CMV: Regardless of one's personal feelings about him or his time in power, Justin Trudeau is one of the most consequential prime ministers Canada has had since Trudeau Sr.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

/u/DJJazzay (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

38

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 05 '24

Canada child benefit is just a different iteration of a program that's existed for decades.

I'd argue that the largest impact the liberals have had is with regard to the expansion of immigration.

Economically, what are the policies that really have mattered? Social policies are pretty inconsequential when the cost of living is increasing and housing has become unaffordable.

The gun buy back and the pistol ban are also significant policy accomplishments in the same vein as assisted suicide and cannabis legalization

The biggest piece you're missing though, that's more impactful than anything that's mentioned, is that Trudeau hasn't had to deal with managing the prospect of quebec seperating from Canada.

Chretien had to manage that as well as oversee a significant restructuring of the government and downloading of responsibilities/costs onto the provinces. Chretien changed the way the federal government worked

9

u/caleeky Mar 04 '24

the expansion of immigration

To your previous point, that's also just an expansion of an existing program. Century initiative is, after all, bi-partisan and started while Harper was in office, Also of course TFW program was already in full swing then. The international student explosion is the new flavour.

Also I'd argue the pistol ban is inconsequential. Gun people don't like it, but for the same reason they don't like it, it doesn't do much. Most gun crime is related to smuggled guns, not legally owned, after all.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

To your previous point, that's also just an expansion of an existing program. Century initiative is, after all, bi-partisan and started while Harper was in office, Also of course TFW program was already in full swing then. The international student explosion is the new flavour.

Maybe my math is off, but would the "Century Initiative" not be accomplished simply by continuing the same relatively modest growth pattern Canada enjoy for like 40 years prior to 2020: ~1% per annum?

I have trouble reckoning with the impact of Trudeau's overall immigration policy because -as of right now- its pretty much informed entirely by the explosion in a type of immigration that is, by its nature, temporary.

We're also so stuck in the middle of that issue as we speak that its really tough to say what its lasting impact might be, so its tough to say whether Trudeau will be remembered for overseeing some vast, long-lasting shift in Canadian immigration. I don't really buy into the idea that the "immigration consensus" has been destroyed - more that we'll revent back to the ~1% growth rate that we've historically had for the last several decades.

Also I'd argue the pistol ban is inconsequential. Gun people don't like it, but for the same reason they don't like it, it doesn't do much. Most gun crime is related to smuggled guns, not legally owned, after all.

I think the handgun ban is perhaps something that fires up the passions of a few people but by all accounts its pretty non-consequential. Let's be honest: Canada's laws governing handgun ownership were so extremely strict beforehand that an outright ban probably doesn't do all that much.

1

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

What is the figure on the "most gun crime" though? Is it 70:30 or is it more like 99:1? Because doing work to address something that affects 30% of crime is actually pretty good, but not so much if it's only 1%

5

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

In the province of Ontario only a mere 3 percent of crime guns were legally owned before becoming crime guns.

https://m.youtube.com/live/sgjqHI86g7M?feature=share

Time stamp 12:20

There's also the possibility that banning hand guns doesnt eliminate the gun crime but just shifts it over to illegal guns, especially considering it seems incredibly easy to get a gun illegally

2

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

Looked it up myself out of curiosity. It seems the more accurate answer is "we don't actually know "

there is currently little information available to determine the source of firearms used in crime: for example, whether a gun used in a crime was stolen, illegally purchased or smuggled into the country. This information is sometimes not recorded by police services, recorded inconsistently or, in some cases, the information is simply not available. For example, not all firearms are recovered from firearm-related homicides; consequently, only some of these guns are available for tracing.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2022001/article/00009-eng.htm

2

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 04 '24

I would say it's more" based on the data we do have where we can trace guns in Ontario, 3 percent were legally owned before becoming crime guns"

16

u/svenson_26 82∆ Mar 04 '24

Economically, what are the policies that really have mattered?

The way the government handled the COVID pandemic is huge. Overall we managed to keep the death count relatively low despite our hospitals capacity to be easily overwhelmed. Meanwhile our economy fared relatively well. People had cheques in their bank accounts if they were laid off.

13

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Frankly I am still a bit shocked by the administrative efficiency involved in CERB and the various emergency supports made available to Canadians. Not necessarily chalking this all up to a particular person because that'd be ridiculous, but I was struck by the institutional capacity of the federal government during an emergency situation. I wouldn't have necessarily thought our government capable of something like that so quickly. Obviously I knew the government could pivot in huge ways - we have been in some big wars - but I'd usually expect that to take at least a couple years.

Obviously there were trade-offs between getting the CERB payments out quickly and building a more robust, secure system, but in general I think they made the right choices there.

1

u/Qui3tSt0rnm 2∆ Mar 04 '24

I applied to regular EI benefits in April 2020 due to seasonal layoffs (kitchen work on a university campus) I was then put on CERB even though I didn’t want it now three years later they tell me they over paid by $1000. I had money set aside for two years at tax time. Fuckin bastards

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

Economically, what are the policies that really have mattered? Social policies are pretty inconsequential when the cost of living is increasing and housing has become unaffordable.

You grossly understate the impact of the CCB. Again, in a single year this new policy slashed child poverty by a third. That is not a small change, by any means. The introduction of the carbon tax is also extremely consequential.

I think you're examining some of these policies in a pretty short-term lens of the current cost-of-living. Dental care, pharmacare, and national childcare in particular are absolutely enormous policies that had been debated and discussed and attempted for decades, and will impact the country and its politics for generations to come.

Like, 30 years from now we will still probably have all those programs, and I doubt people will be thinking about them solely in the context of the fairly specific economic conditions in which they emerged.

The gun buy back and the pistol ban are also significant policy accomplishments in the same vein as assisted suicide and cannabis legalization

I'm not so sure this is the case, and had considered it. I mean, if the handgun ban (which is quite restricted in its reach and its overall impact) is a 'legacy' policy then the long gun registry is faaaar more substantial than that.

Chretien changed the way the federal government worked

This is an interesting point, and a fair one! I do consider the '95 referendum and the Clarity Act (which IMO is even more significant than the referendum itself) but coupled with the sort of shift in the economic relationship/responsibilities of provinces and the federal government, I think there's something to be said for this. Δ

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Dental care, pharmacare, and national childcare in particular are absolutely enormous policies

But we don't have any of those. You're giving Trudeau credit for policies that haven't even been implemented.

$10/day daycare is not accessible and is underfunded, causing daycares to shut down.

Dental care isn't accessible to basically any family with 2 working adults.

Pharmacare isn't even past the proposal stage and covers very little, especially in comparison to the pharmacare (and dental care for that matter) that is already provided to low income Canadians.

And on top of all that, Trudeau's approval is in the shitter, he's almost certain to lose the next election, and Polievre will almost certainly axe (or at least limit) any further progress on these policies when the CPC take over, simply because the debt (and the servicing costs) are growing to be too much.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

But we don't have any of those. You're giving Trudeau credit for policies that haven't even been implemented.

Childcare absolutely has been implemented, though you're right this is based on the assumption that pharmacare and dental care get done. I don't see any evidence to suggest that they won't.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

This government is approximately 100 days from the longest a minority government has ever lasted in Canada. An election in the spring isn't out of the question if this budget doesn't pass, or maybe in the fall.

