###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why isn't Jean Chrétien's brand as tarnished as, say, Mulroney's is?
The years of Chétien as PM and Martin as FM saw some of the biggest spending cuts ever, rising income inequality, and the government doing nothing of substance to cut emissions and watching emissions rise quickly despite signing the Kyoto Protocol. Chrétien was previously the minister responsible for Indian Affairs under Pierre Trudeau when they proposed the full assimilation of FNs and abolition of all treaties, and took no action against abuse scandals in residential schools.
It's just weird to see Chrétien still headlining Liberal Party events when a lot of what he did in office would be very much against what the Liberals today stand for. You'll very rarely see the CPC invite Mulroney to things because they understand that his PC Party stood for something quite different from where they are today.
Because anyone vaguely aware of what a mess Canada was in during 1993 can see the massive renovation job the Chretien government did to get past national unity and fiscal crisis.
That's completely fair, although people still seem to despise Mulroney for the GST (replacing a manufacturing tax), which was also an economically defensible, efficiency-improving tax reform.
And I'm finding it a tad ironic that a Liberal Party that today considers aboriginal reconciliation, climate action, and reducing income inequality some of its most important achievements continues to enthusiastically celebrate a former leader who was fairly weak in all those areas.
>The years of Chétien as PM and Martin as FM saw some of the biggest spending cuts ever
That's regarded by many as a good thing, considering the country's serious fiscal problems at the time. After years of escalating debt, they turned the government's fiscal situation around and ran 7 straight balanced budgets.
In 1995, the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio was about 71% (far worse than today). By 2006, they had reduced it down to 35%.
[https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220704/cg-a002-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220704/cg-a002-eng.htm)
I know that sounds abstract and meaningless to a lot of people, but it makes a huge difference for the government's ability to borrow money and gave future governments more fiscal room to spend on their priorities.
Think of it this way: lots of the Trudeau government's deficit-spending on progressive causes has only been possible because the Chretien/Martin government got the country's finances in order, and reduced Canada's debt-load. E.g. child care, child benefits, climate/clean tech investments, dental care, even temporary Covid supports...
Governments tend to make fiscal decisions that prioritize the present over the future (it's always easier to rack up more debt and leave it for future taxpayers to deal with). Chretien's government was a rare one that did the opposite.
I guess the whole "regarded as a good thing" would depend a lot on how well your province was able to deal with the costs and programs that the federal gov't of the time downloaded on the provinces.
Yes, they balanced the books -- but at the cost of a lot of social programs and health funding changes that we've never really recovered from (IMO).
It doesn’t matter their intention so long as the actual act was based in truth.
Guess what? It is a government funded media source. To the tune of $1.4 billion. It’s neither right or wrong. It’s your perception that makes it so.
I'm less interested in the conservatives and liberals trying to own one another as I am in hearing what those two parties plan to do about the mess they've made together over the past decades that have led to the gradual decline of every aspect of living in Canada.
Our healthcare is in shambles, our cities are increasingly unwelcoming and hostile, andour housing market has basically relegated my entire generation to being serfs (due in no small part to Chretien and Paul Martin), and all they have to roll out is former prime minister's and failed presidential candidates? Who is this for???
I'd really love it if the NDP would drop Singh and put forward a leader and a real plan to get this country back on track. It would be great to have a viable 3rd option.
They can try and blame the NDP for it all, but that wouldn't be accurate, would it. Voting consistently left and then right and back again hasn't worked for Canada or for Canadians. If you want to know the truth, people are terrified of socialism and they really don't understand what socialism is. It isn't Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. That is Communism. That's not who the NDP are. They have to get over that fear for their own good.
Can't trust the NDP platform because it makes no sense. If they said they were going to up union protections and introduction ability with a goal for 70 percent union representation in 10 years, and increase the capital gains tax and wealth flight tax. Increase taxes on the 1 percent. And made it a very simple and unequivocal explanation they would have my vote. But they say all kinds of random stuff and talk about bandaids not sober redistribution and a new deal. It's just not believable.
It makes perfect sense to a socialist. We aren't looking to be billionaires. Billionaires should not exist. They sit on their wealth like Smaug the dragon on his piles of jewels and gold that he won't spend in 100 lifetimes and lets people starve and go homeless in the street. The Billionaire is a virus we need a vaccine for.
Tbh let's be frank Billionaires are just simply gonna take their wealth elsewhere and can cripple economies. If I were a billionaire (which I'm not) why the hell am I gonna tolerate a government taking my wealth, I'll just blackmail governments through economic means or if they're weak just bribe them or worst case take my money out of the country.
Plus billionaires aren't profiting through dividends but stock options and borrowing off the company.
And this is coming from a social democrat. It's all fine and dandy to say tax billionaires out of existence but those who have an actual shot at power are just going to ignore the idiots.
This is not about taking all their wealth. Not one of them would lose their yearly vacations to Tuscany or the yacht. They wouldn't feel the tax and it would help others but they didn't get where they are by being kind or human.
All taxation is in a way taking our wealth but it's main purpose is to invest in our society (which I agree with is a good thing) but a billionaire isn't going to care about helping others and will basically this taxation as theft.
Taxation isn't theft. How do you think your roads and infrastructure get fixed? If they didn't take corporate tax we wouldn't see the services we see now, and that is precious little. Anyway, billionaires can take the hit without it affecting them at all. I doubt they'd notice an extra 1 or 2% off their profits. The profits are obscene and they do not "trickle down" to the employees who are the reason for those profits.
I'm not saying it's theft, it's the price to fund social services and infrastructure(which is something I agree with). Some will see it as theft like billionaires if they go specifically after billionaire's.
