Canada's Worst Prime Minister ever; Fact and Fiction

A 2012 opinion poll conducted by Angus Reid has resurfaced asking the question ; who is the worst Prime Minister in Canadian history?

The answer then was, current PM Stephen Harper.

I vehemently disagree.

Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, Martin were worse then Harper.

As usual the Liberals trusted friend Angus Reid provides the fodder to the headline.

People doing the poll have forgotten or have never had knowledge of all of the scandals and corruption under the other administrations.

I personally do not like Stephen Harper.

I did once, when he was part of the Reform party, but in my belief make no mistake Mulroney cronies are calling the shots in Ottawa today and he is just the puppet for the photo ops.

He has become one of them.

A professional bullshitter living in the fantasy world of Ottawa bureaucracy and corruption.

For him to move forward and save his legacy he must return to his Reform Party principles.

A death blow to the triple III senate (Incompetent, Ineffective, Incurable) would reposition his place in the history of his office and fulfil his promise to both backers of the Reform party and people who voted for him as a conservative.

His problems in government are current in the minds of those polled; which I believe is the root of the poor rating.

I'm sure a more current poll would undoubtedly paint Mr Harper in even a more darker light with Canadians given the economic decisions on pipelines, legislation on dealing with terrorism and post 2012 enlightenment on scandals of the senate and government decisions.
The truth be told that the glossed over fabrications of previous Prime Ministers has given them much more credit then they deserve and not of  the criticism of what they do deserve.

A peer into the past will deliver a complete opposite to what the folklore of the media would have you believe of our pat first ministers.

Take for instance Trudeau who invoked martial law under the War Measures Act in the Province of Quebec and later brought us the “Charter of Wrongs”,

Both created an alienation of Quebec with the rest of Canada. This alienation was the centrepiece of Quebec's separation sentiments creating a constitutional crisis for decades. The charter itself has put future governments in a permanent paralysis in dealing with our constitution challenges let alone the rogue rulings of a Supreme court out of control with it's own importance and out of touch with the average Canadians viewpoint.  Harper's recent controversial bill 152 is a direct result of  the Trudeau charter which limits govenment powers against what most call charter freedoms.

Also during the Trudeau years we had economic disaster capped by double digit interest rates and inflation.

His tax and spend and spend and spend, can best illustrated in an article by David Rum.

http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/history-wars-was-trudeau-a-disaster-david-frum-and-lawrence-martin-debate/

“It has taken nearly 30 years to recover after he nearly bankrupted and split up the country, writes David Frum.

By David Frum, The Ottawa Citizen, September 28, 2011
Canada today is a very successful country. It has suffered less from the  global economic crisis than any other major economy. So Canadians may be tempted to be philosophical about disasters in their own past. Hasn't it all come out  right in the end?
But I want to stress: Canada's achievement overcoming Pierre Trudeau's legacy  should not inure Canadians to how disastrous that legacy was.
Three subsequent important prime ministers — Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien  and Stephen Harper — invested their energies cleaning up the wreckage left by  Pierre Trudeau. The work has taken almost 30 years. Finally, and at long last,  nobody speculates anymore about Canada defaulting on its debt, or splitting  apart, or being isolated from all its major allies.
Yet through most of the adult lives of most people reading this, people in  Canada and outside Canada did worry about those things. And as you enjoy the  peace, stability and comparative prosperity of Canada in the 2010s, just  consider — this is how Canadians felt in the middle 1960s. Now imagine a  political leader coming along and out of ignorance and arrogance despoiling all  this success. Not because the leader faced some overwhelming crisis where it was  hard to see the right answer. But utterly unnecessarily. Out of a clear blue  sky.
Pierre Trudeau took office at a moment when commodity prices were rising  worldwide. Good policy-makers recognize that commodity prices fall as well as  rise. Yet between 1969 and 1979 — through two majority governments and one  minority — Trudeau tripled federal spending.
In 1981-'82, Canada plunged into recession, the worst since the Second World  War. Trudeau's already big deficits exploded to a point that Canada's lenders  worried about default. Trudeau's Conservative successor, Brian Mulroney,  balanced Canada's operating budget after 1984. But to squeeze out Trudeau-era  inflation, the Bank of Canada had raised real interest rates very high. Mulroney  could not keep up with the debt payments. The debt compounded, the deficits  grew, the Bank hiked rates again — and Canada toppled into an even worse  recession in 1992. Trudeau's next successors, Liberals this time, squeezed even  tighter, raising taxes, and leaving Canadians through the 1990s working harder  and harder with no real increase in their standard of living. Do Canadians  understand how many of their difficulties of the 1990s originated in the 1970s?  They should. To repay Trudeau's debt, federal governments reduced transfers to  provinces. Provinces restrained spending. And these restraints had real  consequences for real people: more months in pain for heart patients, more  months of immobility for patients awaiting hip replacements.
If Canada's health system delivers better results today than 15 years ago,  it's not because it operates more efficiently. Canada's health system delivers  better results because the reduction of Trudeau's debt burden has freed more  funds for health care spending.
Pierre Trudeau was a spending fool. He believed in a state-led economy, and  the longer he lasted in office, the more statist he became. The Foreign  Investment Review Agency was succeeded by Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was  succeeded by wage and price controls. Wage and price controls were succeeded by  the single worst economic decision of Canada's 20th century: the National Energy  Program.
The NEP tried to fix two different prices of oil, one inside Canada, one  outside. The NEP expropriated foreign oil interests without compensation. The  NEP sought to shoulder aside the historic role of the provinces as the owner and  manager of natural resources. Most other Western countries redirected themselves  toward more fiscal restraint after 1979. Counting on abundant revenues from oil,  the Trudeau government kept spending. Other Western governments began to worry  more about attracting international investment. Canada repelled investors with  arbitrary confiscations. Other Western governments recovered from the  stagflation of the 1970s by turning toward freer markets. Under the National  Energy Program, Canada was up-regulating as the U.S., Britain, and West Germany  deregulated. All of these mistakes together contributed to the extreme severity  of the 1982 recession. Every one of them was Pierre Trudeau's fault.

