The Shotgun Blog
« Maxime Bernier on the causes and solutions to the economic crisis | Main | One concerned taxpayer's message to the Ontario PC Party »
Friday, May 22, 2009
Welcome to the club, Mr. Mulroney!
In his testimony at the Oliphant Commission, Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney claimed he was targeted “by a huge government apparatus spending unlimited sums of money to do me in.” But how much did Mulroney contribute to the big government apparatus while he was in office? In his latest column at westernstandard.ca, Pierre Lemieux examines Mulroney's track record:
Shouldn’t we give Mr. Mulroney the benefit of the doubt against the state? Yes, certainly, if we look at him as a private citizen. The catch, however, is that Mr. Mulroney was the state, or a very important part of it, from 1984 to 1993. He should be held to higher standards and more scrutiny. And it is relevant to know what he did when he was in politics: did he fight Leviathan, the growing state monster, able to crush any citizen?
He made a few steps in the right direction. His Conservative government presided over the adoption of the Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement. Keep in mind, though, that these trade agreements are often geared more to administered trade than to free trade proper. No doubt, Mr. Mulroney’s government did a few other good things, including the privatization of some Crown corporations.
Yet, Mulroney was often content to conserve the state apparatus he had inherited and leave it ready for further enhancement by his followers. This is what “conservatism” is all about. His government ceiled the growth of real federal expenditures per capita at about $6,000 (constant 1997 dollars). Yet, the following Liberal government did better by modestly reducing these expenditures. Moreover, Mulroney’s Conservatives increased real revenues per capita (mainly taxes) from about $4,000 to $5,000. More significantly perhaps, this government merely kept regulation growth constant at about 7,000 new pages per year, after boosting it from 6,000 pages.
As Lemieux points out, the Mulroney government implemented a number of policies that have been very good for the country, most notable the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. And there is little doubt in my mind that if either the Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accords had passed, many Canadians would hold him in as high a regard as Pierre Trudea.
However, his many perceived failures, including implementing the Goods and Services Tax and taking too long to repeal the National Energy Program, decimated the Conservative Party and led to a long-standing Liberal dictatorship. And, unfortunately for Canada's conservative movement, many of the criticisms leveled against the Mulroney government—including expanding the welfare state and failing to keep Canada's budget in check—are now being repeated by the Harper Conservatives.
I must also question the value of the Oliphant Commission itself. This is now nothing more than ancient history. It should be no surprise to Canadians that our politicians get involved in shady business dealings. It's certainly not worth spending millions of taxpayer dollars so media outlets like the CBC and The Toronto Star can settle their long-standing grudge with Mr. Mulroney.
Read the full article at westernstandard.ca.
Posted by Jesse Kline on May 22, 2009 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
Comments
He was superior to his predecessors and his immediate successors by a very wide margin.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 3:20:45 PM
He was the last of his line.
When Kim Campbell delivered two seats in the 1993 elections, the Reform movement started.
The Oliphant Commission really revealed nothing about what Mulroney did in his time as Prime Minister and could pin no wrongdoing on him.
Much of the media frenzy was about how he handled his business after he left office.
WTF business is it of anybody's whether Mulroney got paid in cash, why he didn't open up bank accounts or how he handled his taxes as a private citizen.
The MSM was on such a moral high horse here that it was difficult to distinguish their self-righteousness from that of the Taliban.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-05-22 4:07:55 PM
He was superior to his predecessors and his immediate successors by a very wide margin.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 3:20:45 PM
You might be right, but he will always be remembered, not as the PM who "saved" Canada, but as the person who accepted 3 envelopes stuffed with cash. And waited 5 years to mention it to the taxman, and then only after Schreiber threateaned to reveal the whole thing.
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-05-22 5:54:46 PM
WTF business is it of anybody's whether Mulroney got paid in cash, why he didn't open up bank accounts or how he handled his taxes as a private citizen.
Posted by: set you free | 2009-05-22 4:07:55 PM
Organized crime deals in such ways: cash payments, no bank accounts, no taxes.
Posted by: Nothing New Under the Sun | 2009-05-22 5:58:50 PM
"It should be no surprise to Canadians that our politicians get involved in shady business dealings. "
WTF????
How many millions of dollars were spent on Gomery and investigating Adscam? How many hundreds of times did we have to watch the insufferable indigination of this VERY website howl to the rafters about "THE LIBRANOS!!!!!"
But now that it's a Tory that's caught -- you just shrug it off... No Big Deal.
What is wrong with you people?
Seriously.
Posted by: MW | 2009-05-22 6:23:54 PM
In Mulroney's case, the system worked. He was investigated, found lacking and allowed to make amends.
In Chretien's case, he interfered with the system so as not to get caught and let someone else take the fall for Adscam.
Hence our trust.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 6:39:04 PM
So your moral judgement of these two men is based on whether or not they got caught?
Cool!
Posted by: MW | 2009-05-22 6:56:33 PM
MW,
I can't speak for Jesse, but I'm not surprised when politicians get caught doing something shady. Should they behave in that way? Of course not. Do they? All the time, and probably more than we even know.