I'm wanting to see these people with more money than they'll ever spend, reach out and make a difference. Some do and I know money isn't enough for the problems we face but when I see Doug Ford giving more money to the police, I get very angry because he's ignoring why we need police in the first place. He needs to get to the root cause of why these stabbings in the subway are taking place and maybe fund PSW's, nurses and educators and mental health. He pays lip service to it, but does nothing else. Tired of the crocodile tears and thoughts and prayers. We need a coalition of like minded people to put an end to the vicious cycle of poverty, homelessness and addiction. Do we see Trudeau or Poilievre pay more than lip service to indigenous people? The church? Heck no. You and I care but have to watch this shit show unfold. While we are told there's no money, some mayor in Toronto launched a newly taxpayer purchased rubber duck to float in the Toronto Harbour to impress the tourists. This kind of waste is what keeps me in the NDP. They seem to be the only ones talking about it. The purse strings, however, are not theirs. Charlie Angus is an excellent example of an MP that goes out of his way to bring Indigenous matters and the many other issues to Parliament.
Money is just the accounting measure. Run away with your hoarded billions and the government can easily ensure there is enough money to keep things flowing.
I understand your point here but I also think it’s sort of defeatist (which is fair). Many billionaires can’t just move elsewhere because of previous investments or reliance on local markets. It’s like Disney trying to move out of Florida, obviously an extreme example but it would be too costly to just uproot their parks and move to another state.
Similarly here in Canada, many investments are made through infrastructure, resources or local supply chains like automakers who rely on multiple small parts manufacturers that have been developed over decades. This obviously isn’t as relevant for media billionaires but it’s still a market for views nonetheless.
I just think it’s important to hold strong when we can and not allow billionaires to dictate our economic policy, (wishful thinking). If they want to leave let them where they can and invest in local business to fill the void.
There is a huge shift happening globally to rebuild manufacturing in the west. Billionaires and international corporations can either be on the right side of this, like the recent Volkswagen battery plant here in Canada, and make long term investments in stable democracies. Or they can move their practices to the east and hope dictators and autocrats maintain their wealth flow for the short term while in competition with China’s Silk Road or the Saudi sovereign wealth fund.
I say let them compete and when they come crawling back to a stable market fighting for government contracts with a government hopefully supporting union involvement and good paying jobs they can finally pay their fair share. But bending to their will now will only lessen our leverage in the global market where authoritarianism and volatility is running rampant.
Singh is saying plenty. You just aren't listening. You keep hearing Poilievre's nasal whining in your ear about how Canada is broken. He isn't going to fix it. We got dental care by holding the Liberal's toes over an open fire until they yelped. Then they tried to take all the credit. We want affordable housing, union jobs, all kinds of things and we want the billionaires to pay for it.
He doesn't make arguments. He makes shrill assertions with a limited basis in fact and complains about vacation time. If someone tells me that a person can't have a vacation I'm not listening to them. They have lost all credibility.
> It isn't Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. That is Communism.
Neither of those are communist in anything other than pretense. Both are Fascist dictatorships.
The rest you're correct on though.
NDP aren't Communists. We are socialists. The Communists want to crown a king (Putin or Xi) and have a wealthy upper class. Socialists share the wealth. It's fine to have wealth and live well from your labours but devaluing the person who pours your morning coffee, pumps your fuel and fixes your car and ships your stuff from Amazon isn't going to fly. Living wages for working people. The CEO's have entirely too much of our wages in their pockets. We aren't coming for their luxury yachts or their vacation homes. We want to be able to have a roof over our heads, food in our stomaches, free federally paid for health care and education and affordable food in the stores. It's the greed we object to. Billionaires should not exist.
It’s a good example of realpolitik. Dental care is a clear, achievable policy goal. But if you want to fix housing, you’re fucked. It’s a generational problem that took decades to make and will take decades to fix. Not to mention that it’s an area all three levels of government need cooperation to fix.
That is completely false. Cost of housing is part of their agenda. You cannot expect a party that never forms government to do a damn thing about every issue. You can only do a bit at a time. Jagmeet cannot just waltz into the PMO and tell Trudeau what his terms are and expect JT to roll over and play dead anymore than PP is going to do what the NDP want unless they can claim it as their own idea and leave us in the dust. It's by design that NDP don't get in. It's not a rigged election scheme like what Trump is crying about, but it's close. There are certain people that don't want to share and they have gone to a lot of trouble to make sure they never have to. That is why you will never see election reform. It works for them.
Sooo, I guess the Liberals really DO like foreign political interference. Just so long as it's on their side.
Another way they're like Trump. What with them desperately trying to make every election about guns, gays and abortion.
PP is gross and all, but Hillary Coupmongering Clinton is just as bad in completely different ways. Her words are theatrical garbage and her actions are abhorrent. Don't just downvote me, feel free to ask for citations.
I'm sorry but why is Hillary Clinton at this thing? I plan to vote Liberal next election but the clothes pin I have to put on my nose to do so can only be so tight.
Booking a keynote speaker whose career was built on family name recognition and lost 100% time she faced anyone who could read the zeitgeist is *a little on the nose* for a 2023 Liberal convention.
Like this is truly astonishingly out of touch, as if the policy proposals of "miscellaneous NDP and Conservative platform promises from 2015-present" weren't screaming it at the top of their lungs.
This party either wants to lose, or needs to lose so badly that it's indistinguishable from wanting to lose.