Paul Martin was even a worse nightmare in Canada's economic history other then Trudeau.

As per the article by Murray Dobbin, the facts speak the truth about Martin and how he sold his soul to the Bay street cronies of the Liberal Party.

http://rabble.ca/news/paul-martin-he-has-record

The Martin myth

“Conventional wisdom tells us that Paul Martin's place in history, so far, is most notable for his getting rid of the deficit. Our image: he spent most of his time as finance minister slaying the “deficit dragon.” But in fact, no finance minister in Canadian history had ever been blessed with so many large and uninterrupted budget surpluses: six to be exact, between 1997 and 2002 when he was fired. The only deficits Martin faced were in his first two full years — 1994-95 and 1995-96.
Another persistent myth is that it was Martin's huge budget cuts from 1995-97 that killed the deficit. In fact, those cuts (they represented a 40 per cent reduction in federal social program money, compared to Mulroney's 25 per cent cut) almost brought the economy to a halt. A study by CIBC-Wood Gundy concluded that Martin's cuts reduced economic growth in Canada by a huge 3.5 percentage points through 1994-1996. The resulting loss in tax revenue almost eliminated the savings gained by making the spending cuts.
The cuts combined with the zero inflation policy of the Bank of Canada to create a recession lasting much of the 1990s. Pierre Fortin, former President of the Canadian Economics Association, put the cost of the cumulative unemployment caused by the cuts and high interest rate policy at “âe¦about $400 billion in foregone national income” — equal to 30 per cent of the losses in the Great Depression.”

Martin balanced his books on the back of the poor, the unemployed, and the Provincial governments.

Safe to say the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces he imposed created some of the deficit spending and debt that some of the provinces carry still today.

His predecessor Chretien was one of the most corrupt officials we have ever had in our country's history.

Although he was officially whitewashed of any direct wrongdoing, much akin to both OJ and Michael Jackson's innocence, the facts out way the verdict.

In his book Tun's Paul sums up Chretien best:

.While the Prime Minister frantically sought a legacy - some kind of federal program or accomplishment that would cement his place in Canadian history - there were several less flattering historical footnotes and political trends for which he would long be remembered: the litany of scandals, ever-decreasing voter turnout, a stifling of political debate, the centralization of power and the trivialization of the office of the prime minister by reducing it to being the highlight of a long curriculum vitae.
...By the end of his decade-long tenure as Prime Minister it was clear that he was where he was to serve himself and his party rather than the country. Chretien, as demonstrated by the events following his departure, sought mostly to empower and enrich himself and the Liberal Party. But even with all the bumbling, duplicity, and abuse of power that was the hallmark of the Chretien Liberals for a decade, the biggest scandal to hit his government had yet to be made public.

In case you have forgotten that scandal was the Sponsorship scandal the biggest in Canada's history.

Before him we had another corrupt PM in the name of Brian Mulroney.

I don't need to say how bad he was. The defeat of Kim Campbell in 1993 was completely as a direct result of Brain Mulroney. They lost 154 seats.

Campbell who was merely a blip in the history of governments ; in my opinion would have gone on to be Canada's best Prime Minister if not for the albatross left by Mulroney cronyism and corruption.

I won't comment in this writing on the outcome of the next election, although my suspicion is that this Angus Reid's poll results that have resurfaced have more to do with influencing popular opinion today; then a true comparison of Canadian Prime Ministers.

The Liberal Party is counting on the political amnesia that we Canadians seem to have after people leave office.

The truth is like Harper all before him have suffered from the same disdain of Canadians while they were still in power.

It is as national of a pastime as hating the Toronto Maple leafs.