Vive les écoles libres!
ADQ wants to scrap school boards
ADQ Leader Mario Dumont said if elected premier he'd abolish school boards and reinvest the savings to streamline and improve Quebec's education system. The province could pump up to $150 million into schools if it eliminated administrative boards, Dumont said on Monday during a campaign stop in Saint-Nazaire, in the Saguenay. Dumont said school boards are bloated and suck up education dollars that could be used in the classroom. "The administrative costs are going up at a much bigger pace than the investment in the children, in the classes," said the ADQ leader.
2/26/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
60 Comments
You have to admit - regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum, it is refreshing to see a politician in a major political race suggest some bold changes to cherished institutions. Two-tiered health care? Abolish school boards? I am sure that these are two items that many, many Conservative politicians would love to accomplish - but most would never dare. Witness Harper's flip-flopping - from principles Reform Conservative to Quebec appeasing, pro-Kyoto, Sir Spend-a-lot!
My hero...
There is a fine line between doing what is necessary to be able to implement your program, and making sure that you do indeed use your time in office for the purposes expressed prior to gaining office. Seems to me too many politicians worry about being re-elected or "loved", than actually worrying whether they're actually bettering the country/province they're in charge of, building a favourable legacy for themselves.
The charge can be levelled at Chretien. What did he accomplish in his 10 years? Not a hell of a lot, especially if you hold his time up to that of Mulroney. But no doubt Chretien would remind you to no end that he was in the big chair, as if that was the whole point.
Why not simply allow the parents to choose how they spend the provincial funds allocated to their child? The province would simply divide the total education budget by the number of students and give an equal credit to each student. The parents could then decide if they want the kid to go to a public school (which would take the full value of the credit) or a private school (the province would re-imburse them up to the value of the credit for tuition). The resulting competition would increase the efficiency of the public school system in ways that go beyond the ADQs proposal.
KRB,
You wrote: "The charge can be levelled at Chretien. What did he accomplish in his 10 years? Not a hell of a lot..."
Canada is financially the envy of all western nations. While every year, almost every country worldwide is increasing its debt, Canada is paying down it's debt. Chretien took over a government that was running $40B+ annual deficits (in 1992 dollars) and left with double digit $B annual surpluses. And he did it without hurting Canada's social programs and while overseeing an expanding and diversifying Canadian economy.
History will be kind to Chretien. And for good reason.
Did you all really read the article? Are you seriously in favour of out-sourcing administrative jobs to India?
I'm in favour in reform, and school boards are ripe targets, but I really don't think completely eliminating them is the answer. That would effectively mean centralizing more control in Quebec City, and that, IMHO, is the last thing Quebec needs. Local government should be strengthened, not weakened. A school in Montreal can't possibly have the exact same needs as one in Rimouski.
Chretien ... did it without hurting Canada's social programs and while overseeing an expanding and diversifying Canadian economy.
Yes he downloaded responsibility to the provinces, cut programs based on political cost not need, wasted billions on high profile but ultimatly useless policy initiatives, and took credit for the fiscal policies he inherited.
Canada prospered in spite of Chretien not because of him.
RSimpson,
You wrote "...and took credit for the fiscal policies he inherited."
What exactly were they?
The 1993-94 federal deficit was $42B. Today, the Harper government, even with last year's GST cut, is facing a $10B+ surplus.
Canada is a lot more prosperous than it was before Chretien became prime minister.
Chretien stopped burdening future generations with wasteful spending, that's what he did!
Chretien's time in office was great (the early years anyway) because he slashed spending and cut taxes. However, to say he didn't hurt Canadian social programs is lunacy. I always love listening to Ontario Liberals beat up on Harris in one sentence and praise Chretien in the next. Both cut spending, both cut taxes, and both were great in their prime.
BTW, Chretien did inherit good fiscal policies (free trade and the GST). Good on him for realizing it and not scrapping them.
"Did you all really read the article? Are you seriously in favour of out-sourcing administrative jobs to India?"
Why not? Provinces should be interested in provided the best possible education at the lowest cost. Would you be willing to pay extra for computers, paper, and other products to have them manufactured solely in Canada? If India can do the administration cheaper, let them. That way our education funds will do more for our children and we're all for that, right?
I've got 3 kids and the oldest is 11, I am involved with her school and education but since she was 4 I have met with one board once and I was told too late the vote went through you have no say.
My problem back then was why were they selling navada to pump money into the school. Navada tickets is gambling, well I was told that the church does bingo. Bingo is only allowed after 18 just like buying navada tickets. Now if you are an adult and you want to gamble, that is your choice but for you to promote that to my child should be my choice.
So after all of my bitching, I don't see much of a point for the board myself.
MississaugaPeter, you have to be kidding! A MONKEY could have done the same job that Chretien did ... perhaps better! Chretien came in just as the economy was turning the corner from the '90-91 recession. Then with the new (and rapidly increasing) GST revenue, and the FTA powering Canada's economy higher, he just had to scrimp a little (Ottawa spending decreased 2%, while the provinces got the big shaft), and watch the deficit take care of itself! The $42 Billion deficit, while the largest ABSOLUTE dollar deficit we've had, was only around 4.5% of our GDP at the time. Contrast this to what Mulroney inherited from Trudeau, the highest peacetime deficit in Canada's history; one just over 8% of our GDP!!! To put that in perspective, imagine a $112 Billion deficit today! Coupled with that, Mulroney was also in an operating deficit (97 cents of revenue for every dollar in program spending, before debt servicing charges). Chretien's situation in contrast looks positively rosy!!!
I'm sorry, history will not be kind to Chretien. He will be seen as a PM who basically had an open field to do as he wanted (with three straight majorities and the split right and all), and he just twiddled his thumbs. His shortcomings are only hidden because he was lucky enough to preside over a booming economy, that had little to do with him (more to do with rising world commodity prices). And then let's not get into Shawinigate, Sponsorship scandal, etc.
A judge labelling you as one of the main culprits in a major scandal doesn't exactly make for a great legacy, y'think?
Chretien was a caretaker Prime Minister who, in keeping with the metaphor, valued a clean desk. His best policies were sponsored (no pun intended) by others (e.g. deficit reduction, Clarity Act).
His electoral successes were largely owed to a divided opposition.