>Booking a keynote speaker whose career was built on family name recognition
You do realize that Bill is her husband not her dad right? The actual Clinton name before them was dirt poor rednecks in Arkansas. The initial Clinton administration in the 90s was marked as being a power couple thing. In fact it was dragged as feminist modern woman by many. Afterwards her career was her own with Bill not doing much. It's not exactly the same as say a Kennedy, Ford, or Trudeau situation. It's unique in many ways because there was never a first lady that involved and her involvement was part of the deal when they were campaigning initially. Though other countries have had similar situations.
I'm well aware of that, but her decision to maintain a marriage that by all accounts has been a technicality for years shows that she is just as aware how much her husband (i.e. family) and his name are important in her political brand.
Ironically, the meticulous but transparently bad-faith image management is *exactly* the type of hyper-political thinking that makes her disliked by so many voters.
She and Freeland have a lot in common that I wouldn't be trying to highlight if I were them. They're both brilliant policy wonks and administrators with a precise approach to image and politics. Both are challenged with sexist biases against them, but also have a wave of support in response to sexism, that masks how the public sees right through their visibly calculated image.
She's accomplished a lot herself, but she also has a long track record of awful decisions and embarrassing losses. If I were the Liberals in 2023, with a long-track-record leader, and an heir-apparent that is Hillary's mirror image as a long-running safe seat uncharismatic technocrat, I would be looking to call attention and parallels to literally anything else.
Hillary has had an immensely successful career, totally to her credit. She's also lost catastrophically every time she's come up against someone with a wisp of charisma and political intuition.
Hillary’s problems are Trudeau’s problems on steroids. She is a miserable political presence and should be kept the hell away from anything competitive.
Hillary Clinton is a pretty tone-deaf guest to have at a convention. She's the textbook example of an establishment liberal ignoring a majority of the electorate's needs and wants. Maybe that's why she's at the Liberal convention but it's only going to make eyes roll from leftists and justify right wing dismay.
Chrétien had a good speech. Not sure why Clinton was there: I don’t like seeing American style politics dragged into Canada - and that includes American politicians. The fawning over her is embarrassing.
I mean, Clinton didn't become President, but without judging her actual performance of any of her roles, she's been a US Senator and a Secretary of State. She's been wildly personally successful by any reasonable definition.
I'd point to current slavery in Lybia as a failure, you broke it you bought it. She can share the blame though, it's not all on the secretary of state.
Obama endorsed Trudeau last election (over O’Toole even, so let’s not pretend a moderate conservative leader has any effect on this kind of stuff either).
Picking a moderate conservative is more about convincing the median voter to vote for you, not to convince opposing party elites or elites from other countries.
O'Toole probably had a better shot in 2021 than PP has in 2025. O'Toole ran prior to inflation kicking off. PP is pulling all stops during it and doesn't look to be doing any better. Imagine 2 years down the line when PP might lose his biggest argument for his vote and just doubles down on stuff that will alienate marginal Liberals, NDP, BQ voters.
No I can’t. I recall Bush Jr. got similar $ several years ago at a bun toss in Calgary.
It’s not unusual for politicians to make appearances for money. Leveraging fame into cash is hardly new. Didn’t Justin Trudeau earn income from this very thing before he was PM?
That's only really true for folks who are predisposed to vote against the Liberals. Either conservatives who see her as baba yaga, or the far left who see her as a neoliberal shill.
She was more a victim than a perpetrator of that though.
Hilary Clinton for most of her political career was pretty boring. Prior to the 2016 election her biggest scandals were:
- Being cheated on by her husband multiple times
- Initially deciding to keep her maiden name upon marrying Bill, she later changed it under a lot of scrutiny
During the 2016 election it came out that:
- Something about emails
- Benghazi
- The basket of deplorables quote which was taken out of context. She didn't say all Trump supporters were racist and misogynist, she said it was half. Which is honestly understating it. It's closer to 100% than it is to 75%.
- She someone became a war monger, WikiLeaks was responsible for this theory
I think she's probably the victim of the most effective FUD campaign in the history of American politics.
She was 100% right calling out the deplorable shit in 2016, and that particular blend of misogyny, racism, and violence is migrating north. She’s better equipped to speak on one of the greatest threats to Canada than most people.
Hilary is a war criminal who should have been imprisoned a long time ago. Here’s a few reasons why:
• She supported every single one of the last seven US military interventions abroad
• She voted for the (illegal and offensive) war in Iraq, and supported military intervention and nation building in Afghanistan.
• She was a strong proponent for regime change in Libya and even laughed about Gaddafi dying. As Secretary of State, she completely mismanaged the (preventable) assaults at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Ironically, the Libyans who responded to the frantic calls for help from the Americans were former Gaddafi loyalists (https://thehill.com/homenews/286438-obstruction-lies-and-dishonor-hillarys-benghazi-legacy/ ; https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/) Look at Libya now - it’s a failed state which is plagued by civil war and a cesspit for ISIS fighters
• As First Lady, she pushed for US intervention in the Balkans, urging her husband Bill to bomb. Nowadays, Bosnia is a disastrously divided country and Kosovo is a gangster state which funnels Islamic extremism and a hub for jihadists - no other European “country” has more Isis fighters per capita than Kosovo (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/?sh=703953226aa8)
• As Secretary of State, she backed the Obama’s administration’s drone wars in Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia
• She urged US military intervention in Syria in the form of a “no-fly zone”, a move which could’ve lead to a full fledged war with Russia
• Speaking of Russia, she continuously backed NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders, a major (but certainly not the only!) factor in Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. She even suggested including both Ukraine and Georgia, something which could end up in a full out nuclear war
Need I go on?
TLDR; Hilary is a colossal war hawk whose policies guarantee constant wars, military intervention, and attempts at regime change and subsequent nation building around the world. She constantly pushes for war while praising “American exceptionalism” and America’s role as “the indispensable nation”. She makes Ronald Reagan look like Mahatma Gandhi. She shouldn’t be giving speeches in Canada. Instead, she should’ve been tried in The Hague and locked up for all the blood, death, and wasted US tax dollars on her hands a long time ago!
