Prime Minister Archives - Loonie Politics

The federal election has been a busy time for anyone involved in politics, media and column writing. With the readers’ permission, I decided to have a little fun and do something different.

I used to enjoy delving into the world of creative writing. Did it a fair bit when I was in grade school and high school. In many ways, it served as an early training ground for what I currently do today.

A few weeks ago, I happened to come across an old column I wrote back in 2019. A couple of editors read it, appeared to enjoy it – but were never able to publish it. I’ve always regretted that it never saw the light of day. So, I decided to change this. I went through the original version, souped it up a bit et voilà.

May I present A Tale of Two Prime Ministers.

********************************************************

Charles Dickens’s classic novel, A Tale of Two Cities (1859). is set in London and Paris during the French Revolution. His book perfectly encapsulates this intriguing and difficult period in world history.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” the author wrote in the opening paragraph. “[I]t was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.”

Let’s fast forward to 2025. The curtain opens for A Tale of Two Prime Ministers, a Dickensian-like story involving Jean Chretien and Stephen Harper. The revelation of their long-standing friendship surprised the general public, but not to those who already knew in private. Both men are situated in Canada, and wanted to express their views on the “best of times” and “worst of times” in U.S. President Donald Trump’s America. They see a nation where concepts such as wisdom, foolishness, incredulity, good and evil are typically associated with the eye of the beholder.

The Liberal Chretien, who was Canada’s 20th prime minister (1993-2003), had a hot-and-cold relationship with the U.S. He kept Canada out of the war in Iraq, and there were periods of anti-Americanism in his party caucus related to then-President George W. Bush’s leadership that he allowed to run its course.

Chretien expressed some frustration with the U.S during Trump’s first term. In his book, My Stories, My Times, the former PM described Trump as “fanatical” and believed Americans made a “monumental error” when they elected him in 2016. (He probably feels the same way today.)

“I fear that Hillary [Clinton]’s defeat, and the arrival of the fanatical Trump, mark the true end of the American Empire,” Chretien wrote in one chapter. “You can understand why Aline and I are so happy to have the Clintons as friends, and almost as proud to be removed as far as possible from the unspeakable Donald Trump.”

The Conservative Harper, who was Canada’s 22nd prime minister (2006-2015), had a much friendlier relationship with former Presidents Bush and Barack Obama. He observed Trump and the U.S. rather differently than his Liberal counterpart.

Harper’s book, Right Here, Right Now: Politics and Leadership in the Age of Disruption, looked at the role of conservatism and populism in the U.S. and around the world. The starting point was Trump. He had “not impressed” Harper during the GOP presidential primaries and, like others, believed it was “obvious that Trump was not really a conservative and not even a Republican.” The would-be president’s stunning victory forced the author to reevaluate the political situation. He concluded that a “large proportion of Americans, including many American conservatives, voted for Trump because they are really not doing very well…in part, because of some of the policies we conservatives have advocated,” such as globalization.

Harper’s view was to “stop obsessing about the flaws of Trump and the Brexiteers,” and for conservatives to start using certain components of “present-day populism,” which led to the former’s electoral achievements, to their political advantage. Whether Trump was a successful or unsuccessful President, the former PM believed “the issues that gave rise to his candidacy are not going away.” In particular, he advocated for conservatives to rally behind “reformed democratic capitalism,” with renewed working-class opportunity and greater community cohesion” in today’s globalist-populist age. My guess is that he holds similar sentiments during Trump’s second presidential term.

Chretien and Harper obviously had (and still have) very different political ideologies and personal world views. They examined Trump’s presidency through unique political lenses. Which of their tales seemed more logical and realistic to support in this hyper-partisan political era?

Chretien touted a typical left-leaning sentiment about Trump: I don’t like him, I hate talking about him, and he’s destroying his country. He’s therefore following some of the negative sentiments Dickens described in his book: foolishness, incredulity, Darkness, despair and evil.

In contrast, Harper touted a uniquely right-leaning sentiment about Trump: I don’t agree with him, I recognize he’s figured out something about politics and society that others missed, and I believe it would be wise for conservatives to incorporate these concepts. He’s therefore following some of the positive sentiments Dickens described in his book: wisdom, belief, Light, hope and good.

Hence, the latter tale that Harper unveiled made more sense. Present-day populism and reformed democratic capitalism may not have long-lasting appeal with the modern electorate, but it seemed to be a wiser strategy in dealing with Trumpian-style politics than Chretien’s fire-and-brimstone approach.