Eduation is typically a far more powerful driver of voting intentions than the ever-ubiquitous healthcare. Ontario during the Harris years is a prime example. Ontarians didn't exactly warm to his opening up of the healthcare system to private delivery (even though it was the right thing), but they certainly got behind him in his many famous brawls with the thuggish teacher unions. Suburban parents marched to the voting booths in 1999 and returned a majority Conservative government in large part because they agreed with his education reforms and were sick of the teacher unions trying to drag the province backward.
Mario Dumont, therefore, is right to target the education issue. However I think he is overplaying his hand here. Every province has school boards - even Alberta. What does he propose to do instead? As another poster said, planning curriculum for a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic student population in Montreal is quite different from planning one for rural, pure laine Quebec. Why couldn't he simply have pledged to reduce the number of school boards by amalgamation? Saskatchewan did this a year or two ago, and brought the number of boards down from over 90 down to 20-30.
Andrew,
Lets not get too into details because this was a trial balloon by Dumont, but do you really think that local boards do any sort of job that couldn't be handled by a bureaubot and a small team from the Ministry of Ed? Boards have almost no role in curriculum development and merely have long and ponderous meeting about haw much toilet paper they will need next year
KRB,
"Canada’s budgetary position has gone from being among the worst in the G-7 in the early 1990s to the best today. In 1992, Canada’s total government-sector deficit reached a high of 8 per cent of GDP, compared to the G-7 average of 4.5 per cent (Chart 3.3)."
http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget00/bp/bpch3_1e.htm
It was not Trudeau that left his mandate with a deficit of 8% of GDP, it was Mulroney!
You say Chretien "just had to scrimp a little". What rubbish. He had to make wise political decisions to eliminate a $42B annual deficit and turn the country's finances into a double digit $B annual surplus.
Think about it, we are still paying tens of $B of interest every year for the mismanagement of the 8 years Mulroney was in power. Chretien was a wise manager of the Canadian purse, who could have abused his majority and spent like his predecessor. Yes, Chretien erred in some matters, but he oversaw a government that stopped introducing programs that would have to be paid by future generations.
By the way, the GST was supposed to be revenue-neutral when it replaced the 13.5% Manufacturers' Sales Tax (MST) and 11% Federal Telecommunications Tax.
MississaugaPeter:
Good grief - using propaganda from a Liberal, pre-election budget (in 2000) to "prove" your case against Brian Mulroney? Not very convincing, I'm afraid.
Mulroney did bring down the deficit as a percentage of GDP substantially before the global recession hit in the early-90s, something completely beyond his control.
The vast majority of economists and historians I've ever heard or read will recognize now that Mulroney was the far superior Prime Minister in any judgment of Chretien versus Mulroney, and certainly Trudeau verses Mulroney, not including those gushing Trudeau-ites who yearn for the great socialist's flair and charm, his voodoo economics notwithstanding.
Trudeau's efforts to create a socialist North Korea-style nation left the country bankrupt. Mulroney came into office at a time of sky-high inflation, unemployment, and record deficits.
Here's an interesting joint assessment by a history prof and an economic prof from McGill: http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/mulroney2001.pdf
Their conclusion:
Why is Mr. Mulroney first? Because he made Canada a better, richer country than he found it -- to a degree unsurpassed by other Canadian PMs. His accomplishments vis-a-vis those of his contemporaries in the Oval Office were better than those of other Canadian leaders. He left a legacy of policies that continue to pay dividends. Brian Mulroney changed Canada. The Canada he created is more outward looking, less antagonistic to its American neighbor, and more market oriented than it would have been without him. Thanks to NAFTA, Canada is a more open economy than ever.
In 1964, under Pearson, exports plus imports were 37% of GDP.
In 1983, at the end of the Trudeau era, the fraction was 47%.
Then change came.
By 2000 the ratio was 87%.
Polls, media popularity and public approval ratings are one thing.
Economic measurements and lasting accomplishments are another.
and this:
Mr. Mulroney inherited a mess, and he cleaned up most of it. By the time he left office, while the debt had more than doubled again, the federal government's operating deficit of $16 billion had been converted to an operating surplus of $6 billion
OT, but definitely big;
Awhile ago, some anonomous commenter, a brilliant, in-the-know person he must be,
said that a "little birdy" told him about some willing to speak about a deal to kill the terrorism law among an "interested" voting bloc that got Dion into power.
Well, they're starting to chirp, from the National Post:
"Among veteran Liberal insiders, it is believed that the several hundred Sikh convention delegates Bains and his allies led into the Dion camp (via Gerard Kennedy) came with a price: an end to the investigative powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was opposed for predictable reasons by various Sikh, Tamil and Muslim organizations.
Indeed, I am informed by a well-informed source that the critical deals were cut months in advance, and were driven by Bains -- and, in the case of Muslim delegates, by Arab-Canadian MP Omar Alghabra -- through Kennedy, who'd been staked out early by ethno-politicians as an empty vessel into which they could pour their parochial agendas.
These machinations should not be confined to history's footnotes: The Montreal Liberal convention was a close-fought thing, and the mass migration of hundreds of well-herded delegates along ethnic lines was likely the deciding factor. If more information comes out about unsavoury deals, Dion's image as a squeaky-clean enviro-wonk will erode, and traditional voter suspicion about sleazy Liberal ethno-politics will bubble to the surface. Given the high stakes -- we are, after all, talking about a law that could help us learn the truth about the greatest terrorist attack in Canadian history, as well as prevent even greater carnage in the future-- the issue could prove explosive."
Here:
http://tinyurl.com/2748xj
A "deal". Revealed by a "well informed source".
Oh, this is going to get big alright.
Actually education is far more inexpensive overall and is of far higher quality when it's paid for directly by parents and managed by small, independent schools and local school boards. If a large, centralized bureaucracy is the answer, then what is the question - how can we do to education what central planning and control did for food production and distribution in North Korea?
Anyone, even an opportunistic buffoon like Mario Dumont, can chirp about how much smarter and better everything will be when "he's" in charge. It takes a real hero to admit that individual people actually know what's best for themselves.
Stevo,
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb0540-e.htm#anettxt
reveals that you have all your facts wrong and are just a Mulroney apologist.
Chretien reversed Canada's economic fortunes. Unlike Mulroney, he did not try to buy votes with voters money, and as a result, double the nation's national debt. We are paying $10B+ in interest alone every year to cover Mulroney's poor management of the country's finances!
Mississauga Pete said, apparently earnestly:
"Chretien... did not try to buy votes with voters' money".
