The Paikin Podcast - JDM Stewart: The History Wars, Statues, and Teaching Kids About the Prime Ministers

Episode Date: September 12, 2025

Author JDM Stewart joins Steve to discuss his book "The Prime Ministers," how to teach kids history, reconciling the past with the present, and if the pendulum is swinging the other way on the "history wars." And from Macdonald to Laurier to Carney we get into the prime ministers who were transformational, merely "transactional," and irrelevant in Canada's history. Follow The Paikin Podcast: TWITTERx.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAMinstagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKYbsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.social

Do you think we can swing the pendulum back to the point where school systems, school boards, ministries of education find it important to bring back the teaching of prime ministers and that kind of history? You know, I'm not too hopeful on that front. Destroying history and vandalizing statues isn't really the Canadian way, and it's not going to further, it doesn't further reconciliation, if those were the reasons for taking down statues, and it doesn't further an understanding of Canadian history. The Paken podcast, one-on-ones, presented by Beer Canada.

Well, given how it's been open season on our former prime ministers in this country, going way back to the beginning of 1867, you probably are thinking to yourself, you ought to have your head examined if you want to write a book and call it the prime ministers. And yet that's what J.D.M. Stewart has done. And Sutherland House Press has published it. And so we welcome to the Paken podcast. J.D.M. Stewart, historian, extraordinaire. And we're delighted to see you again. J.D.M., how you doing? I'm great. And it's great to be on the Paken podcast, Steve. I think it's going pretty well. Pretty well so far, indeed. I want to start where you start in your book, which is you are visiting a classroom, you are talking

to the kids, you actually ask about a picture who's on the wall. It's a former prime minister. Nobody can identify the person. You ask the teacher, why doesn't anybody recognize who Lester Pearson is? And the answer you got from the teacher is, well, no one really teaches about prime ministers anymore. Yes. And I'd like to know what your reaction was to that. Well, I was pretty surprised, and I wasn't happy about it. And I knew that I needed to do something about it. And as you know, I've been a teacher for 30 years, and I always taught prime ministers, but, you know, there's a lot of things to do in a history classroom, so you can't teach just about prime ministers, but I've always believed that teaching about many of the important prime ministers

is a fundamental part of what we should be teaching about in a history class. So when I heard this teacher say, they don't really teach about prime ministers anymore, by the way, it's not the first time I've heard that kind of stance towards teaching Canadian history, but I thought, I need to do something about this beyond teaching. And I said, I'm going to write a new book about Canadian prime ministers for a new generation of people, not just young people, but Canadians in general, who may have forgotten about the importance of our former leaders. When a teacher says that to you, do you ever answer back, well, maybe you should? Yeah, I mean, I've had these battles in my own teaching, because every year you get together with your fellow history teachers and you talk about

how you're going to approach the year. And, you know, it's a tough battle because there is a feeling out there that teaching about the old white men just isn't that appealing. And so even someone as important as McKenzie King, the longest serving prime minister in Canadian history, got us through the Second World War, laid the foundation for modern Canada, really post-second world war. He barely gets taught at all as well. So this is just, this is a battle. And it's something I fought my entire teaching career. It's one of the reasons I got into teaching. It's one of the reasons I'm a writer. It's that I feel certain things are very important that we all have an understanding of and Canadian leadership in the structure of a prime minister is very important.

Why do you think there suddenly became a consensus at decision-making levels that it was no longer important to teach about the prime ministers of the country? And it's not like there's so many of them, right? Like, what are we on? Number 24 right now. Yeah. I think it's a part of this is that we're asked to do so much in a history class. For example, in Ontario, you have one course in Canadian history in the high school level that begins in 1914. And, you know, I certainly believe that there is a lot more to Canadian history than just prime ministers. But I think it's been in an effort to bring more students in and teach more about Canadian history than just the prime ministers. And also there's been a pushback against

dead white men. We know that's been going on for a couple of decades. And all of our prime ministers, save for one, Kim Campbell, is a white man. So it's part of the push to be a bit more inclusive in history. And some of these things are certainly goals that I believe in. But there's other things that we can't throw out. You know, you don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And if a kid walks out of a grade 10 Canadian history class and never learned about Lester B. Pearson or McKenzie King, just two examples, then I think that's a problem. James, okay, one of the issues that we've been trying to grapple with as a society for the last decade in particular is how do we deal with the fact that there are a lot of things that

