One of the costs of long-tenured prime ministers is that over time there accumulates a sense of hubris and a complacency that serves the pride and ego of the leader and his cadre, but few others. This mentality is captured well by Louis St. Laurentâ€™s 1949 campaign slogan: â€œYouâ€™ve never had it so good.â€ While, at the time, St. Laurent had only been in power for a short time, his party had been in power for 13 years in a row.
Another example is Mulroneyâ€™s two kicks at the constitutional can. While the 1987 Meech Lake Accord showed fresh, albeit elitist, thinking on the constitution, the 1992 Charlottetown Accord seemed more like an act of great hubris and (and, incidentally, political suicide).
Perhaps my favourite instance of hubris and entitlement, though, is ChrÃ©tienâ€™s decision to stay through the 2000 election cycle. It was rumoured that he made this decision, in part, to spite Paul Martin, heir apparent and rival in the style of an epic melodrama reminiscent of Isaac and Ishmael. The long-suffering country returned a Liberal majority, steeped in corruption and in-fighting, and was rewarded with front-row seats to see ChrÃ©tien and Martin run the Grits into the ground.
On top of hubris, entrenched prime ministerial tenures also erode the capacity of opposition parties to do their job. As Franks argued, weakened oppositions, who cannot rely on patronage, who do not enjoy the extensive resources enjoyed by the governing parties, and who must constantly deal with rookie MPs are less able to effectively hold the government to account.
Harper, prime minister since 2006, is deeply into the stage of leadership at which his elapsed time in office has become a problem. The extent of his hubris is well-known. Indeed, it has gone so far as to rouse former House of Commons Speaker Peter Milliken, who told author Michael Harris, â€œParliament can hardly be weakened any more than it already is. Harper canâ€™t go much further without making the institution dysfunctional. He is trying to control every aspect of House business. In fact, it will have to be returned to its former state by someone if we are to have a democracy.â€
The stunning collapse of Heenan Blaikie LLP, once one of Canadaâ€™s largest and most prestigious law firms, stemmed from a â€œloss of trustâ€ in management over international business activities including dubious forays into Africa, where former partner Jacques Bouchard and former prime minister Jean ChrÃ©tien lobbied governments on behalf of clients, former Heenan partners and associates say.
Founded in Montreal in 1973, Heenan grew from 18 lawyers to more than 500, in offices across Canada and in Paris, where it established a beachhead in 2009. It was considered a rock-solid full-service firm â€” and a favourite of the Canadian establishment â€” until a crisis of confidence caused its foundations to crack. Lawyers began leaving, first in a trickle, then in droves, and the whole enterprise came crashing down this month.
Increasing financial pressures and friction between partners in Montreal and Toronto were key factors behind Heenanâ€™s failure, the biggest ever for a law firm in Canada. â€œMontreal didnâ€™t understand Toronto; Toronto felt the Montreal office was way overpaid and overpraised,â€ said one former partner.
But many also agree that Heenanâ€™s excursions into Africa caused so much tension and tumult that partners began shaking their heads and taking their leave. â€œPeople like me said to themselves, â€˜I want to work at a firm that values the practice of law in Canada, not international dictators,â€™â€ another former Heenan partner told the National Post. â€œItâ€™s not what I signed up for.â€ He quit the firm last year.
There came â€œa point where confidence and faith started to disappear,â€ said Jean-Francois Mercadier, managing partner of the firmâ€™s former group in Paris, Heenan Blaikie AARPI. â€œPartners started to lose any kind of faith in the management of the firm. There was a loss of trust in the partnership, and I think the origin is in the Jacques Bouchard story.â€
Fascinating interview with Rt. Hon. Jean Chretien shows a side of him that not many of us have ever heard.
Liberals, you see, are quite sure every Canadian is a Liberal whose vote was stolen by Conservative skullduggery in the elections of 2006, 2008 and 2011. Canadians, in this view, think marijuana use is harmless fun, and they will blame politicians who want to harsh the national buzz. So a Liberal friend of mine was genuinely surprised when she plunked herself down behind the Liberal party table at a local community event and got her ear bent by voters, many of them from immigrant communities, asking why Trudeau was soft on drugs.Ja
The realization that many Canadians believe illegal drugs should stay illegal is one surprise awaiting the Liberals. Another is that a lot more Canadians have complex, conflicting or frankly hypocritical views on drug policyâ€” but that itâ€™s not drug policy that will determine their next vote. Millions will vote based on their best guess about which party will best ensure a strong economy whose bounties improve their own life and their familyâ€™s. And Justin Trudeau just spent a month talking about something else.
This is something else that Liberals cannot understand: the notion that most Canadians are no longer properly grateful for the work Jean ChrÃ©tien and Paul Martin did to clean up deficits in the 1990s. In fact, a growing number of Canadians, even the ones who donâ€™t smoke a lot of pot, have dim memories of the 1990s or none at all.
This helps explain a Harris-Decima poll from the end of August that inquired about respondentsâ€™ opinions of the national political parties. Trudeauâ€™s net favourable impression is way higher than Harperâ€™s and a fair bit higher than NDP Leader Tom Mulcairâ€™s. Respondents were likelier to believe Trudeau â€œshares your values.â€ Heâ€™s having a strong year in the polls. But Harper still has a slight edge over both Trudeau and Mulcair on â€œjudgment,â€ and on â€œeconomic managementâ€ it was a blowout: 39 per cent prefer Harper to only 20 per cent for Trudeau and 15 per cent for Mulcair.
Trudeau hasnâ€™t the faintest intention of campaigning in the 2015 election with pot legalization as his main plank. But changing deep-seated attitudes toward a party takes time. And because the Liberals took two years to pick a leader after the 2011 elections, Trudeau only has three summers to define himself before facing voters, and he pretty much just blew one.
For much the same reason, Iâ€™m not sure Tom Mulcair picked the right issue when he used part of his summer to travel coast-to-coast campaigning for Senate abolition. For reasons explained elsewhere in this issue, Canadians are angry at the Senate right now. Thatâ€™s not the same as believing any party has the ability, once in power, to do much about it. His Senate tour illustrates a little-noticed difference between Mulcair and his predecessor Jack Layton. Layton came from Toronto city politics. He hadnâ€™t the faintest interest in constitutional tinkering. The NDP stood for abolishing the Senate, as it always had, and Layton never talked about it. Mulcair comes from Quebec provincial politics, where a generation grew up believing that if you have no constitutional scheme to peddle you cannot be serious.
Laytonâ€™s prosaic fascination with votersâ€™ kitchen-table preoccupations helped him supplant the Liberals as the first choice for voters eager to block the Conservatives. Next time around that vote will be up for grabs again. Mulcair and Trudeau both plan to try to take Harperâ€™s economic credibility away from him. They havenâ€™t gotten around to it yet, but they believe they have time. Harperâ€™s opponents always believe they have plenty of time.
This feature documentary retraces the century of haggling by successive federal and provincial governments to agree on a formula to bring home the Canadian Constitution from England. This film concentrates on the politicking and lobbying that finally led to its patriation in 1982. Five prime ministers had failed before Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau took up the challenge in the early 1970s. Principal players in this documentary are federal Minister of Justice Jean ChrÃ©tien, Prime Minister Trudeau, 10 provincial premiers and a host of journalists, politicians, lawyers, and diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic.
This was an incredible documentary to watch. Â One of the best things I have seen in the last couple of years.