*Cough*sponsorship scandal*cough*
Anonymous,
Big difference between what occurred under Chretien's watch and the billions that were wasted (and we are still paying $10B+/year in interest) under Mulroney.
Chretien was not a saint. But he was definitely what Canada needed to ensure economic prosperity, and today, envy from all around the world.
Praising Chretien for the economy - What a farce!
Chretien was a senior minister in the last Trudeau gov't that saw the deficit rise from $4B in 1980 to $43B 1984.(Remember 22 & 1/2 interest rates?)
While not wrestling Trudeau's deficit to the ground, Mulroney's one-two economic punch set the country up for the economic growth that continues to this day. His successful free trade policy with the US was a godsend for the Canadian economy.Then he abolished the job-killing and grossly inefficient Manufacturers Sales Tax( over 22,000 exemptions with a tax rate range of 5 to 18 %) and replaced with a modern tax, the GST, which flooded the federal coffers with revenue.
All Chretien died was collect the revenue that poured in. Yes, he inherited a $43 B deficit, but it was NOT CREATED by Mulroney. It was handed back to the Liberals and Chretien by Mulroney after receiving it from Trudeau. In the end, it was Mulroney's policies that won the day in regards to the deficit.
Think about it - what creative fiscal or monetary intiatives are attributable to the Chretien/ Martin governments? (Sorry, putting excess cash towards the deficit does not count as either.)
Chretien won 3 consecutives majorities because of a fractured Conservative party - he formed a majority in 1997 with 37% of the vote! He was the luckiest PM in Canaadian history. Please spare me tales of his econnomic greatness.
Cicero and all other official Mulroney apologists and Conservative misinformationists,
Please cite your sources before making outlandish claims of facts.
Yes, Chretien was a minister under Trudeau (even Finance minister for a short time), but the financial legacy left by Chretien as prime minister is understated.
About the Trudeau deficit: "The net federal debt was $17 billion when he (Trudeau) came in and $128 billion when he left. There was no federal deficit when he took control and a $25 billion dollar annual deficit by the time of his departure".
Source:
www.lifesite.net/ldn/2000/oct/001003a.html
By the time Chretien was elected prime minister, the net federal debt was over $450B. That's an increase of over $320B during Mulroney's mismanagement. At 4% interest, that's over $12B that our government must pay annually to cover Mulroney's pathetic financial management of our country's finances.
Yes, Trudeau did start the deficit spending. But Mulroney tripled it and ran the largest annual deficit of all time in his last year in office - $43B. Good thing he was not replaced by a drunken sailor.
Miss Pete, you are an idiot.
Total government-sector deficit means federal AND all the provincial deficits! Do I really have to go and find all the info to prove to you how much of an idiot you are???
Trudeau's deficit in 1983-84 was over 8% of GDP. JUST THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.
Yes, Chretien just scrimped a little in the areas where the feds were already spending. His big slash was to provincial transfers (i.e. passing the buck).
Mulroney was handed a dog's breakfast. No one, I repeat no one, could have got out of his situation without seriously adding to the debt. Mulroney added the most absolute dollars to the debt, but it was pretty much impossible not to! Unless of course you would've liked to have seen the feds cut spending by a THIRD overnight!
Trudeau started from a point of near negligible deficits and a decent debt-to-GDP ratio, and starting in 1974-75, he launched us on a ruinous path.
And yes, the GST was introduced as a revenue-neutral measure, AT THE TIME. It has been anything but in the years subsequent. Plus the MST was a hidden tax that hurt our own companies more than outsiders. It was a horrendous tax.
I suppose I now have to go find the links to enlighten your (obviously) young mind. Stay tuned!
Local control of school boards can work if they have real control. Since they never will you might as well have the central government be in charge of everything since boards play no constructive role except in furnishing well appointed offices for themselves. How quickly we forget.... in the late eighties and early nineties when boards had the power to tax they were quick give themselves and their officers lavish raises (remember Toronto board secretaries making $90K for booking meetings? And that was reported in The Star )and exercising no control over quality or spending.
The only solution really is to privatize the whole thing and retur n the money to parents in the form of a voucher. Let the schools compete.
MissPete,
http://dsp-psd.communication.gc.ca/Pilot/LoPBdP/CIR/887-e.htm#1.%20Operating
First note how this is from a Finance ministry analyst, and not from the lips of Paul Martin.
Some things in the link to note:
Check the first table, and check the Operating Surplus column. See how under Trudeau we were dragged into an operating deficit starting in 1975-76. Increasing spending over 15% year-over-year will do that to ya!
And see how the Operating deficit (our first deficit to conquer) was arrested by Mulroney during his term in office (although we did dip again into operating deficit from the fallout of the '91 recession).
Note also that our debt stood at $28 billion in 1974-75, and that it went to $169 billion by 1983-84. A 504% increase over 9 years!
The debt under Mulroney rose to $466 billion by 1992-93, a 176% increase over 1983-84. Do you see a difference? If we'd continued on as Trudeau had, with a compounding debt load, our debt would have been over a TRILLION by 1992-93!!!
The first paragraph after the first table reads:
"From 1971 to 1975, the PA deficit was less than 2% of GDP. It rose steadily to over 5% of GDP in 1979. After declining for several years it increased sharply to 8.6% in 1985. After the previous federal government (that's Mulroney they're talking about) made deficit reduction an important part of its fiscal policy, the deficit declined to 4.4% of GDP in 1990."
The 3rd paragraph after section A reads:
"Expenditures, however, increased substantially, by more than 3% of GDP, peaking at 24.5% of GDP in 1985. The deficit reduction plans of the previous government included *expenditure cuts* and *tax increases*. From 1985 to 1987, tax revenues, which increased by about 1% of GDP, were the primary source of revenue increases. Over the same period, expenditures fell by almost 2% of GDP."
MissPete, any of this getting through yet???
See Figure 1. You probably like big graphs. It should be readily apparent from this that Mulroney did a lot to try to rein in the runaway deficit/debt train. The deficit decreased as a % of GDP, expenditures decreased, and revenue increased thru taxes. It's all right there in front of your eyes man!
Or Figure 2. See how Mulroney got us back into operating surpluses, at least until the '91 recession hit (there is a lag). And the big operating surpluses you see for the Chretien era can be directly attributed to the revenue of the GST, and the effects on the economy of the FTA/NAFTA deal.