past prime ministers of this country are associated with that clearly don't stand up to 21st century mores and values. Right. And the question then becomes, how do you? do we reconcile past behavior with the reality of teaching in a 21st century classroom? Well, I think that's kind of the essentials of teaching a good history class is to bring forward all the evidence and ask students to come to conclusions. So we would never want to teach a history class where we're giving a, I guess what people might call a maple washed version, where we're only teaching about how great Canada was. That's not a history class. That's just

propaganda. But I think it's easy to teach about the pros and the cons or the positive and negatives of any piece of Canadian history or any person in Canadian history. It's not just prime ministers. We've had other leaders who have parts of their history that aren't great, whether it's Tommy Douglas or the famous five. So a good history class will ask students to weigh that evidence and come to a conclusion. So the way you posted the question is the way I would put it in my history class. Here's the evidence. Take a look. How should we evaluate this person? Because in history, you do have to make judgments. And we're also trying to teach students to make judgments and that those judgments should be based on evidence and thought.

I have to say, I mean, this is one person's opinion, but I read the book and I thought you did a great job balancing the need to explain why these people got to become prime minister. I mean, they had something going for them in order to become prime minister. Right. While at the same time, saying they weren't perfect people, and here's where they fell short, not only in their own time, but certainly in our time as well. So, nice job there, but I want to play a bit of a game with you here. Okay. And that is, I would like you to kind of play along with my version of this game show that we're going to do, which is to sort of separate the prime ministers into a few different categories and have you just sort of riff a bit on each of these categories.

For example, if I were to say to you, name me a handful. of prime ministers in the past of this country, who you would describe as truly, truly transformational? Well, I'll start with Johnny McDonald, for sure. He was certainly transformational, and I don't know how much detail we want to go into his legacy, but we'll do a thumbnail sketch, forging Confederation, building a railway,

and expanding a country from sea to sea. And also visionary that just, you know, Canada can't just be this collection of, colonies, it has to have something that holds it together. And I think that's part of what the ribbon of steel was. So transformational in that sense of starting the country off. I would say that Laurier was transformational. And there is certainly a bias towards prime ministers who served earlier in Canadian history because the country was just starting. And Laurier, I say, was transformational not only by the fact of Laurier himself, a French Canadian, the first French Canadian prime minister. And we Remember, this was 30 years after Confederation before he became PM. And so I've often asked myself, well, what would have happened to Confederation, which in the beginning was this coalition between French and English-speaking Canadians? What would have happened to Confederation if French-speaking Canadians could never see one of their own as leader of the country? And Laurie was transformational in the sense that he further built the sense of what it, of Canadianness, of feeling pride in the country.

You know, he said that, you know, his motto was Canada first, Canada last, Canada always. He loved the country and I think he set the standard for that kind of patriotism for the country. Pierre Trudeau was a transformational prime minister. I don't think there's any question about him, the Charter of Rights, bringing in the Official Languages Act, which, you know, a lot of the things that happened in the Trudeau era, we're still talking about today. And then lastly, I would say Brian Mulroney was a transformational prime minister because of the continentalism that he set the country on with the free trade agreement and really telling Canadians that they could be, they could rise above this fear of competing with the United States. So there's four transformational prime ministers just off the top of my head. And of course, I would welcome any conversation from you or other Canadians who might add to that list or question it.

but those are four off the top who I'd say were transformational in their in their leadership. I wouldn't question that list. Those four belong on the list to be sure. Okay, let's do another category here. Who would you put on a list of those who were merely transactional? They managed the store, but you can't really say that they left a tremendous legacy. Right. So maybe we'll work in reverse chronological order this time because I think two of our more recent prime ministers were very transactional. Jean-Cretchen and Stephen Harper were quite transactional in their stewardship. And that is kind of the opposite.

When we talk about transformational versus transactional, we see that the older of the country is, the harder it is to be a transformational prime minister. And sometimes, you know, I think we should also, I should also point out that being a transactional prime minister doesn't necessarily mean you are not an important prime minister. Right. Timing is everything.

Jean-Cretchen came in at an essential time after the tumultuous years of Brian Mulroney. We needed a prime minister who could keep a steady hand on the tiller and not rock the boat too much. Now, Jean-Cretchen served during very tumultuous times with the Quebec referendum for one thing, the Gulf War, the Gulf War, but also the 9-11 as well. But he was a great manager. You know, he said he'd never bring up the Constitution, which he wisely did not. And then Stephen Harper was also very transactional. It's difficult to hang your hat on a signature achievement of Stephen Harper, although it is important to be able to govern for a decade and not have to deal with a huge national unity crisis.