Should they be investigated? Yes, to a point, depending on the severity of the alleged wrong-doings. I think all that Jesse was saying is that, in this case, we've probably passed the point where further investigation would be worthwhile.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-22 6:59:17 PM
I respect those who admitted responsibility for their actions, and none at all for those who corrupted the system to get away. Chretien ought to rank as the second worst PM in Canadian history. Only Trudeau - curse his name - was worse.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 7:25:59 PM
So now its GREAT to receive envelopes of cash a week or two after leaving office as a CONservative PM? And to lie under oath? AND defraud us of 2.1 million?!
And all Zebulon and their ilk can do is talk about Cretien and Trudeau?!
CONs have their values completely screwed up.
BTW, youth of today don't remember who Trudeau was. They might know Justin, but you might as well be talking about Laurier...
Posted by: ronin | 2009-05-22 8:57:57 PM
If the money paid to Mulroney was a retainer and if it was not income until he transformed it into an income stream upon the completion of his lobbying, why did he make presentations to CRA that he had undeclared income from the past and he would declare one-half of it if he got a deal under the special rules?
Mulroney did not pay GST because, he claimed, it was international income earned for lobbying the now deceased leaders of China, France and Russia. The question then begs 'Did he pay taxes to the tax authorities of China, France and Russia?'
Since he had claimed that it was not income until the expiry of his lobbying efforts, CRA should prosecute him for false representations that the money was undeclared income of the past (upon which facts the deal was made) and not earned income of the present when he 'diverted' it into his income stream upon his ceasing to lobby further.
Posted by: Navnit Shah | 2009-05-22 9:18:20 PM
The specter of Trudeau looms large. Justin would be nowhere without it. Albertans must never forget what that horrible, evil man did to us with the NEP. Quebecers must never forget what he did to them - suspend their human rights to go after some "terrorists". His real intention in each case was to intimidate and crush dissenting voices. If so, then he failed.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 9:57:12 PM
How many millions of dollars were spent on Gomery and investigating Adscam? How many hundreds of times did we have to watch the insufferable indigination of this VERY website howl to the rafters about "THE LIBRANOS!!!!!"
Exactly! Seems we have short memories doesn't it?
I really don't care whether the criminal wears a blue suit or a red suit...he's still a criminal.
Mulroney may not actually guilty (of anything they can pin on him), but they're all guilty of peddling as much influence as possible for personaal gain and ..."pull".
Don't forget to pay "your" taxes....
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-22 11:16:53 PM
"The specter of Trudeau looms large. Justin would be nowhere without it. Albertans must never forget what that horrible, evil man did to us with the NEP. Quebecers must never forget what he did to them - suspend their human rights to go after some "terrorists". His real intention in each case was to intimidate and crush dissenting voices. If so, then he failed." Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-05-22 9:57:12 PM
I repeat, old man; NOBODY UNDER 60 CARES.
Time to catch up - your boy Brian took money in envelopes, did not declare taxes on it until forced, and then scammed us for half what was due.
THEN he took 2.1 million of OUR money.
And losers like you defend him?!
And a good chunk of today's CONs think Mulroney is a 'great' man?
I tell ya - the types of criminals and liars you clowns support makes you look pretty pathetic.
Posted by: ronin | 2009-05-23 1:44:05 AM
I tell ya - the types of criminals and liars you clowns support makes you look pretty pathetic.
Posted by: ronin | 2009-05-23 1:44:05 AM
Thanks ronin, for painting everyone here with the same brush. That kind of lableing is usually attributed to a lack of considered thought.
"I repeat, old man; NOBODY UNDER 60 CARES."
I'm well under 60 and I will always be pissed about these things. Maybe you're too young to realize the real and lasting impact of those years. They effect you today.
They were criminals then, and they're criminals now. It doesn't hurt to point out history, as it seems the one thing some of us have forgotten and you haven't learned...yet. :)
Posted by: JC | 2009-05-23 12:18:35 PM
There are major differences between the Mulroney-Schreiber affair and adscam. First, adscam was far more immediate. Most of the people who had committed the wrongdoing were still in government and the balance of power in the House of Commons hinged on how much the public knew about the affair. Mulroney has been out of office for close to two decades. Todays Conservative party is very different.
Also, adscam involved an abuse of public funds. In this case, there is no evidence of an abuse of public funds or bribery. Much of what the Oliphant commission is investigating involves what Mulroney did AFTER he left office.
I am not saying that we shouldn't hold our public officials accountable. I am saying that this is ancient history and is no longer relevant. $18 million dollars is way too much to spend on this investigation. It's the commission, not Mr. Mulroney, that is wasting public money.
Posted by: Jesse Kline | 2009-05-23 1:22:45 PM
Cretien and Trudeau were the two BEST prime misters we have ever had. I'm not even a Liberal, and I still would rather have Cretien or trudeau back than any of the losers we have in government now.
Trudeau gave us the charter of rights. I can't say that I'm sorry if that makes things difficult for the fascist types on this board. You know who you are.
Posted by: DrGreenthumb | 2009-05-23 6:09:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.