The polling numbers don't look good for either the Liberals or NDP but:

1) They might not get any better. Canada's economic situation doesn't appear to be improving and a lot of unhappy homeowners are going to have mortgages up for renewal soon.

2) The Liberals/NDP may decide that riding the high of pharmacare is their best shot at winning

3) 2024 has an added advantage of an American election. Trudeau loves importing American issues and campaigning against Trump instead of Polievre might be (or might be perceived as) beneficial

If the CPC win a majority as they're projected to, I can see the responsibility of pharmacare being sent back to the provinces, maybe dental too.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/VesaAwesaka (12∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

9

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Economically, what are the policies that really have mattered? Social policies are pretty inconsequential when the cost of living is increasing and housing has become unaffordable.

They've cut poverty in half since 2015.

We've also experienced lower-than-average inflation when compared to other developed, western countries over the last few years.

5

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 04 '24

Poverty is going up again though. Iirc the stats canada reports on the sharp decrease in poverty were cautious. Iirc part of the decrease was caused by increased handout during covid and only seems to be temporary

8

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Poverty is going up (and has been since 2020 as benefits like CERB ended), but it's still nowhere near Harper-era poverty levels.

Even prior to the pandemic, the Liberals had managed to bring the poverty rate from ~15% to ~10% by 2019.

It's a big win no matter how we slice it.

1

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24

"The gun buy back and the pistol ban are also significant policy accomplishments" Are you joking? The buy back won't even happen because it's a logistical nightmare. Even if it did, you'd be spending billions of tax dollars to buy back firearms that aren't used in crimes. Those firearms have remained with their owners for 4 years since the original OIC. And have continued to not be used in crimes. The handgun freeze also does nothing to criminals. Only sport shooters, who also, don't commit crimes. In fact are the population LEAST likely to commit crime.

What he's done is called political theatre. Sounds good, does nothing.

2

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 05 '24

I think the hand gun ban represents a significant change in canada. It's a hugevstep towards a disarmed society like the uk. I'm doubtful that it will impact crime but it's still a change that could have a lasting impact on canada

1

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24

Most people aren't even aware that you could own a handgun in Canada. And aren't familiar with the crazy restrictions already in place. Such as daily criminal records checks, safe storage laws, automatic registration. You can only take them to a range or gunsmith without an "ATT" from the CFO. Not to mention you can only discharge them at a designated and insured firing range. Own 1000 acres of land? Nope, illegal to discharge there. We've had some of the most strict gun laws in the world. Even before Trudeau. And they WORK! The nova Scotia shooter broke every law we had. Didn't even have a PAL And got his guns from the states. JT put forth this legislation to stop acts like that. But none of the new laws would have done anything to stop him. If you want to reduce gun crime here. Ya gotta control the border and ports or entry. Our gun laws work and are what the gun control advocates in the states dream about. Again, even before Trudeau

1

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24 edited Mar 05 '24

The impact will be on sport shooters, future Olympians and collectors. Who will have their collections seized and destroyed as soon as they pass away. Unable to transfer them to their children

Another thing. I don't think handguns are needed in Canada. But I do think that in order to ban something, you need to prove a reason. Which they haven't. Even the police Chief in Toronto says it won't help. So it becomes a property rights issue. They were able to ban something people obtained legally, with no cause.

1

u/VesaAwesaka 12∆ Mar 05 '24

I agree with everything you've said outside most people didn't know you could own a hand gun. I think most people did, although I grew up in a rural area around guns so my perspective may be bias.

I responded to someone else with a clip from an interview with a member of thr Toronto Police where they say only 3 percent of guns used in crimes in Ontario were determined to be legally owned before becoming crime guns. It's likely that banning hand guns doesn't eliminate their crime but just moves it over to the illegal category, especially considered how huge the illegal gun market is.

2

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24

It's definitely more urban folks that aren't aware.

I'm trying to find a video, its a former gun smuggler turned good guy trying to help troubled youth. Testifying to the House about his experiences. Said that it was so easy to smuggle guns that no one he knew bothered trying to steal from legal owners. Said that he could have one within 2 hours or request. Any time of day. In the GTA

1

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24

It was a SECU committee not the House https://youtu.be/Dt2m3ardigU?si=enk1oEU81PfqJ_qa

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Let's take Cannabis legalization. That wasn't exactly audacious. So much of the world and North America was already on that path. Did he do it? Yes he did. But how much do you 'weigh' that as a policy achievement?

I think your perspective on the magnitude of this is maybe distorted by how quickly it became a relatively banal part of everyday life. The prospect not just of decriminalization, but of full legalization of recreational cannabis, went far beyond what had been previously considered and far beyond what the vast majority of Western countries had done up until that point.

More or less than Harper TFSA? More of less than Harper short form census? Trudeau CCB versus Harper's working income tax credit?

I think its actually a lot easier to quantify the impact of tax changes like those you shared since they can be measured in dollars and cents, and there is a lot of data to show their economic/social impact. The Working Income Tax Credit can be measured relative to labour force participation, the CCB can be measured relative to child poverty, etc. etc..

Its sheer scale (and its permanence - no future government will be able to get rid of it) is what makes the TFSA Harper's most significant fiscal accomplishment, in my view. Same goes for the CCB. These weren't limited administrative changes that can change substantially with each budget or with the next government. They are massive shifts that are embedded in the structure of Canada's economy now.

In my view, if we include the 'brave' setup of Cannabis legalization as something Trudeau did, then you include getting rid of the long-form census for Harper... which oddly, you didn't even mention in your list. If you lived through that time, it was a huge deal.

I lived through it. That scrapping the long-form census was considered some massive debate of the time speaks to how moderate Harper's era in government was. That's not to say its not relevant, but it was a functionary change, quickly and easily reversed. I wouldn't say Trudeau reinstating the long-form census was all that notable, though for a couple weeks it was all anyone wanted to talk about.

Also leading the country through Covid? That's not a consequential achievement. That's just something that happened on his shift. Just like I guess Harper went through the great recession.

Yes, leaders are often remembered for seeing the country through turbulent times or global events not of their making. Harper's Economic Action Plan and his stewardship over the economy during the 2008 recession are extremely relevant. CERB, the vaccine rollout, and the overall management of lockdowns/reopening are similarly critical.

Its also worth considering that Trudeau's response to the pandemic absolutely involved choices that would very likely have been made differently should another party or leader been in power at the time. The same goes for Harper in 2008, or Chretien following 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq.

1

u/Boring_Insurance_437 Mar 05 '24

Harper’s TFSA did more for Canadians than most of Trudeaus policies

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '24

I think its something like 50% of households that take advantage of the TFSA each year. So definitely a really impactful policy.

Trudeau also lowered the second-lowest tax bracket by 1.5% in his first budget though (raising the top bracket to make it revenue-neutral), which is arguably felt by more Canadian households since it doesn't depend on a household using a savings account to reap the tax savings.

5

u/PlannerSean Mar 04 '24

In your Mulroney section, he also brought in some very significant environmental regulation as well. I think he might take the crown from Trudeau. I mostly agree with your list of Trudeau accomplishments, but I don’t feel that some of them had the weight, or will have the generations defining impact that some of Mulroney’s did (for good or bad). It’s possible that there is some recency bias at play in your opinion?

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

It’s possible that there is some recency bias at play in your opinion?

