chairman that he appointed. Interestingly enough, the early 80s recession hit Canada less hard than some of its G7 peers. Might that have something to do with the government in charge?

The Conservatives racked up hundreds of billions in debt during the economic boom of the late 80s. The Liberals eliminated the deficit during the rather weak economy of the mid 90s.

By the way, Bell Canada was never nationalized, and Canada Post was never de-nationalized.

Not only are your assessments 100% right on, but the funny thing is that Mulroney's government failed to get Canada on the right track and he came into office as oil markets worldwide gave Canada (as well as everywhere else) the cheapest energy the world has seen relative to incomes.

Trudeau was faced with outrageous energy crunches, and keith still wants to complain about Trudeau's record and his efforts to stabilize the economy with the NEP.

To me these are pretty easy to understand points. Liberals faced worldwide energy crises and took action. Mulroney was handed a worldwide oil surge in supply, and cheap energy costs to fuel an easy budget surplus if he so desired.

Instead, Mulroney's poor leadership not only alienated average Canadians, it destroyed his party and created the Reform/Alliance that Harper still represents. Using the Tory name is an upgrade for Harper and his ilk, IMO.

I don't have anything against Alberta's people per se, but the fact that the politicians that come from Alberta are so Alberta-centric and see nothing but Alberta's economy in terms of an entire Canadian mosaic is scary. Harper is part of the problem, not the solution, and people in rural Ontario and Quebec need to wake up and not hand him another minority, let alone a majority.

BTW, not only did Texas face a recession, but Denver Colorado used to be a huge energy city in America. The energy economy came crashing to a halt there in the late 1980's and never recovered. Denver had a huge regional recession until the information technology came along, and that's when Denver started growing again. Denver is known for being the headquarters of Qwest and huge satellite/subsidiary locations for companies like Sun Microsystems and AT&T in 2008, not for oil. The new office parks built in the 1990's south of downtown are called the Denver Tech Center, not the Denver Energy Center. There's a reason for that...

I mirror the sentiment about energy and Alberta. Albertan leaders have a hard time understanding Alberta's place as part of a bigger picture, they tend to think about Alberta and Alberta only. In many ways its more of an issue than Quebec separation movements. No national economy can be solely based on energy and oil drilling AND be healthy/diversified.

I don't hate Alberta in the least. There are a lot of good people there, and its very beautiful. A matter of fact, if you combine the Green, NDP, and Liberal vote the population in Alberta would be considered relatively left of most American states, in fact it'd be far-left in many respects.

But in regards to the leaders it ends up with, the leadership just gives Alberta a bad image, and they really do focus only on Alberta's economy.

 

[Solaris]

wow I didn't expect the reaction to this topic ... I see I've open a can of worms

 

[kEiThZ]

That NEP propaganda is conventional wisdom but, sorry to say it, complete bullshit. Why did Texas suffer a massive recession at the same time? Alberta had a recession because it's the highest-cost oil jurisdiction in the world (because of the oil sands), and the world oil price plummeted by more than 50% in the early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program

The NEP robbed them of their development early, prior to the oil crash. And starved them of funds just as the high oil prices were coming in. You can't say that the policy had absolutely no impact on Alberta. Perhaps they would have had the recession regardless, but I think its unfair that the NEP probably aggravated their situation. Would you have accepted the same thing in Ontario....ie. a demand by the federal government to sell machinery at below market rates?

Canada had the most severe recession since the great depression during a relatively minor global downturn. That had everything to do with Mulroney's policies, in addition to the monetary policies followed by the Bank of Canada chairman that he appointed. Interestingly enough, the early 80s recession hit Canada less hard than some of its G7 peers. Might that have something to do with the government in charge?

Mulroney wasn't in power till 1984. The recession in the early 80s was already under way. And that was under John Turner's watch....
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001130

Still if we talk legacy...why aren't the Liberals gunning to cancel free trade agreements and the GST? Two of the most hated Mulroney era policies? If they were sooooo bad, why doesn't anybody want to reverse them?

All that being said I admired Trudeau for his other accomplishments...Charter, handling of the FLQ crisis, etc. And those are his real legacies. Does anyone really remember him for his economic handling?

'The Conservatives racked up hundreds of billions in debt during the economic boom of the late 80s. The Liberals eliminated the deficit during the rather weak economy of the mid 90s.

They inherited a large deficit from their Liberal predecessors. And finished their term during a global recession. That would be rough on any government. Virtually every government in power at the time was booted from office. So what exactly would you have cut in that same position? I find it galling that nobody discusses the impact of the Chretien/Martin cuts to health and social transfers to give tax cuts and a balanced budget, but then rails against the Conservatives for risking a deficit and not making any cuts to social programs. That to me is a double standard. That being said, no government of the 80s really has clean hands....

By the way, Bell Canada was never nationalized, and Canada Post was never de-nationalized.

I stand corrected....too bad he tarnished Air Canada's privatization with the Airbus affair though....otherwise it was a succesful policy.

The point about Iraq is an interesting one, and makes me wonder if there isn't some credence to the claim that Harper wanted his election before the American one. If McCain does win in November, there's a chance that we may see US troops involved in Iran within the next four years. (Remember, McCain is the 'Bomb Iran... Bomb Bomb Iran' guy.) And I can't see Harper not supporting that if it comes about.

We aren't going to Iran. We barely have enough to stay in Afghanistan and we will have to pull out by 2011. Major Ops are probably also out till at least about 2015 as the CF works to recapitalize and rebuild a lot of its infrastructure.

Chretien standing up to America and refusing to support the Iraq mission is one of his definitive legacy moments. Canada needs a leader like that again.

I didn't like his anti-americanism, but I appreciate the fact that he put Canada first on many of his decisions.... Colleagues who briefed on that file certainly appreciated the Canadian support when the Canadian int community deferred on whether there were weapons in Iraq.