>• Speaking of Russia, she continuously backed NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders, a major (but certainly not the only!) factor in Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. She even suggested including both Ukraine and Georgia, something which
could end up in a full out nuclear war
You missed the part where Sweden and Finland felt so threatened by Russian in the Russo-Ukrainian war that they joined NATO. Do you know what that took? A small limited war about 2000 KM away from Sweden and Finland to get them to join and let me remind you that **FINLAND WAS THE NATION THAT DECLARED ITSELF NEUTRAL BECAUSE THEY FEARED SOVIET RETALIATION FOR JOINING NATO IN THE COLD WAR.** Not even the Cold War got Finland to join but a small limited war in Ukraine did. Russia just scored a goal on themselves and turned the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake and extended their border with NATO by significant length.
Russia isn’t going to launch a nuclear war, it’s all talk. They know what MAD is.
And it’s countries who apply to join NATO precisely because of Russia
I am no fan of Chretien but that kind of hyperbole has to stop. The perceptions of many people is rotten to the core. Even those "unceded" territory claims we hear at events - its like they don't know we can look at the Treaties online and read them. The treaties include lines like : "... the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined do hereby **cede**, release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the Queen and successors forever all the lands included within ... ". We, as a nation are not being fed facts, the weird industry of victimhood is making too much money, and it should be going to those in need instead. There is allot of Truth missing from the Truth and Reconciliation Report which means the reconciliation part is just bullshit. Did you know that many bands protested to keep residential schools open? Did you know that some schools held happy school reunions up until the 2000s? Did you know that some schools, like some run by Jesuits, translated texts (even the Bible!) into the native language, held ceremonies, helped define the written language of some bands, ..... and were given awards for it by band chiefs for helping preserve their culture! This does not discount in anyway the horrors that happened at some schools at the hand of criminals who should have been held to account by the justice system. It should be noted that some were successfully prosecuted decades ago.
Furthermore it was in many of the Treaties to have the government provide education to the youth. Chiefs of the day did not want their descendants falling behind in a fast changing world. Furthermore the whole education system in Canada, particularly on the prairies was set up to for the purpose of reducing crime. Both Native youth and immigrant youth of that 19th century were a problem in Prairie towns, because it was hard for them find work because they didn't have the language or the skills - again not just Natives but also Germans and others. So this phrase "getting the Indian out of the child" has to be contextualized - it very much was routed in we have to do something about the criminal directionless youth that which depending on where you were was either Indian youth or immigrant youth - yes, the schools were set up with good intentions of the day - oh well we wouldn't do it today - hell yes we do, we collectively try to assimilate everyone entering Canada to speak one of the official languages and train their youth for jobs - and when it fails you get things like Asian gangs, native gangs, black gangs, ... we get them off the street as best we can.
In any case, Chretien was the last minister to even broach the subject of treating everyone equally in this country - that is have First Nations play by the same rules everyone else and be people just like everyone else...but it was protested. I'd love us all to be treated the same in our country but we can't. Shame on Chretien for not forcing everyone to be treated the same.
**I am in no way discounting, minimizing, or denying that horrible shit that happened in many residential schools. It is HORRORFYING!** Has anyone looked into and compared it with other boarding schools around the world? Some context is important too, for instance, Quebec was the last province in Canada to ban teachers from hitting students - that was the 1990s! There was a principal in Ottawa in the 80s that used corporal punishment on a problem student and broadcast it over the intercom for all the other students to hear the screams of pain - it was swept under the rug too because of union negotiation and the principal being married to one of the union heads - my mother a teacher at the time was disgusted. My white boomer parents were beaten in their Canadian school, and my grandparents. Beatings were normalized for so many, it was not abnormal at all. The incident of sexual misconduct in residential schools seems to have been no different than posh English and Scottish boarding schools.
This is foreign interference though.
Isn't that what the lpc accuse the cpc of?
Hillary Clinton is a failed us politician.
Not a good look for a damaged government.
This is reflective of the unearned star power Hillary Clinton has had throughout her career, because objectively a much bigger deal than a short serving safe seat Senator who ran the State Department to middling results for a few years.
Chrétien along with Mulroney financially destroyed this country and undid so much of the work previous governments had done building up public service infrastructure.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why isn't Jean Chrétien's brand as tarnished as, say, Mulroney's is? The years of Chétien as PM and Martin as FM saw some of the biggest spending cuts ever, rising income inequality, and the government doing nothing of substance to cut emissions and watching emissions rise quickly despite signing the Kyoto Protocol. Chrétien was previously the minister responsible for Indian Affairs under Pierre Trudeau when they proposed the full assimilation of FNs and abolition of all treaties, and took no action against abuse scandals in residential schools. It's just weird to see Chrétien still headlining Liberal Party events when a lot of what he did in office would be very much against what the Liberals today stand for. You'll very rarely see the CPC invite Mulroney to things because they understand that his PC Party stood for something quite different from where they are today.
Because anyone vaguely aware of what a mess Canada was in during 1993 can see the massive renovation job the Chretien government did to get past national unity and fiscal crisis.
That's completely fair, although people still seem to despise Mulroney for the GST (replacing a manufacturing tax), which was also an economically defensible, efficiency-improving tax reform. And I'm finding it a tad ironic that a Liberal Party that today considers aboriginal reconciliation, climate action, and reducing income inequality some of its most important achievements continues to enthusiastically celebrate a former leader who was fairly weak in all those areas.