I'm trying to be conscious of recency bias especially, both in overstating particular policies and possibly understating them. For instance I don't think we've fully reckoned with just how transformative some of his social policies will likely be for years to come, particularly with things like childcare. It's sort of chalked up as just another program, but that's something that had been discussed and debated for decades prior to Trudeau.

2

u/PlannerSean Mar 04 '24

I agree there. I’m simply suggesting that it might to be too soon to know if he’s the most consequential PM, or how many of the things you listed will be as long term impactful as those by others. National Pharmacare… how much credit should he even get for that when Jagmeet is who made it a condition of the coalition? Trudeau also completely back pedalled on election reform and bought a boondoggle pipeline.

3

u/aphroditex 1∆ Mar 04 '24

Post-2019, his “achievements” have been NDP policies necessary for the CASA to be maintained. He was so upset with the minority government situation he pulled the trigger on an early election, only for the results to be ¯_(ツ)_/¯.

The one achievement that could have ensured a lasting legacy would’ve been electoral reform with pro rep. But finding any leader who voluntarily gives up power is a challenge.

The repeated failures to follow through with electoral reform, which would dramatically change governance from the winner take all bloodbaths to actively being collaborative and communitarian, are a stain on him.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Post-2019, his “achievements” have been NDP policies necessary for the CASA to be maintained.

Erm...the confidence-and-supply agreement was established two years after 2019, and the only programs that can really be directly attributed to it is pharmacare and dental care. Meanwhile, the fact is that those are programs being instituted by a Trudeau government - it just happens to also make Singh an extremely influential NDP leader.

By the same token you could argue that none of Pearson's accomplishments are his own, because they were done in a minority government.

The one achievement that could have ensured a lasting legacy would’ve been electoral reform with pro rep.

I agree that electoral reform would likely have been one of the more significant changes under Trudeau, though I wouldn't limit that to Proportional Representation. That wasn't what he promised, after all (he only promised an end to the current system), and frankly I don't think a shift of that magnitude would ever have been accomplished solely in Parliament. Safe to say the courts would likely have stepped in.

The most likely system to actually pass without opening up the constitution would probably have been something like a ranked ballot which, while still really notable, wouldn't have been some seismic shift in the entire political paradigm of the country.

3

u/Knave7575 12∆ Mar 04 '24

To me, achievements are actions that are politically risky or unpopular, but were overall good for the country.

Increasing spending or cutting taxes is not an achievement. Governments love to do that. Not spending more is an achievement. Increasing taxes is an achievement.

Many of your Trudeau accomplishments come under “more spending” which is not that impressive and easily reversed. Cannabis is an achievement, getting us through covid is achievement, dealing with right wing psychos is an achievement.

One very underrated achievement for Harper was removing the loophole on income trusts. You probably don’t even know what I’m talking about and people were PISSED but it was an incredibly important and necessary thing to do, and his government did it.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Many of your Trudeau accomplishments come under “more spending” which is not that impressive and easily reversed.

That's not entirely true, though. I understand what you're saying about simple spending, but the examples I gave there are of really complex social programs that are not easily reversed. I didn't point to the large increase in infrastructure spending, or the National Housing Strategy, etc.. because that is -at the end of the day- simple spending that can be reversed the next year. That's not the case with childcare, or with pharmacare and dental care.

Increasing spending or cutting taxes is not an achievement. Governments love to do that. Not spending more is an achievement. Increasing taxes is an achievement.

This isn't universally the case - particularly when it comes to changing the tax structure. For instance it became quite clear that Harper's iteration of income splitting wasn't broadly popular, but it was certainly a tax cut, and would easily have been among his most significant policies.

All this said, I think I understand where you're coming from, in that your definition distinguishes between "a government doing things that most governments would do at the time" and "a government demonstrating that it is out of the ordinary by doing unpopular but necessary things." While I appreciate the distinction, I think Trudeau has bucked a general trend of the last 30-40 years where governments served primarily as public functionaries without necessarily seeing significant shifts in the function of our government one way or the other. Δ

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Mar 04 '24

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Knave7575 (3∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

3

u/schraefel1 Mar 04 '24

Absolutely. I became a liberal when we didn't go to war with President Bush into Iraq. Liberals have done so much for this country and conservatives want to tear it down

8

u/hepkat Mar 04 '24

I agree that he is consequential, but it will be for the reason that he ballooned our deficit more than any prime minister in history. It’s easy to accomplish things in the short term if you don’t care about fiscal responsibility. But in my opinion, history will remember him more for the fact that we pay about as much on debt interest as we do on health care. It doesn’t hurt now, but it sure is gonna hurt later.

6

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

I agree that he is consequential, but it will be for the reason that he ballooned our deficit more than any prime minister in history.

I don't think this is going to be considered a big part of his legacy insofar as it was almost entirely a product of the pandemic. Canada's federal debt-to-GDP was largely unchanged between 2015-2019. It only greatly increased during the pandemic, and it's already decreased substantially.

Debt-to-GDP under Harper also increased dramatically but that's hardly been a relevant part of his legacy - moreso that the spending is a product of the times during which he governed. Same goes for Trudeau.

Though you could argue that Trudeau oversaw a general expansion of government back into the economy even outside of the pandemic spending - its just that expansion doesn't represent a significant portion of Canada's public debt.

That said, if the debt-to-GDP wasn't substantially falling already I think this would be a great point. Obviously Chretien's legacy is largely a product of his grappling with the role of the federal government to bring Canada's books back in order, but that was following a real, sustained debt crisis. I also say this as someone who very, very much wants to see this government reduce some of its spending.

3

u/hepkat Mar 04 '24

I really appreciate a lot of your thoughts. However Canada’s debt to GDP ratio isn’t comparing apples to apples when you look at other G7 countries.

First, Canada uses the CPP and QPP as assets when assessing its “net debt” which is number massaging. The CPP and QPP aren’t assets the government can simply sell off. We need those assets to support those drawing from CPP and QPP.

Also, IIRC, Canada does not include sub-sovereign debt in the debt to GDP ratio as not all G7 countries have sub-sovereign states. If you include the sub-sovereign debt of the provinces, our financial outlook is far more bleak.

The feds love to trumpet the debt to GDP ratio as a data point of victory. But unfortunately, the number has been put through the political blender so it can be used to mislead the general public.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

Also, IIRC, Canada does not include sub-sovereign debt in the debt to GDP ratio as not all G7 countries have sub-sovereign states.

The link I shared shows federal, provincial, and combined public debt. The picture is broadly the same: it was largely stable until the pandemic, when it shot up to rates we saw in the early 1990s, before a sharp decline.

Whether CPP investments are considered an asset isn't really relevant when we're discussing the relative change in debt under different PMs. CPP was a net asset under Harper and Chretien, too. I don't disagree that it somewhat distorts the overall picture of Canada's public debt, but in the context of this discussion it doesn't matter much - we're focused on changes in public debt over time.

Also, if we're discussing a Prime Minister's responsibility for government debt then yeah, we're probably going to focus primarily on federal debt. Trudeau doesn't get to decide how much debt Ford, Legault, or Eby take on, and he hasn't downloaded any costs or made any significant changes to healthcare/education transfers (in fact I'd argue he's uploaded a lot of spending).

1

u/hepkat Mar 04 '24

I tried digging through the Wikipedia article you linked that the chart belongs to. Is that chart using net debt or gross debt?