Is it any wonder that Mulroney to this day states that he planted the garden, and Paul Martin got to pick the flowers? Martin and Chretien know it's the truth too.
In the light of the facts, no REASONABLE person can state that Mulroney was the cause behind our horror fiscal situation of the 80s and 90s. The blame has to be squarely laid on the shoulders of Trudeau, though granted it was a time of upheaval in terms of federal revenue streams. And let's remember Chretien was finance minister under Trudeau for a few of those years. And lastly, let's remember that great Chretien quote after the Liberals defeat in 1984:
"We have left the cupboard bare."
Wow. Feel the love for Canada in that statement, eh?
Stevo, great link to that McGill study. I remember reading that a long time ago, and Mulroney coming out as #1. I won't say Mulroney was a truly great PM; he definitely had a slick, snake-oil salesman side that will always hurt perceptions of him. But in terms of actual accomplishments, there is absolutely no comparison between Mulroney and Chretien.
Mulroney brought in the FTA, GST, and negotiated Meech and Charlottetown (not saying those were good things, just that they were major policy moves by a PM in office).
Chretien made a few adjustments (though not at first; his 1994 budget was business as usual. It took the Mexican peso crisis to catch their attention) and then watched the money stream in and swamp the deficit.
MissPete has definitely swallowed the Chretien Kool-Aid. MissPete is probably Warren Kinsella!
MissPete,
You link to a debt-to-GDP ratio graph to denounce Mulroney. What for? As I said, there is no way anyone in Mulroney's position could have avoided adding to the debt in a serious way. It's the difference between being given the responsibility for a credit card with a $1,000 balance on it (Trudeau), or one with a $100,000 balance on it (Mulroney). The difference being that Trudeau went on a spending spree with his credit card, and then handed it to Mulroney to pay off.
Even in your first link, check out Chart 3.2, and you can see that the rise in debt-to-GDP was halted for the years 1986-87 to 1989-90. Then the '91 recession hit and sent it higher again.
And Chart 3.1 again shows that serious efforts were made to rein in Canada's deficits and debt during Mulroney's term.
But refuse to face facts. I wouldn't expect anything else from a Chretien lover.
And hey, why not see what our host thinks about Trudeau's fiscal history:
http://andrewcoyne.com/Essays/BookChapters/Trudeaus_Shadow.rtfd/TXT.html
"Net federal debt in fiscal 1968, just before Trudeau became Prime Minister, was about $18-billion, or 26 per cent of gross domestic product; by his final year in office, it had ballooned to $206-billion -- at 46 per cent of GDP, nearly twice as large relative to the economy. In an age in which we have grown used to debt-to-GDP ratios in the 75 per cent range, those numbers may have lost their power to shock. It was the Conservatives who took power in 1984, many recall, who, in the nine years that followed, ran the debt up to more than $500 billion. But the truth is that the relentless rise in the debt that has all but consumed federal politics for the past decade or more was set in motion during the Trudeau years. By the last days of the ancien regime, its momentum was unstoppable."
And further down ...
"The years from fiscal 1976 to fiscal 1985 were, fiscally speaking, a lost decade: ten straight years in which the government ran not only an overall deficit, but an operating deficit. The overall deficit throughout this later phase never fell below 3 per cent of GDP; it averaged 5.6 per cent. In that calamitous final year of Liberal rule, 1984-85, total spending exceeded revenues by more than 50 per cent. The deficit that year, at $38.5-billion, was equal to nearly 9 per cent of GDP, *a record in peacetime*. Interest payments alone were now enough to consume nearly one-third of every revenue dollar. With interest costs compounding at a rate of 13 per cent per year, and the debt doubling every three or four years, that ratio could only grow."
"No wonder the Liberals' successors had such trouble bringing the debt to heel. Summing across the nine years of Conservative government, the federal government actually spent about $14-billion less on programs than it collected in revenues. Every dollar of the $300-billion added to the debt during the Tory years was interest on the debt the Liberals left behind."
Read the rest, and then I look forward to your post denouncing Coyne as a Mulroney apologist (psst, he's anything but; more a Trudeau apologist if anything!).
And hey, why not see what our host thinks about Trudeau's fiscal history:
http://andrewcoyne.com/Essays/BookChapters/Trudeaus_Shadow.rtfd/TXT.html
"Net federal debt in fiscal 1968, just before Trudeau became Prime Minister, was about $18-billion, or 26 per cent of gross domestic product; by his final year in office, it had ballooned to $206-billion -- at 46 per cent of GDP, nearly twice as large relative to the economy. In an age in which we have grown used to debt-to-GDP ratios in the 75 per cent range, those numbers may have lost their power to shock. It was the Conservatives who took power in 1984, many recall, who, in the nine years that followed, ran the debt up to more than $500 billion. But the truth is that the relentless rise in the debt that has all but consumed federal politics for the past decade or more was set in motion during the Trudeau years. By the last days of the ancien regime, its momentum was unstoppable."
And further down ...
"The years from fiscal 1976 to fiscal 1985 were, fiscally speaking, a lost decade: ten straight years in which the government ran not only an overall deficit, but an operating deficit. The overall deficit throughout this later phase never fell below 3 per cent of GDP; it averaged 5.6 per cent. In that calamitous final year of Liberal rule, 1984-85, total spending exceeded revenues by more than 50 per cent. The deficit that year, at $38.5-billion, was equal to nearly 9 per cent of GDP, *a record in peacetime*. Interest payments alone were now enough to consume nearly one-third of every revenue dollar. With interest costs compounding at a rate of 13 per cent per year, and the debt doubling every three or four years, that ratio could only grow."
"No wonder the Liberals' successors had such trouble bringing the debt to heel. Summing across the nine years of Conservative government, the federal government actually spent about $14-billion less on programs than it collected in revenues. Every dollar of the $300-billion added to the debt during the Tory years was interest on the debt the Liberals left behind."
Read the rest, and then I look forward to your post denouncing Coyne as a Mulroney apologist (psst, he's anything but; more a Trudeau apologist if anything!).
KRB,
Read 8 posts up, where do I defend Trudeau's governance? The only time I mention Trudeau is when I quote from the anti-Trudeau site that said:
"About the Trudeau deficit: "The net federal debt was $17 billion when he (Trudeau) came in and $128 billion when he left. There was no federal deficit when he took control and a $25 billion dollar annual deficit by the time of his departure".