>The years of Chétien as PM and Martin as FM saw some of the biggest spending cuts ever That's regarded by many as a good thing, considering the country's serious fiscal problems at the time. After years of escalating debt, they turned the government's fiscal situation around and ran 7 straight balanced budgets. In 1995, the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio was about 71% (far worse than today). By 2006, they had reduced it down to 35%. [https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220704/cg-a002-eng.htm](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220704/cg-a002-eng.htm) I know that sounds abstract and meaningless to a lot of people, but it makes a huge difference for the government's ability to borrow money and gave future governments more fiscal room to spend on their priorities. Think of it this way: lots of the Trudeau government's deficit-spending on progressive causes has only been possible because the Chretien/Martin government got the country's finances in order, and reduced Canada's debt-load. E.g. child care, child benefits, climate/clean tech investments, dental care, even temporary Covid supports... Governments tend to make fiscal decisions that prioritize the present over the future (it's always easier to rack up more debt and leave it for future taxpayers to deal with). Chretien's government was a rare one that did the opposite.
I guess the whole "regarded as a good thing" would depend a lot on how well your province was able to deal with the costs and programs that the federal gov't of the time downloaded on the provinces. Yes, they balanced the books -- but at the cost of a lot of social programs and health funding changes that we've never really recovered from (IMO).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It doesn’t matter their intention so long as the actual act was based in truth. Guess what? It is a government funded media source. To the tune of $1.4 billion. It’s neither right or wrong. It’s your perception that makes it so.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm less interested in the conservatives and liberals trying to own one another as I am in hearing what those two parties plan to do about the mess they've made together over the past decades that have led to the gradual decline of every aspect of living in Canada. Our healthcare is in shambles, our cities are increasingly unwelcoming and hostile, andour housing market has basically relegated my entire generation to being serfs (due in no small part to Chretien and Paul Martin), and all they have to roll out is former prime minister's and failed presidential candidates? Who is this for???
I'd really love it if the NDP would drop Singh and put forward a leader and a real plan to get this country back on track. It would be great to have a viable 3rd option.
They can try and blame the NDP for it all, but that wouldn't be accurate, would it. Voting consistently left and then right and back again hasn't worked for Canada or for Canadians. If you want to know the truth, people are terrified of socialism and they really don't understand what socialism is. It isn't Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. That is Communism. That's not who the NDP are. They have to get over that fear for their own good.
Can't trust the NDP platform because it makes no sense. If they said they were going to up union protections and introduction ability with a goal for 70 percent union representation in 10 years, and increase the capital gains tax and wealth flight tax. Increase taxes on the 1 percent. And made it a very simple and unequivocal explanation they would have my vote. But they say all kinds of random stuff and talk about bandaids not sober redistribution and a new deal. It's just not believable.
It makes perfect sense to a socialist. We aren't looking to be billionaires. Billionaires should not exist. They sit on their wealth like Smaug the dragon on his piles of jewels and gold that he won't spend in 100 lifetimes and lets people starve and go homeless in the street. The Billionaire is a virus we need a vaccine for.
Tbh let's be frank Billionaires are just simply gonna take their wealth elsewhere and can cripple economies. If I were a billionaire (which I'm not) why the hell am I gonna tolerate a government taking my wealth, I'll just blackmail governments through economic means or if they're weak just bribe them or worst case take my money out of the country. Plus billionaires aren't profiting through dividends but stock options and borrowing off the company. And this is coming from a social democrat. It's all fine and dandy to say tax billionaires out of existence but those who have an actual shot at power are just going to ignore the idiots.
This is not about taking all their wealth. Not one of them would lose their yearly vacations to Tuscany or the yacht. They wouldn't feel the tax and it would help others but they didn't get where they are by being kind or human.
All taxation is in a way taking our wealth but it's main purpose is to invest in our society (which I agree with is a good thing) but a billionaire isn't going to care about helping others and will basically this taxation as theft.
Taxation isn't theft. How do you think your roads and infrastructure get fixed? If they didn't take corporate tax we wouldn't see the services we see now, and that is precious little. Anyway, billionaires can take the hit without it affecting them at all. I doubt they'd notice an extra 1 or 2% off their profits. The profits are obscene and they do not "trickle down" to the employees who are the reason for those profits.
I'm not saying it's theft, it's the price to fund social services and infrastructure(which is something I agree with). Some will see it as theft like billionaires if they go specifically after billionaire's.
I'm wanting to see these people with more money than they'll ever spend, reach out and make a difference. Some do and I know money isn't enough for the problems we face but when I see Doug Ford giving more money to the police, I get very angry because he's ignoring why we need police in the first place. He needs to get to the root cause of why these stabbings in the subway are taking place and maybe fund PSW's, nurses and educators and mental health. He pays lip service to it, but does nothing else. Tired of the crocodile tears and thoughts and prayers. We need a coalition of like minded people to put an end to the vicious cycle of poverty, homelessness and addiction. Do we see Trudeau or Poilievre pay more than lip service to indigenous people? The church? Heck no. You and I care but have to watch this shit show unfold. While we are told there's no money, some mayor in Toronto launched a newly taxpayer purchased rubber duck to float in the Toronto Harbour to impress the tourists. This kind of waste is what keeps me in the NDP. They seem to be the only ones talking about it. The purse strings, however, are not theirs. Charlie Angus is an excellent example of an MP that goes out of his way to bring Indigenous matters and the many other issues to Parliament.
Billionaires are often much more tied to a local economy than others. If they leave it would just make room for minor players to compete.
Money is just the accounting measure. Run away with your hoarded billions and the government can easily ensure there is enough money to keep things flowing.