So Stephen Harper gets a lot of credit, in my view, for giving. steady and excellent leadership. When I make a list of those who are, let's call them pioneers or history making, just because they were so singular in what they had on offer. I mean, obviously, Kim Campbell's on the list because she's the only woman. Sir John A's on the list because he's the first. You pointed out, Wilford Laurier's got to be on the list. He's the first francophone.

Who else makes that kind of list? They're there on the list because they were such pioneers and so singular in what they just represented? Well, we have, I mean, if we're looking at things like being pioneers, John Abbott, who served just for a couple of years, was the first Canadian-born prime minister. So I don't know if you're looking at it from that perspective. You know, I guess...

Hey, you know what? You could add Justin Trudeau to the list because he's the only son of a former prime minister. Well, and that's true. And the current prime minister is the only prime minister, who was not educated in the post-secondary institutions of Canada. Mark Carney went to Harvard, and then he went to Oxford. That's the only Prime Minister to have never been educated at universities in Canada. And also Mark Carney is the only Prime Minister who has the Order of Canada.

So he's a pioneer in that sense. So, you know, there's a few in that regard. I'm trying to think of another off the top of my head. Well, you could add McKenzie King. and Mark Carney together, because I think they're the only ones I read in your book that have got PhDs. That's true. That's true. They're the only two with PhDs. And, you know, if we're trying to throw it as many names as possible, we know that Charles Tupper was the shortest serving prime minister. That's not necessarily being a pioneer, but he fits into that category

for sure. And McKenzie King, not only our longest serving prime minister, but in the entire British Empire slash Commonwealth. Yeah, he's very proud of that. He hung around a long time. Very proud of that. Okay. Here's a list. don't want to be on, but I'm going to ask you to put a few names on it anyway. 24 prime ministers, who was really completely and totally irrelevant on the job? To me, that question goes really about time of service. So Charles Tupper, who I mentioned earlier, he only served for 69 days, and most of them were spent campaigning in the 1896 election. So he certainly is irrelevant.

In fact, most of the four who served in the wake of Sir Johnny McDonald's death in 1891, so we're talking about John Abbott, John Thompson, McKenzie Bowle, and Charles Tupper, they're fairly irrelevant. Not to say that they're to be completely dismissed, but when you serve... No, but they got pretty short shrift in your book. And they do. You know, I want to point out an interesting little Easter egg that I put in the book. So I cobbled together the four prime ministers who served after McDonald, they're into a single chapter.

John Turner and Joe Clark, two other prime ministers who served a short period of time, I cobbled them together in a single chapter. I'm wondering how many readers will notice that I gave Kim Campbell a standalone single chapter all on her own, even though she only served for four months. But that was my way of acknowledging the fact that she was our first female prime minister. She got the single chapter while some of the other short term prime ministers were condensed into it. single chapter. Not only our first, but our one and only still. Hard to imagine. I mean, she stopped being prime minister, what, 32 years ago? We haven't had another female prime minister in 32 years. It's kind of astonishing. It is astonishing. And it's also astonishing the fact that no one has come close either. There have been female party leaders in the NDP. But no one has even

come close to being the second female prime minister. And it's also, I wonder who will be our second female prime minister, who is that person that will come forward and win an election? And you know, it's worth noting that Kim Campbell is very proud of the fact that she was the country's first female prime minister. And I remember I did an interview for her in my first book. And I was just wrapping up the call because I, you know, I didn't want to take up too much of her time. And she said, hold on a second, you know, I know you teach, you teach at an all-girls school.

This is when I taught at Bishop Strong School in Toronto. she got into the fact that she was the first female prime minister and that she's proud of that, not just because of what it shows women, young women, what they can do, but also that it shows young boys what women can do too. And so she's very proud of the fact that she is our only female prime minister to this point in time. I've had that conversation with her and with Kathleen Wynne, the one and only female Premier of Ontario, who is absolutely wonderful in telling stories about young girls who go tour the second floor at Queens Park, the Ontario Legislature, and look at those portraits on the wall of all the 24 white men, and then they get to her.