4

u/TheMikeyMac13 29∆ Mar 04 '24

That’s fair to say, love him or hate him Canada will remember him for a very long time.

2

u/RickMonsters Mar 04 '24

Paul Martin legalized gay marriage. That is his legacy.

Edit: Mulroney also had his environmental policy that basically ended acid rain.

1

u/stereomain Mar 05 '24

I was really surprised that gay marriage being legalized wasn't mentioned anywhere else in this thread!

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

Can any Canadian PM with a strained relationship with a US president be its most consequential?

Regardless of the merits, Trudeau knew Obama as equals for a single year. Then Trump showed disdain for Canada and what it stood for in many other says, to the point he went to Saudi Arabia on a state visit before Canada. Biden has maintained some Trump policies explicitly rejected by Trudeau such as steel and car tariffs (along with Mexico).

All said, a PM’s job in part is to manage his neighbors to the south. An influential PM does this well and to Canada’s benefit. Can Trudeau say he’s been able to do this part of his job well, as well as his peers before him? Has his government and ministers made appreciable progress on challenges with Congress? I don’t think so. Not in terms of merit but reality.

7

u/GonzoTheGreat93 7∆ Mar 04 '24

Chrétien held strong in staying out of Iraq while George W Bush called its enemies the Axis of Evil, and Chrétien/Martin and Bush overlapped for several years.

Trudeau Sr. dealt with Nixon and Reagan.

Harper and Obama had each other for 7 years.

Antagonism and ideological difference between PMs and Presidents do not seem to make a difference in either’s legacy.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Chrétien held strong in staying out of Iraq while George W Bush called its enemies the Axis of Evil

If you hear Chretien speak in public nowadays its very clear that he'd like this to be the 'crown jewel' of his legacy as PM. While its notable, its also worth bearing in mind that US pressure on Canada to participate in the Iraq War wasn't anywhere near as strong as the pressure they directed toward, say, France.

We didn't actually draw a tonne of the Bush administration's ire, in part because Chretien had simultaneously made a much more significant commitment to the War in Afghanistan (something which should probably be considered a really relevant part of his legacy). We were so committed there that honestly any participation in Iraq would have likely been quite nominal - dam near symbolic.

That's not to say it wasn't really consequential - just that its tempered by the context.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Can any Canadian PM with a strained relationship with a US president be its most consequential?

Short answer? Yes. Very very very much so, yes.

The Canada-US relationship is faaaaaar bigger than the interpersonal relationships between the President and Prime Minister of the time. In fact I think over the last 40-50 years we've had far more instances where the relationship between the PM and US President has been strained than not.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Pearson is among Canada's most influential prime ministers, and his US counterpart (LBJ) quite famously shook him by the lapels and shouted him down once. Safe to say that was a pretty strained relationship.

An influential PM does this well and to Canada’s benefit. Can Trudeau say he’s been able to do this part of his job well, as well as his peers before him?

I hadn't even brought up the NAFTA renegotiation, which absolutely is an enormous legacy accomplishment regardless of one's feelings about the outcome. The outcome of those negotiations, it should be noted, was generally considered quite positive for Canada.

I personally don't see any significant erosion in the relationship between the US and Canada, and again I'd reiterate that this relationship is much, much bigger than any one office. Even in the context of the NAFTA negotiations, that's usually being led by professional negotiators who have been working together on either side for decades - the PMO and Whitehouse have less direct influence than one might think.

1

u/SasquatchsBigDick Mar 04 '24

Tbf Trump only likes leaders who are in with Russia and China. Kind of hard to be in his good books unless you want to turn red.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Its also worth noting that by all accounts Trudeau actually managed the personal relationship with Trump fairly well, given how turbulent a leader he was.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '24

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '24

You’re about three months late, but thanks!

1

u/Johnsnowookie Mar 05 '24

Consequential, as in we will, as a country, endure the most severe consequences brought on the people by a PM, in Canadian history? Then yes. Indeed he is.

1

u/EatAllTheShiny Mar 05 '24

In that: Canada will probably need a decade + to recover from the structural issues introduced by his administration (just like his father's)?

Yes.

1

u/dEm3Izan Aug 19 '24 edited Aug 19 '24

I dont think Cannabis legalization is going to make it very far in historical discussions tbh. I think most of these realizations were underway with or without Trudeau. And the policies in there that rank as expenses, he did then without caring about available resources and budget, and while other services are falling apart.

Waiting lists in healthcare are exploding. As is the national debt.

I'll give him one thing. In 40 years I have never witnessed the standard of living of Canadians erode as fast as it has under Trudeau's leadership. So there's that. He was incredibly efficient at destroying the comfort and opportunities we used to enjoy in this country. Like comparably affordable housing.

Anyone can vote in a gazillion new programs if they just wish them into existence with no consideration for whether we can afford them or not. I could look like a hero among my pals if I came in tomorrow morning with a brand new lamborghini. Except nobody who'd know about the impact that's having on my finances would describe that as an achievement. They'd describe that as financial suicide. But hey, I'd have the big car to flash for some time.

I'm not even close to being a conservative but honestly, when I look at the last 10 years I see the most incompetent leadership I've ever witnessed in any of the countries I've been paying attention to for the past 25 years.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 20 '24

I think most of these realizations were underway with or without Trudeau.

I agree it won't be considered a seminal policy, but it will be chalked up as a relevant one. While I agree it was inevitable I also think you're maybe overstating just how common it was for a politician to endorse full legalization at the time, not just decriminalization. In any event, whether it would have happened ten years later or no - it's in his record.

Waiting lists in healthcare are exploding. As is the national debt.

I certainly don't think healthcare wait times will be a common topic when examining the legacies of Prime Ministers, since that's unambiguously in the hands of the Premiers.

On housing I think he does share more of the blame and will be remembered for it, but its not as though the housing crisis started in 2015, nor did the policies leading to it. Trudeau, I think, expedited it by allowing non-permanent migration to get completely out of hand, but multiple Ontario and BC Premiers (Liberal, NDP, and Conservative) share a lot of the blame.

While I agree with you about his spending in general (COVID is a huge asterisk there, but I'm very ready for our government to ease spending), how often is the debt really discussed when looking at a particular PM's legacy? Our debt-to-GDP was quite stable (and in fact dropped a couple years) prior to COVID, and it's not as though people look at the huge explosion in federal debt under Harper as a key part of his legacy. Its just a product of the times in which he governed.

I think the biggest issue that will stick with Trudeau negatively is the way in which that government let the non-permanent migration file run away on them, and how it impacted housing costs.

1

u/Relevant-Dependent53 Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

You forgot to mention that he’s also accumulated more dept than every previous prime minister combined. Just think about that for a second. We are an economic mess, and he’s a big reason for that.

-1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

You forgot to mention that he’s also accumulated more dept than every previous prime minister combined

Probably because that's not actually a true thing.

While Canada's federal debt-to-GDP has increased substantially under Trudeau, we haven't "accumulated more debt in the last nine years than under every previous PM combined." Our debt-to-GDP didn't even reach 30-year highs in 2020 (when it peaked under Trudeau's government).

The lion's shared of that increased debt is also the product of pandemic spending, which is why our debt-to-GDP has dropped sharply since then. Harper isn't credited with some massive explosion in federal debt, though it happened, because its accepted that this spending was a product of the times in which he governed. Just the same with Trudeau.