One wonders if the conclusion of A Tale of Two Prime Ministers will ring similar to Carton’s unspoken final thoughts in A Tale of Two Cities, “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.” All will be revealed in time, good ladies and gentlemen.

Fin.

Michael Taube, a longtime newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh signed a three-year confidence and supply agreement last March. A number of left-leaning policies, including a commitment to national dental care for low-income Canadians, a Canada Pharmacare Act and affordable housing were included in this political arrangement. For Trudeau, the primary reason was to hold on to power and protect himself from facing a vote of non-confidence in Parliament.

Yet, there’s a certain amount of irony that’s recently developed around this agreement. While the NDP is currently protecting the Liberals from losing power, one of its MPs recently presented a motion that could potentially bring them down.

Putting that scenario aside, Daniel Blaikie deserves credit for introducing this motion to the forefront. Several ideas have real merit, and deserve to be discussed and debated with a wider audience.

Blaikie, the son of late NDP MP and former provincial cabinet minister Bill Blaikie, is attempting to adjust the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. As explained on the official parliamentary website, these are the “permanent written rules under which the House of Commons regulates its proceedings. There are currently more than 150 standing orders, which provide a detailed description of the rules governing the legislative process, the role of the Speaker, the parliamentary calendar, the work of committees, and Private Members’ Business, among other things.”

The Manitoba New Democrat, who has represented his father’s old riding of Elmwood—Transcona since 2015, is seeking more clarity with respect to the confidence vote.

In his motion, M-79, it’s noted in point iv) that “the confidence convention has never been clearly codified and this has sometimes led to confusion among members and the general public as to the nature and significance of certain votes.” Hence, according to point v), “governments have sometimes abused the confidence convention to reinforce party discipline or influence the outcome of a vote that is not explicitly a matter of confidence or that would not be considered a matter of confidence by convention.”

Blaikie had a specific target in mind when he spoke with the media this week.

“The prime minister enjoys a lot of power in the Canadian system of government,” he told reporters on Monday, “but perhaps one of the most important powers that the prime minister has is the ability to dissolve or prorogue Parliament at will.”

In Blaikie’s view, “What that means is the prime minister can call an election at any time that he wants. And, at any point if he’s not happy with what’s going on in Parliament, he can he can tear up all that work, stop Parliament with a prorogation…This is something that I don’t think makes a lot of sense…because Parliament is the body that’s supposed to hold the government to account.” His motion would establish “meaningful democratic controls” around the confidence convention and remove the PM’s “unfettered” powers.

The Liberals and Conservatives likely won’t support M-79. While the two parties may privately agree with some measures, they didn’t originate with them. Plus, it would eliminate a political tool they’ve both used in previous parliamentary sessions.

Blaikie couldn’t resist temptation and injected some partisan rhetoric to this forthcoming political blockade. With respect to Pierre Poilievre, he said the Conservative leader has “a clear opportunity to go after the gatekeeping powers of the prime minister, and where is he? Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen.” That little left-wing curveball will surely eliminate any existing support within the Conservative camp.

Politics, thy name is irony.

Nevertheless, Blaikie’s motion does make a great deal of sense overall. The confidence convention has always been loosely defined and interpreted in our political process. This has raised serious questions over the years with respect to what should or shouldn’t be regarded as a matter of confidence. With an ever-changing Canadian political landscape and a significant increase in minority governments in recent federal elections, the tactic of dissolving or proroguing Parliament in times of political difficulty is hard to ignore.

Prime Ministers such as Brian Mulroney, Jean Chretien, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau have prorogued the House of Commons for different reasons. Some wanted to take short breaks from the heated political atmosphere and regroup, while others did it to protect their political hides. When prorogation used to occur, the parliamentary session ended and all existing legislation before Parliament was killed. The rules have since been adjusted, meaning most bills can now be revived from the previous session. That’s certainly more logical and even-handed.

Nevertheless, the confusion over a confidence vote still remains – and the PM maintains this crucial and questionable power.

If a New Democrat is the one who wants to establish clarity around the confidence convention, so be it. Maybe it’ll lead Singh, his party leader, to rethink his current stance about propping up the Trudeau Liberals until 2025. Doesn’t seem very likely, I readily admit, but stranger things have obviously happened.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.