Why Canada needs to be wary of President Hillary Clinton

Jeff Green | Oct 13, 2016

The noise from down south is deafening these days as Donald Trump is sinking in his own bloated ship of fools. That might all change, of course, but at this point it is unlikely and that is a good thing.

I was surprised when the tape of Trump being Trump turned into such a game changer, however.

I thought everyone knew what Trump is all about, and this would just be another bit of evidence, certainly not a game changer. At about the same time as the Trump tape was released, there was a Wiki-leaks release of emails from a senior Clinton adviser, which, it seemed to me at the time, would have done as much damage to her campaign as the Trump tape ended up doing to his.

Even though it did not it is something that we, as Canadians, need to keep in mind.

The emails were about the content of the transcripts from speeches Hillary Clinton gave to bankers from 2013 and 2015, after she resigned as secretary of state and before she became a candidate for president. Some of the revelations in the Wiki-leaks release were publicised before and during Sunday's debate, although they were overshadowed of course by the Trump tape, his reaction to it, and the subsequent implosion of the Republican Party.

One was the fact that Clinton talked approvingly about open borders for the passage of goods throughout North and South America, an idea that has been around for a long time but is always controversial during election campaigns.

The second is that she said politicians take different positions in private than in public, which to me is about as controversial as saying sea water is salty.

Two other pieces of information that have been washed away in this week's flood of controversy over all things Trump are more telling, in my view.

One is not even from the email leaks, but was already on the public record. It is that Hillary Clinton received up to $20 million in two years delivering speeches to bankers, $200,000 or more per speech.

She may have 30 years working for the public as a politician, but she certainly took care of herself in that two-year break.

But what I found really concerning is that she told those bankers that since the banks know how the banking industry works, they should be engaged to develop new banking regulations.

After the mess that came from banking de-regulation, a mess Hillary Clinton has pinned on George W. Bush and credited Barrack Obama with fixing, how could she be telling bankers they should be able to start all over again making up new rules to govern their practices?

During Sunday night's debate she said that banks have done too well during the economic recovery and working people have not benefited enough. “We need to do better,” she said.

In a month’s time, Donald Trump will be a footnote in history, and Hillary Clinton will be preparing to take power.

Which of her commitments will she honor? Those to the progressive left as represented by Bernie Sanders, whose supporters she has been courting during the campaign? Or will she honor her commitments to the bankers who paid her so well to deliver speeches two years ago?

As we are learning in Canada a year into the Justin Trudeau government as he brings in carbon taxes while approving pipelines, it is not that easy to reconcile opposing commitments.

What Hillary Clinton does in trade and financial policy when she becomes president will certainly have an impact north of the border in Canada.