And, you know, the way young girls' faces light up, it's like a whole new realm of possibility occurs to them. And I'm, and Kim Campbell talks them in the same way. And yeah, that's why we need obviously another female prime minister to come along at some point. James, tell me this. Who did never, who did never become Prime Minister of Canada, whom you have thought over the years, boy, that's a shame because they'd have done a hell of a good job. Well, John Thompson is one, and I know that's a bit of a deep cut for a lot of people because he was prime minister from 1892 to 1894, died tragically at Windsor Castle in England

of a heart attack when he was having lunch with Queen Victoria. So he was highly regarded, highly intelligent, a good manager of men, and he sometimes referred to as the great might have been there is a superb biography of sir john thompson by uh historian p b weight and uh i remember picking that book up for my research for this book and i was just dumbfounded by how great of a book this was so he's he's someone who i guess you were i guess the question was really someone who wasn't prime minister who could have been great so i i've misanswered your question but it's worth a plug for thompson anyway so in terms of those other Persons, you know, this is, you know, Stanfield is the popular answer. A lot of people say that. I would say Bob Ray is another person I would put into that category. Bob Ray just has, to me, a superb intelligence, a great understanding of the country. And I would like to have seen him try that at. Jean Choray, I think, is someone who would have been a great prime minister, former Premier of Quebec. Brian Mulroney, cabinet minister, obviously ran for the conservative leadership against Pierre Polyev, but what?

was soundly defeated, but I think he would have been a superb prime minister. And then even Aaron O'Toole, I know this is a really recent selection, but when I see, you know, Aaron O'Toole's vision of the country and the way that he does not try to divide and that he's a very thoughtful approach to the country. And for me, I know people have different things they like to see in a politician, but I certainly like to see the character test and the thoughtful test. And Aaron O'Toole certainly passes that, in my view. That's a good list. And because I'm a little older than you, I grew up constantly hearing the phrase that

Robert Stanfield elected progressive conservative party leader in 67, had the misfortune of going up against Pierre Trudeau in 68 and 72 and 74, too, I guess, I think, right? Three elections did he have? Yeah. And I was constantly told that he's the greatest prime minister we never had. So I wanted to find out if he made your list, and in fact, he did. Okay, let me, it's interesting how our understanding of history changes in as much as what we choose to emphasize and what we don't. And I learned in your book that two really great historians, Jack Granitestein and Michael Bliss, both did histories of prime ministers.

And my question for you is, how much time did they spend on indigenous issues and how prime ministers dealt with those issues in their books, which admitted, came out several decades ago now. Right. So neither of those books are historians spent much time at all addressing the relationships between prime ministers and indigenous peoples. And of course, we don't, personally, I don't fault them for that. It was a different time when they were writing their history. Bliss's book was published in 1994. Granstein and Hilmer's book was published in 1999. And so they weren't dealing with indigenous issues except for the fact of Louis Real. for example, and they may have mentioned Pierre Trudeau's white paper. And so history, our interpretation

of history has changed and a lot happened in 2015 when the Truth and Reconciliation report came down. Even before that, as the report was being released in parts, we were already having indigenous relations and reconciliation on the front burner of our historical consciousness. So I'm quite happy with the fact that in this book I tried to address indigenous issues in every chapter. And I don't make any claims for it to be comprehensive or perfect in the way that I've tried to include indigenous history as it relates to the leadership of prime ministers. But this is the first book on Canadian prime ministers that includes the perspective of how they dealt with indigenous issues. And one of the things, Steve, that was a constant surprise to me in a way, I guess I wasn't

by this, but I noted it, is just how much history there is in terms of the relationship between prime ministers and indigenous peoples, right from Johnny McDonald, up to Mark Carney. It's all there. It's all hiding in plain sight. And it was remarkable. And I'm happy to have been able to bring these stories forward and shed a little bit more light on that aspect of the leadership of our prime ministers. Well, that's the nice thing about the book, is that it's proof that history evolves. You know, we really can't say, oh, we've already had books about prime ministers. We don't need another book about prime ministers. Actually, we do because history evolves, right? Exactly. I mean, it's been 25 years since we had a book on Canadian prime ministers. And you're

right, it's our interpretation and the way the net cast by history catches a lot more fish as more years go on. And so we have more stories to tell. Okay, James, we are going to play another one of my little parlor games in a second. I love games. I love games, by the way. I'm going to get you to stand by for just a second because, of course, one of the things I've got to do during the Paken podcast, and I'm delighted to do it, is to do ad reads, which is something I never had to do in 33 years at TVO, because of course that was non-commercial. But Beer Canada, the folks who are basically representing all the brewers from coast to coast to coast in this country, are one of our sponsors, and we are happy to pass along this information on their behalf. So here we go.