Now you are taking numbers and spinning and spinning and spinning how Mulroney was good and Chretien did nothing.
You (KRB) wrote:
"Note also that our debt stood at $28 billion in 1974-75, and that it went to $169 billion by 1983-84. A 504% increase over 9 years!
The debt under Mulroney rose to $466 billion by 1992-93, a 176% increase over 1983-84. Do you see a difference? If we'd continued on as Trudeau had, with a compounding debt load, our debt would have been over a TRILLION by 1992-93!!!"
Your use of percentages is very misleading. The lower the numbers, the greater the percentage.
Trudeau's $28B to $169B (+$141B) was not good and Mulroney's $169B to $466B (+297B) was no better. CHRETIEN'S ABILITY TO REVERSE THE ANNUAL DEFICITS AND ACTUALLY START PAYING DOWN THE DEBT WAS NOTHING SHORT OF SPECTACULAR!
By the way, Warren would have explained it better than I have.
MississaugaPeter:
With all due respect, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. You're shouting slogans.
Mulroney apologist? Moi? I happen to think a lot of what Mulroney did was reprehensible - his courting of closet separatists, his pandering to Quebec, his ignorance of Western concerns (although he did cancel the National Energy Program) in favour of Quebec ones, his lapse into patronage towards the end of his time in office.
But give credit where credit is due. Whatever Mulroney's failures may have been, they do not include his handling of the nation's finances and economy, which almost any impartial source will agree was superb. Couple that with his highly successful environmental initiatives (particularly on acid rain) and the respect he earned among other world leaders, and you have easily a Prime Minister that compares favourably to the socialist nightmare of Trudeau or the corrupt antics of Chretien.
The link you sent addresses debt, not deficits. Nobody denies that the debt increased substantially under Mulroney - it was a runaway trainwreck after the Trudeau years.
You cannot dispute that Mulroney brought Canada from an operating deficit to an operating surplus (you may not even know what that is, actually), nor can you dispute that the deficit as a percentage of GDP plummeted under Mulroney's watch, and it was only the global recession in the early-90s that cause its uptick once more.
Mulroney also was willing to put his popularity on the line when he introduced the GST, something Chretien would never have had the courage to do. The GST is practically the only tax in this country that makes any sense - which is why Harper should have in fact raised the GST to 8% or 9%, and reduced income taxes. Harper didn't have Mulroney's bravery though - perhaps it will come during his second term in office after he routs Steffie Dion.
MississaugaPeter:
CHRETIEN'S ABILITY TO REVERSE THE ANNUAL DEFICITS AND ACTUALLY START PAYING DOWN THE DEBT WAS NOTHING SHORT OF SPECTACULAR!
LOL!
It's like we're arguing with a gushing cheerleader.
There was nothing spectacular about Paul Martin offloading healthcare and welfare costs onto the provinces while benefiting from a continent-wide economic boom in the mid-90s.
You have Mulroney to thank for instituting the tools and practices that allowed Martin to effortlessly balance the budget, and you have Preston Manning to thank for pushing fiscal restraint into the government's agenda.
Stevo,
You wrote:
"You cannot dispute that Mulroney brought Canada from an operating deficit to an operating surplus (you may not even know what that is, actually), nor can you dispute that the deficit as a percentage of GDP plummeted under Mulroney's watch, and it was only the global recession in the early-90s that cause its uptick once more."
I do know what an "operating deficit" or "operating surplus" is. It's terms used by a Conservative to make Mulroney look good since he couldn't make interest payments.
It means that any debts incurred previously do not get counted. We don't even act like we have to pay interest on them.
The reality is that any debt must be repaid, or at least, interest must be paid.
Chretien paid the interest and started paying down the principal amount owed. Mulroney acted like interest didn't have to be paid.
Chretien did it in a few years after becoming PM. Mulroney never did in his two terms as PM.
And enough of the excuses of the recession. There was a very good run-up prior to it. The fact is during Mulroney's term the national debt rose about $300B, today we pay over $10B/year to service Mulroney's accumulated debt, AND CHRETIEN WAS NOT ONLY CANADA'S BEST FISCAL MANAGER, BUT THE BEST FISCAL MANAGER OF ALL THE G7 COUNTRIES! All Canadians including Flaherty should praise the man who actually got Canada's financial house in order.
MississaugaPeter:
If you're going to close your eyes, cover your ears, and completely disregard important fiscal indicators like a government's operating budget, then there's not much more I can say, is there. It's like trying to convince a colour-blind individual that the sky is blue.
To break it down for you, the Trudeau deficits consisted not just of interest from the mammoth Trudeau debt. His socialist government was spending more than it took in as revenue - an operating deficit in other words. Mulroney came in, cut spending, privitized various crown corporations, brought in the GST (all these measures, by the way, fiercly opposed in the '80s by the still-socialistic Liberals) and turned the deficit into a surplus so that he was spending less than the available revenue. The Mulroney deficits consisted completely of interest on the debt, which had ballooned out of control due to Trudeau's fiscal voodoo and the high interest rates that accompanied it. No Prime Minister would have been able to stop that trainwreck.
KRB and I pretty well debunked your sources as either Liberal propaganda or completely irrelevant. You are going on with blind faith, and it's pretty difficult to change one's faith even if it's dead wrong.
But read the words of McGill professors Tom Velk and Al Riggs once more, maybe you'll get something out of it:
Mr. Mulroney inherited a mess, and he cleaned up most of it. By the time he left office, while the debt had more than doubled again, the federal government's operating deficit of $16 billion had been converted to an operating surplus of $6 billion, and the deficit as a percentage of output had been substantially reduced before the 1990-91 recession sent it soaring again. Inflation was at 1.6 %, its lowest level in 30 years, and the prime rate of 6% was the lowest in 20 years, Unemployment was 2 points lower than at the end of the Trudeau period.
MissPete, you are hopeless. You don't get it. Without Mulroney's efforts in the 80's, Chretien would and could not have slayed the deficit! If Chretien inherited the same scenario in 1993 that Mulroney inherited in 1984, then he would've spent his whole term applying the brakes to the runaway deficit train. Then I suppose Harper could come in when the hard part of the job was effectively over, and become the deficit champion! That is what happened.
You miss the point about operating deficits. If you're in an operating deficit, you are trapped in a vicious downward spiral, where you basically have to borrow to pay off the interest for previous borrowing! So obviously, to get out of that vicious circle, you have to get out of operating deficits. Did you even read Coyne's piece that I linked to?
