Who was more effective PM: Mulroney or Chretien?

[1967100]

Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney made this country into a strong economic powerhouse at the beginning of the 21st century and will go down as two of the more effective PMs. Brian Mulroney introduced the GST in 1991, which Chretien then used to eliminate the deficit. NAFTA was signed by Mulroney in 1992, and Chretien again used it to his advantage and the period from 1993-2003 saw huge job growth and the decrease of unemployment.

Jean Chretien however was more afraid about the consitutional debates with Quebec while Mulroney tackled this issue head on with Meech and Charlottetown in 1992 (abeit unsuccessfully) Chretien's inaction have resulted in the continued existance of the Bloc anbd Parti Quebecois, both separatist parties and the continued threats of Quebec separatism after 1995 Referendum.

Who was more effective between these two men?

Edited January 18, 2008 by 1967100

[M.Dancer]

That's like asking which tastes worse, scat or dung? Or which is more serious, Mortality or Death?

[Visionseeker]

Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney made this country into a strong economic powerhouse at the beginning of the 21st century and will go down as two of the more effective PMs. Brian Mulroney introduced the GST in 1991, which Chretien then used to eliminate the deficit. NAFTA was signed by Mulroney in 1992, and Chretien again used it to his advantage and the period from 1993-2003 saw huge job growth and the decrease of unemployment.

Jean Chretien however was more afraid about the consitutional debates with Quebec while Mulroney tackled this issue head on with Meech and Charlottetown in 1992 (abeit unsuccessfully) Chretien's inaction have resulted in the continued existance of the Bloc anbd Parti Quebecois, both separatist parties and the continued threats of Quebec separatism after 1995 Referendum.

Who was more effective between these two men?

Mulroney deserves credit on foreign policy (specifically the FTA, acid rain and general trade relations with the US) and the GST.

While the FTA was as transformative as its detractors argued, the results of the transformation were ultimately a boon to the nation’s economic development. The FTA (and later NAFTA) facilitated a mass expansion of secondary and tertiary sectors of our economy for the purposes of exports. On this score, Mulroney made us a richer country.

The closer ties Mulroney forged with the US also enabled solutions to the nasty issue of acid rain and quite possibly helped to fuel environmentalism in general (though I doubt the latter was ever one of his true objectives).

The GST is another positive that came from his tenure. Though poorly sold to the public, the replacement of a hidden and convoluted sales tax with a simple fixed rate that included the ever growing service industries - and that placed most of the administrative and collection burden on businesses instead of a naturally inefficient bureaucracy – was brilliant.

But Mulroney’s tenure was ultimately a failure. His arrogance, amateurish constitutional meddling and willingness to pander to Quebec nationalists precipitated the emergence of two regionalist parties that ultimately eroded the brokerage traditions that governed national politics (and unity) in our country. Both Reform and the Bloc were born directly from Mulroney’s failure to understand that a constitution is like a fine wine: it takes a lot of time and effort before you can put it into bottle and, if you pull the cork too soon, you’re left with vinegar.

Chrétien balanced the books and won (though barely) the referendum that Mulroney caused. So history will show that he kept the country solvent, together and thereafter capable of prospering.

The GST is not what enabled Chrétien to balance the books. Rather, the dumb luck of public opinion suddenly placing debt at the top of their concerns made it possible for him to gut federal contributions to cost shared programs. Mulroney feared cutting transfers to the provinces as they could undermine buy-in for his constitutional hobbies. But Chrétien inherited a public mostly tired of constitutional issues and increasingly concerned by questions of public debt.

Chrétien was able to slew the cost-shared beast and bring federal and (indirectly) provincial spending under control. Whereas Mulroney cut federal spending marginally through decentralization and gutting the military, Chrétien simply cut hyper-spending provinces off. In cutting transfers for health, education and welfare, he put an end to the 50/50 cost shared format that saw Ottawa matching every dollar spent in such fields. That one act precipitated the end of federal deficits and forced the provinces to put their own fiscal houses in order.