Canada, as you know, is in an ongoing affordability crisis, and that no doubt affects everybody watching this or listening to this right now. Canadians have the right to know whether their governments are making life more or less affordable. And according to Beer Canada, 46% of the price of beer is government taxation. Yes, Canada imposes higher taxes on beer than any of the other great beer nations. More than Germany, Belgium, Mexico, the U.S., the U.S., the U.K., Brazil, Denny, or Ireland. And at 46%, it's higher than any other country in the G7. And Canada's already

very high beer taxes go up annually and automatically. And Beer Canada believes that the powers that be hope that you won't notice that, they call it sneaky and underhanded, and they say automatic is not democratic. Okay, now that you know, you can do something about it if you want to. Beer Canada would like you to help stop this practice of automatic beer tax hike. So we've got a website you can go to. Beir. Excuse me. Go to hereforbeer.ca.

That's hereforbeer.ca. And ask yourself, why does the best nation for beer in the world have the worst beer taxation? So that's a message in the interest of fairness and transparency from our friends at Beer Canada. So there we go. Do you imbi? I do. A little glass of Pilsner, a lawyer. I love a logger. I love a pilsner. I'm just wondering if your question for me is going to be,

who would you most like to sit down and have a beer with who was a prime minister? Because I love that question. And if you don't ask it, I'm going to ask it of myself anyway. Do you know what? That is a great question. And it wasn't on my list. So that makes total sense to do that right now. Okay. If I'm on Manitoulin Island having a beer from my pals at Split Rail Brewery in Gore Bay, who should I, you and I and who are going to sit down and have that beer. Well, certainly, I hope we don't have to limit ourselves to one person to join us. But I'm going to start with Lester B. Pearson. And the reason I would start with him is that he's just, he's, he's a self-deprecating guy.

I think he has great stories, but he also is, he's a humble man, Lester B. Pearson. And he has, he loves baseball. And I know you love baseball. You're a big Red Sox fan. I'm a former Montreal Expos fan. a Blue Jays fan, but he loves baseball so we could talk baseball, and he's just... James, do you know why that's the, that is the best first pick on your list? I know what you're going to tell me about, Dave, what's the guy's mate, McKenzie?

McKenzie from Gorbet, is that who it is, the baseball player? Well, that, that's true. There was a guy from Gore Bay who made the majors, and I think was a, was a world's tourist champion, but that's not why I was going to say it. I was going to say it because if we're having that beer at Split Rail in Gore Bay, Ontario, on manate his writing who would have been a member of parliament less than me Pearson would have been the MP so that's you know and his member um Pearson was a history professor before he got into the foreign service and so you know you and I love history and

he would have lots to say about that and and and I don't think Pearson would monopolize the conversation he likes to listen and and and so on I think but he also might not have been a beer drinker yeah you know according to according to his um his daughter in law he He liked Ryan Ginger, what she called the Air Canada drink. So he can have the Ryan Ginger, we'll have our pints. I think, you know, another, you know, John Turner would be a great guy. He saw a prime minister we haven't mentioned so far. Also, you know, I think he had a cottage in Lake of the Woods, so he wouldn't be.

Lake of the woods. But he, you know, I like storytellers. And John Turner was a great storyteller. And of course, he loved the brown pop and the same with, I know Brian Mulroney is a teetotaler, or was a teetoller in the final decades of his life, but also a great storyteller. And so, you know, there's lots of prime ministers we can choose from who would be great companions for dockside beer. Well, that's a great gathering in part because, of course, John Turner sat in Lester Pearson's caucus. And Brian Mulroney was actually a 20-something-year-old executive assistant on the hill when Pearson was the prime minister.

or so they would have, that would have been a great trio to have a beer with. I agree. And Mulrini and Turner really liked each other too. And I remember I was having a lunch with John Turner. And I said, well, what about, you know, I told him the story of showing the video clip of Mulroney and Turner in the 1984. Sorry, yeah, the 19, no, the 1988 debate, which was about free trade. And Turner looks at me and he says, well, you know, you know what the difference was between Brian Mulroney and I and the free trade agreement? I said, no, what was it, sir? He said, I had read it. And so he had a good chuckle

over that. And he said, you know, we're all friends anyway. And so they all are. And we know that in politics, a lot of politicians on television, it seems like they're mortal enemies, but then behind the curtains and the House of Commons, there is a camaraderie and a friendship between leaders at the highest level and at the lower levels at the constituency, you know, ordinary MPs. So there's a camaraderie there. Well, James, the reality is you have chosen to write about a club of which there are only 24 members all time. I mean, that's a pretty exclusive club. All right, here's the parlor game I want to play with you right now. And it's a game of kind of what if. Sir Johnny McDonald became a widower, right? His first wife dies. He's only 42 years old. And therefore, for the next