MissPete: Chretien paid the interest and started paying down the principal amount owed. Mulroney acted like interest didn't have to be paid.
Gawd, you must be all of twelve years old to have written that. That is not what I said AT ALL.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that after 20 years of deficit financing, Chretien was able to bring the deficit to zero within 3 years? Does it maybe suggest that not all of those previous 20 years were gung-ho deficits, but rather were unavoidable deficits during a belt-tightening era?
You are looney-tunes to propose Chretien as the best fiscal manager Canada has ever had.
Let me know when you finally see the forest thru the trees ...
MissPete: Your use of percentages is very misleading. The lower the numbers, the greater the percentage.
Well, that's how compounding works Petie!
But let's look at in terms of debt-to-GDP.
Debt-to-GDP in 1975? 18%. Debt-to-GDP in 1984? 42%, a 133% increase. Debt-to-GDP in 1993? 67%, a 60% increase over 1984. If it had continued on at the same clip (133%), our debt-to-GDP ratio would have been 98%!
The fact remains that Mulroney found himself in a vicious circle, where things would've become worse every year without some kind of intervention; and Chretien found himself in a virtuous circle of increasing revenue and low interest rates (thanks to Jim Crow), where with just minimal effort things would get better and better each year.
The fact remains that Mulroney got us out of the vicious downward spiral onto the virtuous cycle. That he wasn't PM at the time when the deficit was finally slayed does not mean that he didn't have a big hand in that eventual outcome.
MissPete, it's clear you've been reeled in by the big marquee numbers ("we had a $42 Billion dollar deficit ...") but know little of the total fiscal picture at the time. Enjoy the self-propaganda!
"It's like we're arguing with a gushing cheerleader."
I've noticed that MissassaugaPeter has been very silent on the subject of how the deficit was reduced (i.e. cutting transfers to the provinces). It's why he makes completely ridiculous statements like the following:
"Chretien took over a government that was running $40B+ annual deficits (in 1992 dollars) and left with double digit $B annual surpluses. And he did it without hurting Canada's social programs "
I wonder what the provinces might say about that.
"Compared to 1995/96 funding levels, federal funding for all provinces' social programs is reduced by $3.3 billion in 1996/97 and a further $2.4 billion in 1997/98."
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/archive/budget97/bg97rptg.htm
How exactly does cutting $3.3 billion dollars from the Canada Health and Social Transfer in one year and further $2.4 billion the next not hurt social programs? If social programs weren't hurt by those cuts, why did the Martin government throw $41 billion at the provinces for Healthcare? Afterall, cutting social transfers doesn't hurt social programs, right?
Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy with the Chretien government of the mid 90s for slaying the deficit and very happy with the way it was done. The feds forced the provinces to be more fiscally conservative. However, I can't help but suspect that if Chretien was a Tory you might be singing a slightly different tune about his legacy.
Stevo, your Conservative quote:
"Mr. Mulroney inherited a mess, and he cleaned up most of it. By the time he left office, while the debt had more than doubled again, the federal government's operating deficit of $16 billion had been converted to an operating surplus of $6 billion"
begets
"Mr. Chretien inherited a mess, a deficit that grew from $130B to $450B in 9 years because his predecessor almost did not pay a cent of interest and not a cent towards the principal. Within a few years of stewardship, Chretien not only was running operating surpluses (which do not include interest payments), but real annual surpluses that included interest payments on a gigantic debt (2/3 of which were accumulated by his predecessor). In his term as prime minister, Chretien increased the operating surplus from $6B to over $50B (more than 8X) so future generations would not have to pay interest on interest payments.
Mulroney was like the man who inherited his father's $128K mortgage. He ignored the principal and almost never made interest payments. Nine years later the man passed a $450K mortgage to his son. FORTUNATELY, THE GRANDCHILDREN ARE NOT EASILY FOOLED BY THE SPIN OF THE MAN'S FRIENDS!
I do know what an "operating deficit" or "operating surplus" is.
And that pretty much explains all of MissPete's comments.
MissPete, you obviously don't understand economics. I mean, afgter reading your commnets, I'm not sure what you DO understand, except ENDING ALL OF YOUR POSTS WITH CAPITALS!
Seriously, you've been 'PWNED' (as my kids would say). Just stop posting; you're only making your self look dumber.
MissPete, you are wilfully blind to the facts!
I ask again, did you not read the piece by AC?
I even quoted you a pertinent tidbit that you casually ignore:
"Every dollar of the $300-billion added to the debt during the Tory years was interest on the debt the Liberals left behind."
Please go read that piece again.
And Stevo's quote was from a study done by some McGill professors, that noted bastion of Tory sympathizers. ;-)
You misuse the definitions of deficit and debt so much that I must conclude you simply are out of your depth here, and you're pulling your own sort of classic Chretien defense: deny, deny, deny.
Your mortgage analogy is just lazy. How about adding he was given a $100,000 income, but that the kids were all going to private school, there were 3 car loans, for a total cash outlay for each year of $150,000!!! Over a few years, he got that cash outlay down to $110,000 a year, while significantly growing his income potential to $120,000 from the initial $100,000.
When interest rates dropped substantially from 10% to 4% an instant $10,000 was freed up in cash outlay. But before he could apply that newfound "bonus" to his various debts, a new guardian took over the household.
Spin? Hardly. You've been fooled by the spin from the Liberal party for all these years. How Mulroney managed to be cast as the cause of our precarious fiscal situation in the 80's and 90's is one of the great political feats of the Liberal Party of Canada. They are good at distorting the historical record and passing it off as fact, gotta hand it to 'em there!
I suggest you check out the Copernicus link on AC's main page. I'm sure you'd find it persuasive.
In MissPete's world, I suppose Chretien should also be castigated for adding close to $80 billion to the debt before bringing the deficit to heel.
Same with Harris in Ontario then, or Dalton now.
For MissPete, it matters little what the circumstances are when you start your term in office; he keeps score as if everyone started from the same starting blocks. It reveals a naive, simple mindset that is way too prevalent in the times we live in.
It could be excused in 1907, but not in 2007.
MississaugaPeter:
Conservative quote?? Those were two professors from a highly reputable university. And they are far from alone in their conclusions. If you have a scholarly article proving your assertions, then feel free to present it.
You're spouting numbers without giving a second thought to how those numbers came to be. And in any case, you're not even giving ALL the numbers.