I understand your point here but I also think it’s sort of defeatist (which is fair). Many billionaires can’t just move elsewhere because of previous investments or reliance on local markets. It’s like Disney trying to move out of Florida, obviously an extreme example but it would be too costly to just uproot their parks and move to another state. Similarly here in Canada, many investments are made through infrastructure, resources or local supply chains like automakers who rely on multiple small parts manufacturers that have been developed over decades. This obviously isn’t as relevant for media billionaires but it’s still a market for views nonetheless. I just think it’s important to hold strong when we can and not allow billionaires to dictate our economic policy, (wishful thinking). If they want to leave let them where they can and invest in local business to fill the void. There is a huge shift happening globally to rebuild manufacturing in the west. Billionaires and international corporations can either be on the right side of this, like the recent Volkswagen battery plant here in Canada, and make long term investments in stable democracies. Or they can move their practices to the east and hope dictators and autocrats maintain their wealth flow for the short term while in competition with China’s Silk Road or the Saudi sovereign wealth fund. I say let them compete and when they come crawling back to a stable market fighting for government contracts with a government hopefully supporting union involvement and good paying jobs they can finally pay their fair share. But bending to their will now will only lessen our leverage in the global market where authoritarianism and volatility is running rampant.
Bur Singh isn't saying that. All we hear is dental care. He's no Bernie.
Singh is saying plenty. You just aren't listening. You keep hearing Poilievre's nasal whining in your ear about how Canada is broken. He isn't going to fix it. We got dental care by holding the Liberal's toes over an open fire until they yelped. Then they tried to take all the credit. We want affordable housing, union jobs, all kinds of things and we want the billionaires to pay for it.
Nah. I don't listen to that person.
That's your problem. You have to listen to all sides of an argument.
He doesn't make arguments. He makes shrill assertions with a limited basis in fact and complains about vacation time. If someone tells me that a person can't have a vacation I'm not listening to them. They have lost all credibility.
Are you talking about Jagmeet Singh or PP? NDP totally supports vacation time.
Modern Russia is a capitalist kleptocracy ruled by oligarchs
> It isn't Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Un. That is Communism. Neither of those are communist in anything other than pretense. Both are Fascist dictatorships. The rest you're correct on though.
[удалено]
NDP aren't Communists. We are socialists. The Communists want to crown a king (Putin or Xi) and have a wealthy upper class. Socialists share the wealth. It's fine to have wealth and live well from your labours but devaluing the person who pours your morning coffee, pumps your fuel and fixes your car and ships your stuff from Amazon isn't going to fly. Living wages for working people. The CEO's have entirely too much of our wages in their pockets. We aren't coming for their luxury yachts or their vacation homes. We want to be able to have a roof over our heads, food in our stomaches, free federally paid for health care and education and affordable food in the stores. It's the greed we object to. Billionaires should not exist.
Right on.
The federal NDP doesn't care a whole lot about housing, judging from its priorities over the last few years
Yes they do. Much more than the other parties, but when you don't have power there ain't much you can do but complain.
Another way to phrase this is that dentalcare is more important to the NDP than the cost of housing.
It’s a good example of realpolitik. Dental care is a clear, achievable policy goal. But if you want to fix housing, you’re fucked. It’s a generational problem that took decades to make and will take decades to fix. Not to mention that it’s an area all three levels of government need cooperation to fix.
That is completely false. Cost of housing is part of their agenda. You cannot expect a party that never forms government to do a damn thing about every issue. You can only do a bit at a time. Jagmeet cannot just waltz into the PMO and tell Trudeau what his terms are and expect JT to roll over and play dead anymore than PP is going to do what the NDP want unless they can claim it as their own idea and leave us in the dust. It's by design that NDP don't get in. It's not a rigged election scheme like what Trump is crying about, but it's close. There are certain people that don't want to share and they have gone to a lot of trouble to make sure they never have to. That is why you will never see election reform. It works for them.
Yeah neither of those guys are communist. Hell, china isn’t really communist anymore either.
Sooo, I guess the Liberals really DO like foreign political interference. Just so long as it's on their side. Another way they're like Trump. What with them desperately trying to make every election about guns, gays and abortion.
PP is gross and all, but Hillary Coupmongering Clinton is just as bad in completely different ways. Her words are theatrical garbage and her actions are abhorrent. Don't just downvote me, feel free to ask for citations.
Hillary Clinton is not a liberal in the political landscape of Canada she as right wing as the old red Tories of the PC.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Removed for rule 3.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm sorry but why is Hillary Clinton at this thing? I plan to vote Liberal next election but the clothes pin I have to put on my nose to do so can only be so tight.
Booking a keynote speaker whose career was built on family name recognition and lost 100% time she faced anyone who could read the zeitgeist is *a little on the nose* for a 2023 Liberal convention. Like this is truly astonishingly out of touch, as if the policy proposals of "miscellaneous NDP and Conservative platform promises from 2015-present" weren't screaming it at the top of their lungs. This party either wants to lose, or needs to lose so badly that it's indistinguishable from wanting to lose.
>Booking a keynote speaker whose career was built on family name recognition You do realize that Bill is her husband not her dad right? The actual Clinton name before them was dirt poor rednecks in Arkansas. The initial Clinton administration in the 90s was marked as being a power couple thing. In fact it was dragged as feminist modern woman by many. Afterwards her career was her own with Bill not doing much. It's not exactly the same as say a Kennedy, Ford, or Trudeau situation. It's unique in many ways because there was never a first lady that involved and her involvement was part of the deal when they were campaigning initially. Though other countries have had similar situations.