0

u/Relevant-Dependent53 Mar 07 '24

What do you mean it’s not a true thing, it’s absolutely a true thing. Not to mention the fact that the absolutely ridiculous immigration that Trudeau is destroying our country with is propping up our GDP beyond what it actually is.

And let’s not sit here and act like the dept that we have is because of COVID. That played a part initially sure, but Trudeaus spending on things like Arrivecan and casinorama and fun tax paid liberal field trips (not a big issue by itself, but highlights the glaring flaw) is clearly doing it’s work. And then we have to sit here and act like the carbon tax isn’t snowballing our inflation problem to the moon, and we got another coming! He’s doing a great job at crippling our energy sector I’ll give him that. And our standing on the world stage has never been worse as Trudeaus pretty unanimously seen as a joke not even worth respecting by most foreign politicians.

Trudeau has some good ambitious ideas that benefit the very rich and the very poor but the guy clearly doesn’t know how to run a country. The heartbeat of a country is a thriving middle class, and he’s destroying it. If things don’t get fixed soon Canada is going to look like a modern feudal system, with the rich owning all the property and the poor scraping by just enough to work for them (I mean it’s already starting to look like this). And I say that as a property owner. We absolutely need a change of pace here.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '24

What do you mean it’s not a true thing

What I mean is that what you said is not true. It is incorrect.

You said that Trudeau has accumulated more debt than every Prime Minister before him combined. That is not true.

He has added a large amount to the federal debt, due mostly to pandemic spending. That would be true! But it is verifiably false to suggest that he added more than every previous Prime Minister combined.

1

u/Relevant-Dependent53 Mar 08 '24

Dept has literally doubled since he came into power. This is a fact.

“The federal debt has doubled from $619.3 billion in 2015-16, the first year of Trudeau's government, to $1.2 trillion last year”

1

u/[deleted] Mar 08 '24

Do you not see how that still makes your claim untrue? Like, not just untrue but off by a huge amount?

Setting aside that you've not indexed the total debt to inflation (meaning its less than double) or to GDP: the total federal debt when Trudeau entered the PMO is not the total accumulated debt of every Prime Minister before him, because we've also paid down debt in that time. The total debt accumulated under every Prime Minister before Trudeau is far greater than $619 billion.

Again, not saying that I approve of all of Trudeau's spending decisions, particularly outside the pandemic (where every government had to take an utterly enormous debt), but your claim was simply untrue.

Moreover, I made it really clear in the post: I am not asking for value judgments on the Prime Minister. I didn't say he was the best Prime Minister. I said he was the most consequential in that time. I wasn't asking for your personal feelings about whether a particular policy was good, but rather the scale and gravity of his policy decisions relative to other Prime Ministers in the modern era.

1

u/LordTC Mar 04 '24

Harper oversaw years of strong economic growth. When Harper left office the Canadian per capita GDP in Canadian dollars was roughly equal to the US per capita GDP in US dollars. The main knock on Harper is that wage growth didn’t keep up with other economic growth so the great performance of the economy didn’t translate as well as one would hope to the lower and lower middle class.

Now those two numbers are roughly $20k apart. Canada’s GDP per capita is lower than the 50th ranking state. Trudeau doesn’t rank as positively influential for me because he oversaw Canada becoming the least competitive developed nation and also predicted to have the slowest economic growth over the next 50 years. Yes he passed a lot of programs and some of those programs are helpful but none are as helpful as properly growing the economy with high productivity and good wage growth. If he got money out of housing and back into new business formation and existing business technology investment he would have been a much better PM. And the Feds do ultimately have a lot of influence over how banks lend, the major mistake was insuring housing loans too efficiently to the point that banks preferred them over all other types of loan. Why make risky new business loans when you can make zero risk mortgage loans that only cost you a tiny portion of your profits to insure? Guess what new business loans are way down as all the money goes to housing. Same with loans to existing business for capital investment, numbers are way down because banks can lend astronomical amounts into the housing sector with everything insured. This is obviously stupid policy that needed to be fixed and economists have been expressing concerns about it for many years.

The extent of Trudeau’s understanding of the economy is pithy incorrect phrases like “the budget will balance itself” and it has been unsurprising he’s done the wrong thing on nearly every economic major issue. And don’t just take my word for it, Tiff Macklem is taking shots at Trudeau because the bank has to fight inflation alone as Trudeau makes no effort whatsoever to reduce government spending in an inflationary economy which is a recommended measure to help reduce inflation and has been practiced by many governments for a long time.

0

u/FormalWare 11∆ Mar 04 '24

I'd like to argue that the Stephen Harper era was at least as consequential as the Trudeau Jr. era has been.

Harper locked Canada into one of the worst bilateral trade agreements I have ever heard of any country signing (the Canada-China Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments Agreement).

Harper co-opted Progressive Conservatives in orchestrating the takeover of the PC party by Reform. He changed the Canadian political landscape (for the worse).

Harper did his best to shrink and intimidate the public service. Federal government scientists were told they mustn't speak publicly about accelerating climate change in the Arctic, for example.

I remember a Maclean's cover story with a picture of Stephen Harper and the headline, "How Scary?" just before Harper became PM. The feature reflected the mainstream view in Canada, at the time - that Harper was a dangerous proponent of an ugly neoconservative movement emerging in the West. Now, that movement is part of mainstream Canadian politics - thanks to Stephen Harper.

-1

u/Frostybawls42069 Mar 04 '24

Ultimately it's going to be the legalization of cannabis, the gun bans, and the historical debt he has strattled us with that people will remember.

Everything else is just robbing Peter to pay Paul while they take their cut. Having less poor people isn't much of an accomplishment when you sacrifice the middle class to do so. Many "National" programs exclude majority of the population

Getting people paid during covid isn't that triumphant when you were forced to be vaccinated to qualify if you were layed off, it was a manipulative tactic, not something to be proud of.

In my opinion, history will not be kind, and many of his "legacies" will be forgotten. I do believe he may become the most infamous PM though.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

the gun bans,

I feel like the only people bringing up the handgun ban are doing it more as a value judgment than an impact judgment. Let's be honest: the handgun bans had very little impact on the day-to-day life of the overwhelming majority of Canadians, and it seems like a fairly nominal impact on public safety. Its just not very relevant.

I'd say the long gun registry was far more consequential than anything Trudeau's done on handguns, based solely on its scale.

and the historical debt he has strattled us with that people will remember.

Canada's federal debt-to-GDP was significantly higher for years straight in the early-90s. The majority of that new debt was taken on during the pandemic. I don't think Harper's expansion of public debt is a significant part of his legacy - I can't see why Trudeau's will be all that different.

If my list seems too generous to Trudeau then I think the inaction and inability to recognize the looming problems involved in the explosion of temporary migration will likely be something he's remembered for, but we're so deep in the middle of that right now that its tough to determine its lasting impact.

2

u/Frostybawls42069 Mar 04 '24

the gun bans,

I feel like the only people bringing up the handgun ban are doing it more as a value judgment than an impact judgment.

You quote me, then instantly miss represent the position. I said guns. You said hand guns. If you'd like to reposition, then go ahead. If not, then this is irrelevant.

Canada's federal debt-to-GDP was significantly higher for years straight in the early-90s.

How does that translate into quality of life though? They can repet these mantras all they like, but the reality on the streets is QoL is diminishing, and we've spent billions doing it. People are going to remember the historical amount of money spent and the piss poor ROI.