Under Chretien - despite the booming economy, despite the GST and Free Trade revenues, despite Paul Martin's off-loading of costs to the province by slashing the CSHT - interest rates rose and the value of the dollar dipped.
From the Institute for Research on Public Policy ( http://www.irpp.org ):
"Six Stewards of Canada's Economy - History by the Numbers Favours Mulroney and Chrétien, While Trudeau Leaves a Legacy of Deficits and Debt" by Michael Hart and Bill Dymond
The conclusion:
They conclude that Brian Mulroney, left an economic mess by Pierre Trudeau, had the most challenging economic context of any of the six major prime ministers of the last 50 years, and did the most to improve it. Jean Chrétien also receives high marks for having the good sense to leave free trade and the GST in place, and for having the political courage to rid Canada of its crushing legacy of deficits.
So there you have it. Mulroney was left a mess, cleaned it up, and thank goodness Chretien had the good sense to utilize Mulroney's policies to finally eliminate the deficit.
If you'd like more independent assessments, I can provide them for you.
The kicker: "Mulroney was like the man who inherited his father's $128K mortgage. He ignored the principal and almost never made interest payments. Nine years later the man passed a $450K mortgage to his son."
Uhh yes, well, how do I explain this to you....setting fiscal and monetary policy in the face of an economic crisis (and don't kid yourself, that's exactly what Trudeau left behind...23% interest rates??) for a nation is a little bit more complex than a mortgage.
Chretien did as PM what he did as the minister in each of the departments had headed - nothing. Can anyone name any piece of legislation or policy that started in any department he headed? Other than creating a few national parks, which requires no management skill to implement, he has nothing to show for all those years as a minister.
Paul Martin stole the ideas about how to tackle the deficit from the reform Party and implemented it. A lot of original thinking there too. Then he raided the Public Service Pension Plan surplus ($20B), took the EI surplus ($40B), cut the Health Care transfer ($25B), etc. A lot of brain cells were burnt by Liberals to get the deficit down - the deficit started by Chretien and built up over the years by the Trudeau Liberals over 15 years. Ah the glory days of that party.
The irony is that Conservatives are expected to be the scrooges and Liberals are expected to be the spendthrifts.
Mulroney's economic achievement was to take a $130B deficit and make it $450B. MULRONEY DID NOT DO WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. In his last year as prime minister alone, he added $43B to the national debt.
Every Canadian who inherits a loan is expected to pay interest on that loan. What made Mulroney so special that he could ignore it?
Chretien inherited the loan. He could have ignored the interest like his predecessor. He didn't. He paid the interest. And started to pay down the principal. Chretien did what Mulroney didn't.
Canada is the envy of the G7 not because of Mulroney, but because of Chretien.
In 1994 Paul Martin stood in the House and told Preston Manning and the nation that, were he follow the Reform Party's policies on balancing the budget and debt reduction, it would destroy Canada's economy and plunge the nation into a depression.
The next year he started doing exactly that.
Thank you Preston Manning, for making the entire matter politically popular and thereby forcing the Liberals into adopting the policy as their own and acting on it.
Not to mention the reality that the federal government was borderline bankrupt, and was, I suspect, being squeezed big time by the IMF to clean up their act.
The next time the Liberals have an original intelligent brainwave of their own will be their first.
Springer,
I don't really care who thought it up.
I don't really care for those who make excuses for failure.
I don't really care for people who prefer to minimize what is most important.
What I do really care about are results and the bottom line.
Sometimes it is luck. Sometimes doing less is better. Sometimes it requires saying "no".
Most CEOs of struggling companies have a few years to turn things around. Mulroney had 9 years. He left with a national debt three times the size the one he inherited. After I am dead, my children will still be paying interest on the $320B+ debt that was accumulated during Mulroney's stewardship.
If Chretien was in power today, he would still be trying to pay down that debt. He would not be using annual budget surpluses to buy voters with their own money.
MP...
One point to note here:
The cash cow Paul Martin used to balance the books and then start actually paying off debt arose from the GST.
That would be the GST Mulroney brought in.
That would be the same GST Chretien promised to dump.
And then didn't...because he realized they simply could not afford to.
And the second cash cow came along in later years that pumped yet more billions into federal coffers: Alberta oil revenues.
That would be from Conservative Alberta where a Liberal couldn't get elected even if he handed out $1000 bills for each vote.
The same Alberta that Liberals have now targeted for major sacrifice on their holy altar of Kyoto to buy votes in all the usual places out east.
I was never a fan of Mulroney, and voted Reform/CA/CPC ever since '88.
But credit where credit is due.
MissPete, you don't get it. The CEO analogy doesn't fly. If there was a private company that had as much debt, and as big an operating deficit as Canada did in 1984, it would be GUARANTEED to go insolvent. Investors would've fled such a company a long time before, only leaving shareholders who bought high and therefore had nothing to gain by selling.
But a national government is different. It can always print more money to pay its debts, or it can default on those debts, both with horrible consequences. Mulroney saved Canada from that fate.
I wonder if you'd give Mulroney the credit were he to have run in 1993 and won? Because if he had run and won, he would've slayed the deficit within the same timeframe as what Chretien did. You fail to recall all the efforts of the Mulroney administration to make the issue of the deficit and debt front and centre in Canadians' minds. Remember the Debt Clock? The Tories paid heavily for laying the groundwork for getting Canadians prepared for the deficit fight ahead. This is something the Liberals would and will never do: spend political capital doing the right thing for Canada, but which could potentially hurt their own electoral chances.
Then, with Manning's Reform as their principal opposition, Chretien/Martin were provided additional cover to go ahead and tackle the deficit. And even then, it took them awhile! The 1994 budget was basically a status quo budget, that didn't take the issue of the deficit seriously. Only the Mexican Peso crisis of that year got the Liberals to pay attention. And surveying that the two centre-right parties were in a to-the-death struggle, and wouldn't be uniting anytime soon, gave them even more leeway.
I shudder to think what Chretien would've done if he were faced with a united Conservative opposition. I fear he would've just kept on, business as usual, not wanting to hurt his chances. Let's remember, even with the divided right, that he only scored a bare majority in the 1997 election. With a united right, that would've definitely been a minority.
If the price for putting Canada's deficit nightmare to bed was to have Canada's conservative forces divided for all of Chretien's term, then I'd willingly pay it again.