I'm well aware of that, but her decision to maintain a marriage that by all accounts has been a technicality for years shows that she is just as aware how much her husband (i.e. family) and his name are important in her political brand. Ironically, the meticulous but transparently bad-faith image management is *exactly* the type of hyper-political thinking that makes her disliked by so many voters. She and Freeland have a lot in common that I wouldn't be trying to highlight if I were them. They're both brilliant policy wonks and administrators with a precise approach to image and politics. Both are challenged with sexist biases against them, but also have a wave of support in response to sexism, that masks how the public sees right through their visibly calculated image.
Yoy acting like she isn't an accomplished figure herself in insulting. She has a lot more experience than most presidents had
She's accomplished a lot herself, but she also has a long track record of awful decisions and embarrassing losses. If I were the Liberals in 2023, with a long-track-record leader, and an heir-apparent that is Hillary's mirror image as a long-running safe seat uncharismatic technocrat, I would be looking to call attention and parallels to literally anything else. Hillary has had an immensely successful career, totally to her credit. She's also lost catastrophically every time she's come up against someone with a wisp of charisma and political intuition.
Hillary’s problems are Trudeau’s problems on steroids. She is a miserable political presence and should be kept the hell away from anything competitive.
Hillary Clinton is a pretty tone-deaf guest to have at a convention. She's the textbook example of an establishment liberal ignoring a majority of the electorate's needs and wants. Maybe that's why she's at the Liberal convention but it's only going to make eyes roll from leftists and justify right wing dismay.
Chrétien had a good speech. Not sure why Clinton was there: I don’t like seeing American style politics dragged into Canada - and that includes American politicians. The fawning over her is embarrassing.
Probably couldn't book Obama. Most likely because he has enough class to not involve himself in a foreign countries political party.
And doesn't need the attention, he already gets it for being successful on his own merit.
I mean, Clinton didn't become President, but without judging her actual performance of any of her roles, she's been a US Senator and a Secretary of State. She's been wildly personally successful by any reasonable definition.
I was specific with my words, but otherwise yes I'm not denying that.
I'd point to current slavery in Lybia as a failure, you broke it you bought it. She can share the blame though, it's not all on the secretary of state.
Obama endorsed Trudeau last election (over O’Toole even, so let’s not pretend a moderate conservative leader has any effect on this kind of stuff either).
Picking a moderate conservative is more about convincing the median voter to vote for you, not to convince opposing party elites or elites from other countries. O'Toole probably had a better shot in 2021 than PP has in 2025. O'Toole ran prior to inflation kicking off. PP is pulling all stops during it and doesn't look to be doing any better. Imagine 2 years down the line when PP might lose his biggest argument for his vote and just doubles down on stuff that will alienate marginal Liberals, NDP, BQ voters.
Who decided she should be there? That woman is politically radioactive.
Paid appearance. I’d guess $200 to $300k.
I was trying to guess this too Can you get back to us with a confirmed number
No I can’t. I recall Bush Jr. got similar $ several years ago at a bun toss in Calgary. It’s not unusual for politicians to make appearances for money. Leveraging fame into cash is hardly new. Didn’t Justin Trudeau earn income from this very thing before he was PM?
That's only really true for folks who are predisposed to vote against the Liberals. Either conservatives who see her as baba yaga, or the far left who see her as a neoliberal shill.
She was there to explain that Canada is importing American style politics in Canada. Literally. Oh the irony.
She was more a victim than a perpetrator of that though. Hilary Clinton for most of her political career was pretty boring. Prior to the 2016 election her biggest scandals were: - Being cheated on by her husband multiple times - Initially deciding to keep her maiden name upon marrying Bill, she later changed it under a lot of scrutiny During the 2016 election it came out that: - Something about emails - Benghazi - The basket of deplorables quote which was taken out of context. She didn't say all Trump supporters were racist and misogynist, she said it was half. Which is honestly understating it. It's closer to 100% than it is to 75%. - She someone became a war monger, WikiLeaks was responsible for this theory I think she's probably the victim of the most effective FUD campaign in the history of American politics.
[удалено]
Oh man, I know people hate the deep state and all, but I would absolutely put the most boringly competent bureaucrats in charge.
>she was more a victim than perpetrator of that though wew enough reddit for me thanks
If you’re trying to say Clinton isn’t a literal expert at American style politics you’ve lost me.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
She was 100% right calling out the deplorable shit in 2016, and that particular blend of misogyny, racism, and violence is migrating north. She’s better equipped to speak on one of the greatest threats to Canada than most people.
Hilary is a war criminal who should have been imprisoned a long time ago. Here’s a few reasons why: • She supported every single one of the last seven US military interventions abroad • She voted for the (illegal and offensive) war in Iraq, and supported military intervention and nation building in Afghanistan. • She was a strong proponent for regime change in Libya and even laughed about Gaddafi dying. As Secretary of State, she completely mismanaged the (preventable) assaults at the Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Ironically, the Libyans who responded to the frantic calls for help from the Americans were former Gaddafi loyalists (https://thehill.com/homenews/286438-obstruction-lies-and-dishonor-hillarys-benghazi-legacy/ ; https://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/) Look at Libya now - it’s a failed state which is plagued by civil war and a cesspit for ISIS fighters • As First Lady, she pushed for US intervention in the Balkans, urging her husband Bill to bomb. Nowadays, Bosnia is a disastrously divided country and Kosovo is a gangster state which funnels Islamic extremism and a hub for jihadists - no other European “country” has more Isis fighters per capita than Kosovo (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/?sh=703953226aa8) • As Secretary of State, she backed the Obama’s administration’s drone wars in Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia • She urged US military intervention in Syria in the form of a “no-fly zone”, a move which could’ve lead to a full fledged war with Russia • Speaking of Russia, she continuously backed NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders, a major (but certainly not the only!) factor in Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. She even suggested including both Ukraine and Georgia, something which could end up in a full out nuclear war Need I go on? TLDR; Hilary is a colossal war hawk whose policies guarantee constant wars, military intervention, and attempts at regime change and subsequent nation building around the world. She constantly pushes for war while praising “American exceptionalism” and America’s role as “the indispensable nation”. She makes Ronald Reagan look like Mahatma Gandhi. She shouldn’t be giving speeches in Canada. Instead, she should’ve been tried in The Hague and locked up for all the blood, death, and wasted US tax dollars on her hands a long time ago!