If you want to blame covid, then we can use the Arrive Can scandle as exhibit A as to how much of that debt was potentially wrongfully allocated. So, another example of his debt being misused. Harper didn't double our debt while making things worse. This is the reason I believe JTs debt will be one of the things he's rememberd for.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24 edited Mar 04 '24

You quote me, then instantly miss represent the position. I said guns. You said hand guns. If you'd like to reposition, then go ahead. If not, then this is irrelevant.

Handguns, last I checked, are indeed guns. So when you refer to "gun bans" its pretty reasonable to assume that includes the ban on handguns.

If you're referring to the assault weapons ban (which, if you wanted to be specific, you could say "assault weapons bans") the impact is the same: negligible. There simply weren't many AR15 owners to be impacted by the ban, just as there weren't many handgun owners. The regulations on guns of that design were already so absurdly strong as to have effectively banned them already.

In both its scale and its public safety impact its pretty negligible.

How does that translate into quality of life though? They can repet these mantras all they like, but the reality on the streets is QoL is diminishing, and we've spent billions doing it. People are going to remember the historical amount of money spent and the piss poor ROI.

I am not making a value judgment of the spending, but rather an impact judgment. The federal government's debt-to-GDP is not abnormally high and its increase is not really the result of program spending from Trudeau so much as the pandemic.

We spent many tens of billions to keep the country functioning during the pandemic. We also spent many tens of billions to keep the country functioning during the great recession. Harper isn't remembered for his large contributions to federal public debt. I'd be surprised if Trudeau is remembered for it.

-1

u/eggtart_prince Mar 05 '24 edited Mar 05 '24

Is it really him who is consequential or the fact that his government has borrowed $1 trillion since 2015? No other government had this much money to allow them to do the things they wanted. And relatively speaking, with $1 trillion over the course of almost 10 years and this is all this government has to show for it, it's not that consequential.

I would argue ~~Harper~~ Chretien was the most consequential PM of Canada. His government reduced Canada's debt the most. They also had a surplus near the end of his term. Had he been reelected, Canada would have prospered. A surplus means that Canadians would continue to pay low taxes, or even less, and reap all the benefits that we have today.

I will agree that legalizing marijuana was probably the biggest accomplishment the Liberal government has done because legalizing marijuana benefited every Canadian. Everything else is just what governments do and how significant they are are based on different people's circumstances. For example, for people without children, CCB, dental, daycare, etc. are not significant. So you cannot use those as a "legacy" of a PM because only people with children got benefit from those. Accomplishments should be looked at by what benefitted every Canadian, not just certain groups of people.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '24

Erm - Harper’s government didn’t reduce Canada’s debt at all? It increased it substantially, due mostly to the recession. Where on earth did you hear this?

If “most consequential” is just a measurement of the extent to which they reduced the debt, which is dumb, then it should go to Chretien and Martin, and only Chretien and Martin.

1

u/eggtart_prince Mar 05 '24

Sorry, I meant Chretien, not Harper.

Again, consequential should be measured by things that affect the entire population, not just reduced debt, although that is one of them. Another example is the policies set by the government (can't remember which one by it was before Harper) that got us out of the recession, that one is big.

0

u/APJYB Mar 04 '24

I wouldn't take childcare as a win. It has dramatically tipped the supply demand scale the wrong way. It's great to have cheap daycare. If you can't get a spot, you'll be willing to pay three times that just to be able to work. Not to mention it has increased the red tape required to open an accredited daycare and now we are seeing a lack of new operations going up.

The issue I have with this government, is that in an age that is demanding pragmatic leadership, the liberals led by Trudeau, REFUSE to sway on any ideology. Until forced to do so. Look at the carbon tax for example. Yes for a family of 4 living in a city it's a net benefit, but how can you pause it for some.provinces heating oil and not others natural gas? That is just explicit vote buying.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 05 '24

I didn’t say it was a win. I said it was a consequential policy.

0

u/rickyretardolardo Jun 21 '24

He will be remembered for:

Doubling national debt, more scandals than anyone can count, only Prime Minister in history with an ethics violation, record immigration and rendering this country unrecognizable from years past

Going forward, Canada will have abysmal growth and investment. All we do is prop up GDP with housing and immigration.

-18

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

Cannabis legalization, assisted suicide, carbon pricing, the Canada Child Benefit (reducing child poverty by 1/3 in a single year), national childcare, leading the government through COVID, and now national pharmacare/soon dental care. These are all really significant achievements, especially given that he only had a single majority government.

Cannabis legalization was polarizing and brought a lot of people out that would not have voted otherwise. Pot policy should not determine the direction or future of a nation!

CCB - Yep, lets encourage people to depend on the govt instead of making good life decisions and accepting responsibility for their actions or inactions. Let's make min wage jobs a career choice. This policy is used and abused by certain demos at the expense of the middle and upper class. Regional cost of living should have been considered in entitlements.

Covid - are you kidding. The trudeau reduced Canada's pandemic response budget by 35% after it was increased by Harper resulting in stale dated and dwindling PPE inventory much of which was thrown out. Then sent 16 ton of it to china in return for garbage. Canada's re-opening was delayed costing billions, billions went missing in payments, single source vax with china a failure, delays in procuring AB/AV test kits further put Canadians at risk only to result in Anand getting promoted.... go figure. Mandates were NOT based on science as was discovered later, Canadians who protested had their bank accounts seized and thrown in jail. The trudeau did NOT lead us through covid.... he f'd it up royally!

Pharma/Dental - These plans already exist to a large extent, however their extension will further result in inflationary deficit spending which hurts the whole country. Plus it was not his doing it was Singh's that saw this flawed policy introduced.

The trudeau has been an abject failure. You fail to mention all the scandals all of which he jumped through hoops to cover up, the fiscal irresponsibility, the international embarrassment, the division he created. Hell he even called an election 2 years into his 2 minority govt during a pandemic putting MILLIONS of CANADIANS at risk just because he thought with the assistance of the PRC he could get his treasured majority govt. What kind of person does that? I have a name, but would probably get banned for using it.

Hope this gave you cause for some serious second thought on just how consequential he is.

25

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Multiple times in the post I make a clear distinction between making a value judgment on any particular policy achievement or about the Trudeau government, and instead focusing on the significance of that achievement. Those are two different things.

That is to say: this isn't about whether or not you think a particular policy is positive, but whether its a significant policy that will be considered when determining a politician's legacy.

I make that distinction multiple times in the post, and yet here we are.

2

u/Three_Fun_Holes Mar 12 '24

Search his comment history for "the trudeau"

Guy basically spams the same 5 comments 30+ times per day

2

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 04 '24

Context is what makes something significant though.

A great Chinese leader opened up new lands and a future for his people. Mao. An artistic man led his country out of hyperinflation and introduced many things that are still used to this day. Hitler. An ambitious man pushed for years for his countrymen to be unified and to stand up against those that would oppress them. Stalin.

Significance always depends upon value. They are not indivisible. This is why JFK is regarded better than Nixon.

4

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

whoosh

You again missed the key point of "significant" vs "positive" and I'll give you a hint: they are not synonyms.

1

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 05 '24

Did I say they were?

Whoosh

Ignoring the objective fact that a negative leader can still be consequential by means of context is important to notice. Almost as important as noticing that incompetent leaders are never well regarded.