But don't for a second believe that Chretien would've lifted a finger if it could've at all cost him the big chair.
Let's remember one of Chretien's slogans on the 1993 campaign trail, in response to the "Zero in Three" policy (zero deficit in 3 years) of the Reform party:
"Zero deficit ... equals zero hope!!!"
Yeah, that sounds like an awowed deficit fighter, doesn't it?
MissPete, I'm sure you don't recall those campaigns, as you couldn't yet vote. But check Wiki for notes on them, ok?
MississaugaPeter:
Keep digging that hole deeper, my friend.
Chretien inherited the loan. He could have ignored the interest like his predecessor. He didn't. He paid the interest. And started to pay down the principal. Chretien did what Mulroney didn't.
Gawd, do you have any clue as to HOW Chretien paid it down? Off-loading to provinces, and revenue from a booming economy - made so from Mulroney's NAFTA, and GST revenues.
You can live in your own dream world, but pretty well any impartial economist or political historian you could find (and I've found several for you already) would laugh you out of the room.
If Chretien was in power today, he would still be trying to pay down that debt. He would not be using annual budget surpluses to buy voters with their own money.
If Chretien were still in power today, I suspect his gangland-style extortion would have progressed to further intimidation and perhaps bodies floating face-down in the St. Lawrence.
Not only did Chretien's predecessor raise the national debt from $130B to $450B, he set in motion the disappearance of his own party. How many seats did the PC Party get a few months after Mulroney resigned? 2
Chretien always put Canada's economy first. If his predecessor had we would not be paying $30B every year in interest payments!
This is like arguing with a 12-year old.
I'll leave you to your lies and delusions and slogans and CAPSLOCK, MissPete.
"Chretien always put Canada's economy first."
Do you think the GST is in the interest of the Canadian economy? If it isn't, why didn't Chretien scrap it? Afterall, Chretien always put Canada's economy first. Your words, not mine. So, if the GST was in the interest of the Canadian economy, and Chretien always put Canada's economy first, why did Chretien make this statement before the 1993 election?
February 11, 1993 CBC "Prime Time News"
Jean Chretien
"Our objective is very clear-that the GST be replaced by a system which generates equivalent revenues. There's no misinterpretation there.... I say we replace the tax. This is a commitment. You will judge me by that. If the GST is not gone, I will have a tough time, the election after that. It's the only specific promise that I'm making very clear, and it is going, it's gone."
A bit of a paradox, no? How can a man who always puts Canada's economy first have two directly opposing positions on one of the most significant tax changes in recent memory?
Anonymous,
When Chretien became PM, the country was running an annual deficit of $42B, much of which was interest for a national debt that had rose from $130B to $450B during Mulroney's 2 terms.
Chretien had to make some difficult decisions once in office. I am sure one of the most difficult was not fulfilling his promise to scrap the GST. He did the right thing and did not scrap it. He did some other things to increase revenues and decrease expenses. And today Canada is the envy of the G7 with the lowest per capita debt and lowest debt to GDP ratio.
Broken promises, Shawinigate, Adscam, unfortunately are what many people remember Chretien for. But these were minor compared to the greater good that he did by not only paying interest payments on his predecessor's debts, but also paying down the principal.
Broken promises, Shawinigate, Adscam, didn't directly hurt me and most Canadians. Having to pay taxes, which $30B annually go towards paying a national debt that was 2/3 accumulated during Mulroney's 9 years, hurts me and every Canadian.
"Chretien had to make some difficult decisions once in office."
And Mulroney didn't? Free trade, the GST, Meech Lake and Charlottetown, privatization of Crown corporations were all simple decisions that everyone agreed with?
"Having to pay taxes, which $30B annually go towards paying a national debt that was 2/3 accumulated during Mulroney's 9 years, hurts me and every Canadian."
What do you think that money was for? It went to all those social programs that you claimed Chretien didn't hurt by cutting their funding. I have to admit to enjoy reading your posts since you've essentially been arguing that Chretien was the greatest because he was the most ruthless, cold-hearted conservative to run the country in decades. Arguably, he was.
Anonymous,
Where did I write:
"you claimed Chretien didn't hurt (programs) by cutting their funding."
Chretien made some bold decisions that Mulroney should have. Instead, Mulroney ignored interest payments and moved up the national debt from $130B to $450B in 9 years.
YES, CHRETIEN WAS MORE FISCALLY CONSCIOUS THAN MULRONEY. Chretien realized and did something about the deep hole his predecessor dug for Canada the decade prior to his election as PM. He realized, like any one in real world, that interest payments need to paid!
"Where did I write: ..."
Re-read your very first post on this thread. You state it in no uncertain terms.
As for the rest of the debate, I generally agree with your Chretien position (minus the view of it being spectacular). As for your criticism of Mulroney's deficit financing, I have to agree with you as well. It was out of control. But I tend to think it was a product of his time. In 1990, Ontario elected the NDP to a majority government. This hardly sounds to me like a population that was willing to support widespread cuts to social programs. However, that is a debate for another thread. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
I agree with Anonymous, I did write:
"And he did it without hurting Canada's social programs..."
That statement was incorrect.
MissPete, Mulroney didn't make hard spending decisions? Don't you know that spending in Canada was at 24% of GDP when Mulroney came to power? And that, when he left, it was 16%? That's a 33% decrease in the level of spending-to-GDP. Chretien lowered it as well during his term, about another quarter.
I agree he could've done more, but to lay the blame for the increase in the debt during Mulroney's term is just plain stupid and juvenile. To steal from one of Andrew's other posts, you're basically blaming Mulroney for not being able to flap his arms and fly to the moon!
No one, I repeat no one, could've avoided adding to the debt in a big way given Canada's fiscal situation circa 1984. But Mulroney's twin policies of the GST and the Free Trade deal put Canada on the path to its current prosperity. Free Trade is the last momentous act to have transpired in Canadian politics. And the GST is probably the most significant tax policy in Canada's recent history. Both, as you say, cost Mulroney and his coaltion bigtime. But unlike you, I regard that as the consequences for doing right by Canada.
Certainly Chretien, the self-styled "street fighter", would never have had the balls to bring forward either of Mulroney's twin achievements. And why? Because, even with a divided right, he would've worried about it hurting his chances at re-election.
And that's why Chretien's legacy, if there is much of one, is that he slayed the deficit by basically sticking to the gameplan left by Mulroney! That probably starches Chretien's shorts every day!!!