Watching Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien, two former prime ministers who were previously at odds over ideology but are now united in concern, talk side by side in Ottawa this week had a subtly powerful effect. They weren’t exchanging well-known jabs or defending outdated records. Rather, they were sounding a collective alarm: Canada’s union is not certain.
Although their attendance at a Royal Canadian Geographical Society event was presented as a fireside conversation, the tone was a mix of caution and reflection. Although a lot of the early discussion was framed by the Arctic, a more comprehensive discussion about sovereignty, identity, and the tenuous ties that bind Canada’s regions together came to light. Harper’s tone stayed cool and collected. As usual, Chrétien’s had a lighthearted edge. However, both were being serious.
Key Facts – Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien
| Name | Stephen Harper |
|---|---|
| Born | April 30, 1959 – Toronto, Ontario |
| Political Party | Conservative Party of Canada |
| Term as PM | 2006–2015 |
| Key Focus Areas | Fiscal conservatism, Arctic sovereignty, foreign affairs |
| Public Status | Less publicly visible since 2015 |
| Reference | www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/stephen-harper |
| Name | Jean Chrétien |
|---|---|
| Born | January 11, 1934 – Shawinigan, Quebec |
| Political Party | Liberal Party of Canada |
| Term as PM | 1993–2003 |
| Key Focus Areas | National unity, balanced budgets, international diplomacy |
| Public Status | Active voice in constitutional issues |
| Reference | www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/jean-chretien |
There was more to the Arctic than geography. It turned into a mirror of changing power, politics, and history. Chrétien reflected on his tenure from 1968 to 1974 as Minister of Northern Development and Indian Affairs. He characterized those trips to the North as life-changing, frequently chilly, and occasionally stunning. “We stand on guard,” he answered with a smile. The subtext felt strong, despite the laughter in the room: pride in defending what is indisputably Canadian.
Harper tended on policy specifics, as was to be expected. Although he acknowledged that he never anticipated the United States would intensify its threats, he stated that the threat to Arctic sovereignty had always existed. Not only was the content of that comment intriguing, but so was the precision with which it was presented. The recent American rhetoric about making Canada the 51st state—half serious, half mocking—has triggered strong feelings.
Chrétien seemed unfazed by the thought. With both sarcasm and gravity, he declared this to be “the beginning of the end of the American empire.” It was merely observation, not joy. According to him, the waning of American power signifies a need for Canada to define itself confidently rather than defensively. Now, with separatist stirrings brewing in Alberta and reverberating weakly in Quebec, that framing felt especially pertinent.
As usual, he was direct. He shrugged at the Wexit movement and remarked, “I don’t know what the hell is going on in Alberta.” It was seasoned, not contemptuous. After all, Chrétien has witnessed Canada get closer to disintegrating than most politicians would like to acknowledge. He is familiar with the appearance of stress fractures. Therefore, he is not naïve in his belief in the unity of the country today. It’s quantified.
In contrast, Harper’s statement was noticeably well-structured. He underlined that when unity is at risk, leadership must be able to withstand ideological indulgence. “There are moments when you decide that we won’t argue about that,” he stated. Harper presented it as strategic restraint rather than silence, even though the concept of picking battles is not new to politics. He maintained that on some topics, it’s just more sensible—and especially advantageous—to concentrate on areas of agreement.
There was nothing nostalgic about their common appeal. It has to do with urgency. That night, the RCGS honored Harper’s efforts by awarding him a gold medal. The discussion itself, however, seemed more symbolic: two erstwhile adversaries reminding Canadians that sovereignty is safeguarded not only by trade agreements or icebreakers but also by stance, tone, and viewpoint.
Chrétien noted that although separatist enthusiasm in Quebec has subsided, Alberta’s temperature warrants observation. He made no attempt to make a detailed diagnosis. However, he admitted that cracks show up when people feel excluded. Harper nodded, understanding but not necessarily agreeing. Western dissatisfaction served as the foundation for his own political ascent. He is aware of the signs.
Both guys called for a mental change. Not to minimize diversity, but to highlight a common goal. Ever the pragmatic, Chrétien did a remarkable job of presenting the situation as an opportunity. Harper stressed structural stability with his usual moderation, emphasizing that unity may endure if it is handled carefully.
Political veterans rarely speak without trying to gain influence. This has nothing to do with a return. It has to do with being there. The kind that conveys that the situation is important just by being present.
Because in reality, unity is not a given. It needs to be attended to. Neglect can subtly weaken it, whereas intentional collaboration can remarkably strengthen it. This discussion was helpful because it modeled posture rather than making policy recommendations.