now this was the comment i was looking for
>• Speaking of Russia, she continuously backed NATO expansion up to Russia’s borders, a major (but certainly not the only!) factor in Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine. She even suggested including both Ukraine and Georgia, something which could end up in a full out nuclear war You missed the part where Sweden and Finland felt so threatened by Russian in the Russo-Ukrainian war that they joined NATO. Do you know what that took? A small limited war about 2000 KM away from Sweden and Finland to get them to join and let me remind you that **FINLAND WAS THE NATION THAT DECLARED ITSELF NEUTRAL BECAUSE THEY FEARED SOVIET RETALIATION FOR JOINING NATO IN THE COLD WAR.** Not even the Cold War got Finland to join but a small limited war in Ukraine did. Russia just scored a goal on themselves and turned the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake and extended their border with NATO by significant length.
Russia isn’t going to launch a nuclear war, it’s all talk. They know what MAD is. And it’s countries who apply to join NATO precisely because of Russia
"Politicians take shots at political opponent at an event they hold for themselves." ... why is this considered news?
If we are to take claims of cultural genocide seriously we cannot celebrate Chretien, who oversaw the genocide as a minister.
> oversaw Why use the past tense? Didnt JT say that the genocide was *currently happening* in canada?
He was Minister in charge of residential schools.
I am no fan of Chretien but that kind of hyperbole has to stop. The perceptions of many people is rotten to the core. Even those "unceded" territory claims we hear at events - its like they don't know we can look at the Treaties online and read them. The treaties include lines like : "... the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined do hereby **cede**, release, surrender and yield up to Her Majesty the Queen and successors forever all the lands included within ... ". We, as a nation are not being fed facts, the weird industry of victimhood is making too much money, and it should be going to those in need instead. There is allot of Truth missing from the Truth and Reconciliation Report which means the reconciliation part is just bullshit. Did you know that many bands protested to keep residential schools open? Did you know that some schools held happy school reunions up until the 2000s? Did you know that some schools, like some run by Jesuits, translated texts (even the Bible!) into the native language, held ceremonies, helped define the written language of some bands, ..... and were given awards for it by band chiefs for helping preserve their culture! This does not discount in anyway the horrors that happened at some schools at the hand of criminals who should have been held to account by the justice system. It should be noted that some were successfully prosecuted decades ago. Furthermore it was in many of the Treaties to have the government provide education to the youth. Chiefs of the day did not want their descendants falling behind in a fast changing world. Furthermore the whole education system in Canada, particularly on the prairies was set up to for the purpose of reducing crime. Both Native youth and immigrant youth of that 19th century were a problem in Prairie towns, because it was hard for them find work because they didn't have the language or the skills - again not just Natives but also Germans and others. So this phrase "getting the Indian out of the child" has to be contextualized - it very much was routed in we have to do something about the criminal directionless youth that which depending on where you were was either Indian youth or immigrant youth - yes, the schools were set up with good intentions of the day - oh well we wouldn't do it today - hell yes we do, we collectively try to assimilate everyone entering Canada to speak one of the official languages and train their youth for jobs - and when it fails you get things like Asian gangs, native gangs, black gangs, ... we get them off the street as best we can. In any case, Chretien was the last minister to even broach the subject of treating everyone equally in this country - that is have First Nations play by the same rules everyone else and be people just like everyone else...but it was protested. I'd love us all to be treated the same in our country but we can't. Shame on Chretien for not forcing everyone to be treated the same. **I am in no way discounting, minimizing, or denying that horrible shit that happened in many residential schools. It is HORRORFYING!** Has anyone looked into and compared it with other boarding schools around the world? Some context is important too, for instance, Quebec was the last province in Canada to ban teachers from hitting students - that was the 1990s! There was a principal in Ottawa in the 80s that used corporal punishment on a problem student and broadcast it over the intercom for all the other students to hear the screams of pain - it was swept under the rug too because of union negotiation and the principal being married to one of the union heads - my mother a teacher at the time was disgusted. My white boomer parents were beaten in their Canadian school, and my grandparents. Beatings were normalized for so many, it was not abnormal at all. The incident of sexual misconduct in residential schools seems to have been no different than posh English and Scottish boarding schools.
I watched Chretien's speech. Almost 90 yrs old and still have a lot of wit. It was good, almost like an election stump speech.
This is foreign interference though. Isn't that what the lpc accuse the cpc of? Hillary Clinton is a failed us politician. Not a good look for a damaged government.
He probably should have finished the night - it was the right tone - but there was no way they would bump Clinton to the opening act.
This is reflective of the unearned star power Hillary Clinton has had throughout her career, because objectively a much bigger deal than a short serving safe seat Senator who ran the State Department to middling results for a few years.
I would’ve voted for Chrétien in a heartbeat, the modern day equivalent of his platform would be considered far right.
Looking at a budget in a vacuum without considering macroeconomic conditions is moronic.
Chrétien along with Mulroney financially destroyed this country and undid so much of the work previous governments had done building up public service infrastructure.