Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, Stephen Harper is not Canada's greatest prime minister. But, I'd suggest, neither is he the worst. My own feeling is that history will judge him as "just another Canadian PM."
His anti-crime, no more "faint hope clause" bill is overkill--as a colleague called it, it's the equivalent of "kill a prison guard for free" bill. But at the same time, he killed the long-gun registry, which cost Canadian taxpayers a couple of billion, pi**sed of numerous legal long-gun holders; and did, effectively, nothing to curb gun crime. Witness the population's revulsion when the RCMP went into citizen's homes in High River, Alberta and illegally seized lawful citizens' rifles and shotguns--the courts agreed that this is not how Canadian law enforcement should behave, and rightly so. The RCMP has since had to admit that it was wrong; that it contravened the Charter s. 8.
Harper doesn't believe that the CBC is a sacred cow, which accords with many Canadians who never watch CBC TV (except for hockey) or listen to CBC radio, period; but who have to pay for it though taxes. (As an aside, why can we not have a national broadcaster that appeals to the Canadian people as a whole, rather than the Toronto and Montreal elites?) But at the same time, Harper is a bland and boring economist who looks at every issue through the eyes of an economist, untrained in legal affairs. If he were a lawyer (as I am), he might see his anti-crime initiatives differently, he might see the constitutional implications differently, he might see the big picture differently.
There are other pros and cons about Harper's premiership, but in the end, he's no different from a series of middling prime ministers who came before him. Yes, they were PMs, but none of them (with the possible exception of PET in constitutional issues) "trapped" Canada on a forward course from which it could not deviate. Neither does Harper. In short, Harper is pretty middling.
Another aside: I have often said that the "idea" of Canada is bigger than any government or prime minister. This country will not fail because a government, under a prime minister, introduces a bill, or repeals a law, or does something that has the citizenry writing angry letters to the editor. We will not fail to respect our Charter (and Harper has been struck down on this a couple of times, proving that it works), we will continue to respect the philosophical construct of "rule of law," and in the end, Canada will continue. No matter who is in power, I'd suggest that none dare mess with the "idea" of Canada as a secular, free (and free-enterprise), state that stands equal to any in the world community of nations,
Good, even-handed comment. Pretty sums up my impression of Harper as well. I don't think he is some tyrannical leader simply out there to grab power. To most people, he seems like an average classic fiscal conservative, and probably won't make too much of a dent on Canada or the world in the long run.
I'm not a massive fanboy when it comes to Mulroney, but to call him the worst PM is a huge exaggeration in my opinion, especially when that a$$hole Trudeau went just before him. How anyone can hold PET in high regard (and for the avoidance of doubt, I don't know if you do and I'm not implying you do, but many Mulroney haters do hold PET in completely uncritical high esteem) is beyond me. I'll give him some credit on the Charter, but that didn't go far enough in my opinion, and it left a few too many loopholes which politicians can use to trample on the rights of the citizenry. Charter aside, though, PET was a complete disaster on several important levels.
But if you take the word 'great' in a Time magazine, Man-of-the-Year context, as referring to someone who left a distinctive imprint on Canada, then Trudeau is certainly a great Prime Minister, whether one agrees with everything he did or not. And when you look at how Mulroney was responsible for destroying the PCs at the federal level....you know, come to think of it, I actually can't say enough about how much I can't stand Lyin' Brian so I'll leave it at that.
But if you take the word 'great' in a Time magazine, Man-of-the-Year context, as referring to someone who left a distinctive imprint on Canada, then Trudeau is certainly a great Prime Minister, whether one agrees with everything he did or not. And when you look at how Mulroney was responsible for destroying the PCs at the federal level....you know, come to think of it, I actually can't say enough about how much I can't stand Lyin' Brian so I'll leave it at that.
Hitler was once Time's man of the year. Stalin was twice named man of the year by Time. Ayatollah Khomeini was also named Time's man of the year. Vladimir Putin as well. Notoriety doesn't always mean that someone should be remembered or celebrated as great.
Mulroney destroyed only the PCs. Trudeau came close to destroying the country both politically and economically. Their records aren't even remotely comparable in my estimation -- Trudeau was much worse by most metrics. PET was just another PM to me, and not the demigod which some Canadians make him out to be. Similarly, Mulroney isn't the great Satan in my eyes as some Canadians would have people believe.
Was Mulroney greasy? Yeah, he was a touch greasy, but that comes with the territory. Not that I give a rat's a$$ about such things, but he was keen on the environment, something that the kool kidz are into these days. Also, he secured free trade for Canada and he implemented the equally controversial GST, things which saved Canada's skin in the 1990s and the early 2000s as it scraped its way out of the financial black hole into which it had been plunged by Trudeau's fiscal ineptitude. Finally, he warmed up to the United States and did much to repair a relationship fractured by equal parts neglect and disdain by the Trudeau Liberals. On balance, Mulroney was a better PM than most people are willing to admit.
Hitler was once Time's man of the year. Stalin was twice named man of the year by Time. Ayatollah Khomeini was also named Time's man of the year. Vladimir Putin as well. Notoriety doesn't always mean that someone should be remembered or celebrated as great.
Mulroney destroyed only the PCs. Trudeau came close to destroying the country both politically and economically. Their records aren't even remotely comparable in my estimation -- Trudeau was much worse by most metrics. PET was just another PM to me, and not the demigod which some Canadians make him out to be. Similarly, Mulroney isn't the great Satan in my eyes as some Canadians would have people believe.