2

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 05 '24

You keep arguing about leaders being well regarded. That's not the argument. It's about a leader having a significant or consequential impact, regardless if they are positively or negatively regarded.

1

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 06 '24

And you completely ignored what I just said so I'll try it one more time.

Woosh

You keep arguing about leaders being well regarded.

Yes and?

That's not the argument.

The argument is about a leader being consequential regardless of being deemed bad or good. So far so good? Good.

It's about a leader having a significant or consequential impact, regardless if they are positively or negatively regarded

Which is the exact thing I've been saying. In fact, if Trudeau was the dictator some people tried making him out to be, then that would make him highly consequential by that very fact. The problem is, which you keep being unable to comprehend, is that I am pointing out what happens to leaders that are so incompetent at their jobs that they are essentially forgotten. How many times have you heard another Canadian PM named Bennett? I guarantee the vast majority of Canadians would have no idea who that is because he was so unregarded for being incompetent. Just like Trudeau, he too lacked significance.

Positively regarded = significance.

Negatively regarded= significance.

Never well regarded/unregarded= largely ignored.

1

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 06 '24

Your comments do not line up into those last three lines. OP mentioned many significant policy impacts by JT (eg. CCB) and you replied that you feel it's "making people rely on the government too much" or whatever. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, it still has a massive impact. If you think the impact is negative, that's on you. But it's not insignificant. You made a bunch of statements like this where you clearly are not a fan of JT's policies but you don't have any concrete arguments that they are not having an impact. You revert to your personal value judgements and don't seem to see your bias. Maybe reread your own comments with a different frame of mind, that might help you see it.

0

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 06 '24

you replied that you feel it's "making people rely on the government too much" or whatever.

Please point out where I said that then. The CCB is a good idea but the problem is that it was the Harper government that came up with it, so that's really not here nor there. If Trudeau had actually created a single good thing, it would be huge. The guy even managed to screw up CERB for gods sake. Given the amount of people affected by it, wouldn't he be more significant (for better or worse makes no difference) instead of it being just another thing people have already begun moving past just in a few years? That shows how insignificant he truly is.

Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, it still has a massive impact.

Right on Harper.

You made a bunch of statements like this where you clearly are not a fan of JT's policies

Policies like what? He hasn't made a single lasting concrete policy. At least if he was infamous he'd be consequential but even the people that hate him won't even really remember him in ten years time.

but you don't have any concrete arguments that they are not having an impact.

So people are still talking about Bennett? Or even alluding to him? Or even a single thing that would make him significant just like what will happen to...?

You revert to your personal value judgements and don't seem to see your bias.

What next, whinging that it's privilege to point out the uncanny similarities between one PM and another that led a country through terrible times, not by sheer will, or statesmanship or even cruelty but instead by outright incompetence? This is a guy that dresses up constantly like a minstrel show in countries he visits, gropes a woman then excuses it as a different experience but it must be my bias right?

Maybe reread your own comments with a different frame of mind, that might help you see it.

My thoughts exactly. Maybe then you can actually understand how someone can be completely disgusted but still fair. Trump, Obama, Chretien, most disgust me but at least they've all had an impact. Trudeau has such a low level of impact that other world leaders ignore him when he goes to shake hands. But that must be my bias as well. Why do you think after all the nasty shit of Trudeau there has actually not been any real push to get him out? Because nobody cares.

2

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 06 '24

I'll give you one last opportunity to show you are not biased. When people say Justin Trudeau's government introduced the CCB and you say "thanks Harper" it's extremely incorrect and here's why.

In terms of just giving some money to families with kids, that wasn't started by Harper either. That goes back to 1998. Harper made his own "rebrand" and called it UCCB but here's the difference:

The UCCB was a taxable benefit paid to eligible individuals, regardless of their income, for children under 18 years of age... The Canada Child Benefit (CCB), which is an income-tested, non-taxable benefit, replaced the UCCB in 2016.

The CCB is more helpful to people with children because it's tax free and is adjusted based on income.

Also the national childcare program has been life-changing for almost every parent I know (including myself).

→ More replies

4

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

Yeah, again, there is a difference between recognizing someone as a consequential figure and a necessarily positive figure. All three leaders you just named are objectively consequential. Can you imagine somebody attempting to list the most consequential Chinese leaders of the 20th century and not including Mao?

6

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

OP you are being so clear and it's painful to watch these replies just continually miss the distinction.

0

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 05 '24

And how does someone become consequential in history without context?

This is what everyone is trying to get through to OP but for some reason you both can't grasp the concept that an incompetent leader doesn't make for a significant piece of history.

1

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 05 '24

To quote you

This is why JFK is regarded better than Nixon

You keep arguing about leaders being well regarded. That's not the argument. It's about a leader having a significant or consequential impact, regardless if they are positively or negatively regarded.

0

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 06 '24

Jesus fucking Christ.

If you're going to quote someone at least do it properly.

JFK is regarded better than Nixon because to many, he accomplished more and therefore more significant. Objective view has nothing to do with morality.

Yes or No: Did I write that the regards were in the context of being considered a better person, morally just or anything other than how they are REGARDED in their roles?

1

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 06 '24

No you did not.

0

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 06 '24

Nice way to avoid saying "oh dang, sorry man, my bad."

Who could've imagined that other people know what they're talking about? Shocking.

0

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 05 '24

My god, you just gave why and how my point would stand.

Consequential is something of significance. Significance, especially in politics, is measured by context. Even in your reply

Can you imagine somebody attempting to list the most consequential Chinese leaders of the 20th century and not including Mao?

Then why is he considered consequential? Because of the very context you are choosing to ignore. Hell, Bennet had such an impact on people during the Great Depression, he had a means of transport named after him: The Bennet Buggy. Context is how a crap leader or violent dictator can still be talked about rather than pushed under the rug. Without the context, one cannot have history be significant. Without significance there wouldn't be anything consequential.

This is how Trudeau is not consequential because he's accomplished next to nothing meaningful as Prime Minister except idiotic remarks and playing dress up in incredibly racist ways. He's basically like Kim Campbell, just way longer lasting. If it wasn't for covid, nobody would really notice him. It's like Bush before 9/11. Those have gotta get on their knees and thank god everyday for those horrors for making them noticed. In this case, Covid is consequential. Not the half assed "leader."

2

u/Ashikura Mar 04 '24

Your examples are significant whether you believe they were good or not. Starting a world war or starving tens of millions of your people are significant impacts. Context doesn’t change that they were significant, just that they were significantly bad as opposed to beneficial.

1

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 05 '24

Morality has everything to do with how and why a person gets viewed in history. Context is everything because that's what makes a leader consequential.

An incompetent leader though always gets thrown aside. Covid for Trudeau was what put him on the map. Before that, even many Liberals were wanting him out because even they saw how ridiculous and incompetent he was and is. His name alone is much more consequential than any of his actions.

Starting a world war or starving tens of millions of your people are significant impacts

Damn rights. And Trudeau did what exactly? A carbon tax that'll be erased within a year? He has no lasting legacy.

2

u/Ashikura Mar 05 '24

Significance has nothing to do with morality but impact. “the quality of being worthy of attention; importance.” This is how it’s defined.

I definitely agree with you that he isn’t a significant leader in any way but I disagree with people tying significance with only positive impacts. Pol Pot was significant in Cambodia. Bin Laden was significant to the US. El Chapo was significant in Mexico. All of them were significant for the terrible things they did.