Chrétien also deserves credit for winning the 1995 referendum. A referendum that was born from the unrealistic expectations Quebeckers were given by his predecessor. Granted he won by a hair. But this too is to his credit because he won against Lucien Bouchard, a Mulroney constructed charismatic, opportunistic populist who almost charmed Quebeckers into killing our county. That the little, hated (ugly) guy from Shawiningan beat the most popular and charismatic guy in the schoolyard is no small feat.

Chrétien righted the ship; and that is quite the accomplishment. We can most certainly bicker about the success of individual policies or initiatives under Chrétien, but we cannot ignore that he left the country better than he found it. Mr. Mulroney cannot claim the same.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Visionseeker

[August1991]

Jean Chretien and Brian Mulroney made this country into a strong economic powerhouse at the beginning of the 21st century and will go down as two of the more effective PMs. Brian Mulroney introduced the GST in 1991, which Chretien then used to eliminate the deficit. NAFTA was signed by Mulroney in 1992, and Chretien again used it to his advantage and the period from 1993-2003 saw huge job growth and the decrease of unemployment.

Jean Chretien however was more afraid about the consitutional debates with Quebec while Mulroney tackled this issue head on with Meech and Charlottetown in 1992 (abeit unsuccessfully) Chretien's inaction have resulted in the continued existance of the Bloc anbd Parti Quebecois, both separatist parties and the continued threats of Quebec separatism after 1995 Referendum.

IOW, Chretien did nothing but benefit from the work and political risk of Mulroney.

I'm sorry but this thread is nonsensical. Chretien was a do-nothing PM. If Chretien had a political philosophy, it was "da wait 'n see" philosophy combined with the "let's go shake some hands" philosophy. Chretien was great with school groups, preferably French immersion.

Like Trudeau, Mulroney got into politics to do something. Unlike Trudeau, Mulroney was practical and wanted to make Canada a better place to live. (Trudeau wanted to make Canadians better.)

Mulroney reformed our federal sales tax. (Politically lethal in any country, just look at the LDP in Japan.) He negotiated a better trade regime with our principal trade partner, the US. He tried to fix our crazy UIC system. And critically, he almost put Canada's federation back together after the horrible dégat of Trudeau in 1982.

In the broad sweep of Canadian history, and viewed from the perspective of 2050 or so, Mulroney made it possible for a WASP like Stephen Harper to win 10 seats in Quebec and become PM. Brian Mulroney made the Conservative Party viable in Quebec and maybe returned Canada to a two-party democracy.

Brian Mulroney was a great Canadian. Jean Chretien was just some guy who stumbled into the job and did nothing.

Chrétien also deserves credit for winning the 1995 referendum.

Whether you're a separatist or federalist, you must be joking. Edited January 18, 2008 by August1991

[Visionseeker]

Whether you're a separatist or federalist, you must be joking.

Who won, seperatists or federalists? Which camp was Chrétien in?

I love a good laugh as much as the next guy, but I fear your own sense of humour blinds you from your senses.

Chrétien and the federalists won. That's no joke.

[geoffrey]

Chrétien and the federalists won. That's no joke.

They cheated and they lied. And they still only won by .1%. That's no victory.

[Shakeyhands]

They cheated and they lied. And they still only won by .1%. That's no victory.

??? Cheated and lied? I'm not familiar with this one. Whats the background?

[DrGreenthumb]

Mulroney was the last conservative I voted for, Cretien the first Liberal. Mulroney is the worst prime minister ever, next to Harper. I wish Cretien was still prime minister with a majority govt.

[capricorn]

I wish Cretien was still prime minister with a majority govt.

Ah, yes, the good ole' days of the HRDC boondoggle, Shawinigate and Adscam. I'm melancholic just thinking about it.

[geoffrey]

??? Cheated and lied? I'm not familiar with this one. Whats the background?

Via Rail, Canada Post... how about Sponsorship?

All ways for the government to get around the spending caps placed on the sovereigntists. All bullshit and unethical. So much Federal money was spent in Quebec during the referendum and the year leading up. None of this was counted, though one could argue it should have been.

[Leafless]

Effective How?

Closed door government or better government?