Was Mulroney greasy? Yeah, he was a touch greasy, but that comes with the territory. Not that I give a rat's a$$ about such things, but he was keen on the environment, something that the kool kidz are into these days. Also, he secured free trade for Canada and he implemented the equally controversial GST, things which saved Canada's skin in the 1990s and the early 2000s as it scraped its way out of the financial black hole into which it had been plunged by Trudeau's fiscal ineptitude. Finally, he warmed up to the United States and did much to repair a relationship fractured by equal parts neglect and disdain by the Trudeau Liberals. On balance, Mulroney was a better PM than most people are willing to admit.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the destruction of the federal PCs is one of the worst things to happen to Canada. They provided a middle-of-the-road alternative to the Liberals for the many who have never been entirely comfortable with the idea of an NDP government. We got the Reform party instead, which morphed into today's Conservatives but not before Stockwell Day made a fool out of himself and the Reform party. To get back to Harper, I think that's the reason he is such a paranoid control freak.
It will be interesting to see what happens as of tomorrow in Duffy's trial. I think he intends to bring down as many in the PM's circle as possible.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the destruction of the federal PCs is one of the worst things to happen to Canada.
I guess we'll have to do just that. I don't know how the Mulroney-inspired destruction of the federal PCs is remotely comparable to the economic disaster and the national unity mess that Trudeau left for Canadians after he was done in Ottawa. To suggest or to imply that seems rather odd to me, but we're all entitled to our opinions.
I could care less what Harper does in Canada as long as he serves Quebec. Harper has not been as bad as anticipated in this regard. Under his watch a lid has been kept on the separatist movement. He is not the evildoer that diehards brand him as.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the destruction of the federal PCs is one of the worst things to happen to Canada. They provided a middle-of-the-road alternative to the Liberals for the many who have never been entirely comfortable with the idea of an NDP government. We got the Reform party instead, which morphed into today's Conservatives but not before Stockwell Day made a fool out of himself and the Reform party. To get back to Harper, I think that's the reason he is such a paranoid control freak.
It will be interesting to see what happens as of tomorrow in Duffy's trial. I think he intends to bring down as many in the PM's circle as possible.
This trial should be interesting. Very interesting.
I agree with you point about the PC's. Our current Conservative Party has more in common with Republicans in the US than it does with Canada.
Even Pierre ( Poutine ) Polievre " Fair Elections Act " is right out the Republican handbook. He is also wanting to bring Republican ideas such as " right to work " legislation, which is simply a union busting tool.
I don't think there's any member of the Republican party that would even consider themselves remotely Monarchist. Canada has always been much more influenced in politics by regionalism than the US, where the main division until relatively recently has been north-south. Which ever party wants to gain power in Canada has to read from five or six different scripts (one for each region) yet always represent itself to media has having a unified national agenda. On the one hand this means that politics is always divisive and governance is always bogged down, on the other hand it's saved Canada from being taken over by radical ideologies (so far, at least). Trying to compare Canada's conservatives to the USA's conservatives isn't very realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci
I agree with you point about the PC's. Our current Conservative Party has more in common with Republicans in the US than it does with Canada.
This trial should be interesting. Very interesting.
I am looking forward to it too.
Quote:
Even Pierre ( Poutine ) Polievre " Fair Elections Act " is right out the Republican handbook. He is also wanting to bring Republican ideas such as " right to work " legislation, which is simply a union busting tool.
It's more than a union-busting tool (though I'm unsure how it would work that way; unions generally work under contracts that have been negotiated in accordance with labour standards legislation which is different from employment standards legislation). But if you are a non-unionized employee, it is more scary than that. In short a "right to work" law strips non-union employees of all rights they currently enjoy under Employment Standards Codes and Acts (as it would be a federal law, it would apply at the federal level, not provincially; see Constitution ss. 91-95 for what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial jurisdiction).
For those unsure of what we're talking about, a "right to work" law allows an employer to fire you for any or no reason at all, and you do not get EI. It currently exists in (IIRC) 38 states of the USA.
That's pretty unfair, and balanced in favour of the employer (IMHO). This is why Canada and its provinces have enacted legislation that attempts to "level the playing field" in negotiations regarding hiring, rights and privileges during working hours, and upon dismissal. "Right to work" legislation would repeal all those requirements; at the federal level anyway.
It's more than a union-busting tool (though I'm unsure how it would work that way; unions generally work under contracts that have been negotiated in accordance with labour standards legislation which is different from employment standards legislation). But if you are a non-unionized employee, it is more scary than that. In short a "right to work" law strips non-union employees of all rights they currently enjoy under Employment Standards Codes and Acts (as it would be a federal law, it would apply at the federal level, not provincially; see Constitution ss. 91-95 for what is federal jurisdiction and what is provincial jurisdiction).
For those unsure of what we're talking about, a "right to work" law allows an employer to fire you for any or no reason at all, and you do not get EI. It currently exists in (IIRC) 38 states of the USA.
That's pretty unfair, and balanced in favour of the employer (IMHO). This is why Canada and its provinces have enacted legislation that attempts to "level the playing field" in negotiations regarding hiring, rights and privileges during working hours, and upon dismissal. "Right to work" legislation would repeal all those requirements; at the federal level anyway.
Right to work means that you're permitted to work non-union in a union shop, and in fact there are no longer "closed shops".
Employment-at-will is the out the door for no reason at all catch phrase, but even that gets trumped in reality if your employer is of size and has specific employee policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