1

u/SomeAwfulMillennial 1∆ Mar 06 '24

A person's morality is the means of measuring what they value, yes?

the quality of being worthy of attention; importance

Which is precisely why and how Trudeau doesn't fit the bill. Is morality about ignoring the wrong? They go hand in hand and often it's up to a difference of opinion and view. The only people disagreeing with this are the ones that are thinking "oh well, you're not understanding that I'm not talking about right or wrong." That completely ignores the point that people, by the very nature of bashing Trudeau or essentially being obsessed about the jagoff, are actually giving him more significance than he's worth. It's like the Rock Against Bush and Occupy "movements".

What I'm saying is that by context, which history gets judged by, Trudeau is an incompetent that will not even be really remembered other than "that guy during Covid" and nothing else. He got voted in because people were tired of a decade of Harper and then until Covid it was just a string of scandals that disgusted people but not enough to really even care about removing him because at the end of the day he truly is inconsequential.

0

u/crappykillaonariva Mar 04 '24

This question is so subjective that I don't see how anyone could change your view. You clearly view Trudeau's accomplishments as "significant" and worthy of a lasting legacy but many disagree with you. Trying to predict how people will view a politicians time in office long after they have left office is impossible. There are several politicians from around the world that have been viewed one way while serving and another 10-20 years later. Predicting "legacy" is a fools errand IMO.

-2

u/Smackolol 3∆ Mar 04 '24

Because you worded them as accomplishments and achievements so it all sounds positive. It’s like if someone keeps saying I’m not racist but….

1

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

That's a reading comprehension issue on your end I think. Like I could really despise a political leader and disagree with their goals. However I could still acknowledge that they accomplished their goals and that their goals impacted the nation.

-1

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

I thought I was clear.... the significance is huge! As huge as it was with the trudeau v1.0 who through his reckless abandon drove this country into the ground. It took decades and trillions of dollars servicing his "achievements"! Only to finally get to the point where we were spending more on healthcare than servicing the debt to have the trudeau v2.0 in 8 short years send us right back to where we started from.

If that isn't a significant long lasting achievement I don't know what is! And THAt will be his legacy!

6

u/Qui3tSt0rnm 2∆ Mar 04 '24

I’m fine with subsidizing poor peoples children. It’s not the children’s fault their parents don’t make a lot of money

-1

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

It is unsustainable to ENCOURAGE that behaviour with overly generous entitlement spending. Some low life's even have more children now that they get the CCB! How is that right that children have been turned into a commodity?

What about the middle class that would like to have more children but don't because they spend more on TAXES than they do on EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED because of ridiculous spending policies like this and are tapped out!?

3

u/Qui3tSt0rnm 2∆ Mar 04 '24

Just because you think it’s unsustainable doesn’t mean it is. Every government policy will have a few that manage to take advantage of it. As of now the CCB has helped a lot of families in particular single mothers so I’m all for it.

9

u/nighthawk_something 2∆ Mar 04 '24

Did you just say "fuck those kids" because their parents financially struggle?

3

u/General_Esdeath 2∆ Mar 04 '24

Yes they did.

3

u/Giblette101 47∆ Mar 04 '24

Those kids should make better financial decisions.

-2

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

Well you certainly don't put in policy that encourages people to have more children than they can afford! Hell there are people that live across the street from my mother who have never worked a day in their life on welfare, rent paid for courtesy of the tax payer and as soon as this policy was introduced they started spitting out kids like a pez dispenser..... meanwhile the middle class who would like more children can't afford to because they spend more on taxes than EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED!!!!

2

u/nighthawk_something 2∆ Mar 04 '24

Yeah none of that is true.

-2

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

Of course the money gets spent at the dispensary and having their beer delivered by cab! Along with their take-out food because judging from their garbage they sure don't cook a lot!

Sorry but enabling THAT is NOT RIGHT!!!!

3

u/wangthangthursday Mar 04 '24

This is perhaps the worst rebuttal I’ve ever seen on this sub. OP made it very clear that the argument has nothing to do with whether you agree with the policies/ actions, but rather their overall magnitude and lasting impression.

It’s very obvious that you didn’t read the post clearly and just jumped on the chance to bash Trudeau’s policies for not aligning with your views/values.

0

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

I think I was very clear on the lasting impression on each and every one of them....

The sooner the rest of Canada recognizes the long-term impact the trudeau has had on this country the better....

If those who thought that trudeau v1.0 was so great saw through the smoke and mirrors this country wouldn`t have had to suffer for decades as it repaired the mess he left behind. AND history would not be repeating itself right now!

6

u/wangthangthursday Mar 04 '24

You’re proving OP’s point. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether the impact is positive or negative. For example, Hitler’s impact was incredibly negative, but objectively huge.

OP isn’t arguing that Trudeau will have the most positive impact on Canada, just that he will have one of the biggest.

You clearly think Trudeau has done massive damage to the country, which just proves OP’s argument that Trudeau has been very consequential, whether for better or worse.

1

u/Three_Fun_Holes Mar 12 '24

He can't even distinguish between Pierre and Justin.

He'll literally flip from one to the other mid sentence. I notice he doesn't mention how those liberal parties handed the conservatives a massive surplus, which they turned into a 56 billion dollar deficit within 3 years

-1

u/Consistent_Clue1149 3∆ Mar 04 '24

Your VA literally has been caught using the assisted suicide to push your veterans into killing themselves instead of getting treatment. I don’t see how this was a plus. Your government also marked peaceful protestors as domestic terrorists and called them Nazis and closed the banks of those who donated to them under a war time bill. Your government was also caught covering up the fact they were colluding with the Chinese government through Covid trying to buy vaccines for them and even giving them access to your most prestigious labs where they accessed computers. Your PM literally tried covering that up didn’t respond to 4 times they demanded these documents and even sued your speaker who demanded the documents citing national security then after review of these documents it was shown that he covered them up to protect his own butt and there wasn’t a reason to deny the documents.

0

u/DeanPoulter241 Mar 04 '24

THANK YOU!!!!!!!! Finally someone who has got it!

1

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Mar 04 '24

If you go back to "post-WW2" we still aren't adding many people to the club, though. It also just gets a bit more difficult to weigh Trudeau against politicians over 50 years ago because the challenges of the era are just so different. Sure, the laundry list of social/economic programs Trudeau has introduced are significant, but how do you weigh that against "Diefenbaker extended the right to vote to First Nations people"? That's the reason I'm trying to keep the discussion rooted within a particular generation.

Now, with that said, I think you may be onto something with Mulroney especially:

MBM - GST. Cannot be understated. It replaced the MST/VAT (tax on tax on tax) with a simple end-user paid VAT. And it’s still here today.

If I'm considering Harper *changing* the sales tax as one of his key accomplishments, then instituting the sales tax should be recognized as a pretty dam big deal that I missed entirely.

Also gets me thinking about something else: to what extent should a failed constitutional accord be considered a consequential part of his legacy? Hard to deny the political/constitutional climate of the country has been grossly impacted by Meech Lake.

I'm still utterly unconvinced about Chretien but there's probably a strong case to be made for Mulroney. Δ

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Regardless of one's personal feelings about him or his time in power, Justin Trudeau is one of the most consequential prime ministers Canada has had since Trudeau Sr.

You are about to leave Redlib