decade of his life, he's able to focus almost exclusively on the nation building project of building Canada. My question is, if his wife Isabella had not died and he had to worry about being a husband as well at that time, is there any reason to think that maybe Canada either happens later or doesn't happen at all? Right. So my answer, my hypothetical answer on this, our speculative answer, is that things would have turned out as they did. You know, the concept of a marriage and a relationship and being a husband back then was a little bit different than it is today. And so I think Johnny McDonald would still have been able to devote his time to being Prime Minister and dealing with the large issues that that faced him in spite of the fact that

he still would have been married to Isabella. So I think he would have been able to do those things that he did. But let's remind listeners that McDonald was a devoted family man and was very dedicated particularly to his daughter who was born with hydrocephaly. And so he was a devoted father. Very good point. All right. I want to go back to John Thompson, who is a guy, you know, admittedly, we hear very little about because he served such a short period of time, but had such a dramatic death overseas, buried in Halifax, Nova Scotia now. And my question is, you know, when he died at age 47, he obviously had a lot more to give, had he not died, how do you imagine the ensuing years unfolding? And maybe is it possible, Wilford Lurier doesn't become

Prime Minister, does Thompson end up having a dynasty of his own? You know, it's a good question, and it's, that's a tough one to speculate on. I think the central question he was dealing with was the Manitoba Schools question, which was a question of minority in language and religious rights in Manitoba at the time. Would he have been able to solve that? Probably. He was wanting that to be more solved by the courts than politics, but I don't think it would have prevented Laurier from being prime minister. You know, Thompson would have already been the

head of a government that was 30 years old, save for the Alexander McKenzie interim of 1874 to 1878. Governments tire out, and even with Thompson taking over, I think that the conservative time and office was ticking down regardless in that Laurier, probably too irresistible of a political leader to have not become prime minister eventually, maybe 1900 instead of 1896. Right. Interesting that, I think you point this out in the book, Lurier has objectively a worse record on indigenous issues than certainly Sir Johnny McDonald. And yet, the cancellation of McDonald has been pretty significant over the last few years, whereas Lurier has kind of got off Scott Free on that. Why is that?

I think it reflects, first of all, the fact that a lot of what was happening to Johnny McDonald was not based on an informed historical opinion. It was emotional and reactionary as opposed to well thought out and based on evidence. Because as you say, it can be argued that Laurier had a worse record. And I think people, when people take a look and try to learn more about Canadian history and the relationship between prime ministers, their governments and indigenous people, they will see that, of course, McDonald is not the person that deserves all of the blame. He's the lightning rod, but really all Canadian governments since 1867 need to bear responsibility

for the treatment of indigenous people. So there's lots of blame to go around. It may only be a matter of time before people start trying to put Lori under the microscope a little bit more. Wilfred Laurier University actually ran a study of Laurier's history. It was a bit shallow, in my opinion, in trying to really dig up what Laurier's legacy was. But, you know, it's just another example of the fact that you can be a great prime minister like Laurier was, like McDonald was, and you can have made great mistakes in office as both of them did. So to me, it's another indicative, another indication of the importance of having a well-rounded and deeper understanding of history and the context of the times. You know, as we compare ourselves to the United States where there seems to be a new biography on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln every few years, Jerry Butts apparently told you, this is Justin Trudeau's former advisor.

You know, if Lurier had been president of the United States, we'd be getting a new biography on him every 10 years. So it begs the question, then why don't we? So it's a great question. And I've thought about it a lot because I think a Laurier biography is desperately needed. The last major one was 1965. And so we need another one. But here's why. First of all, it costs a lot of money to write a book for whoever is writing it.

Either you get time off from school. What we need is a benefactor. We need someone who says, I can lay out half a million dollars for a 10-year or eight-year project to write a Laurier biography. The other issue is that you need someone who is either bilingual or you need a pair of historians, one who's an anglophone and one who's a francophone, in order to go through the documentation of the Laurier years because there's going to be a lot of French language material. So those are two of the issues, money and the bilingual nature of the historian that you need. It's not insurmountable. The other thing I've wondered, though, Steve, as we sit here and we talk about 24 different prime ministers where, you know, there's a little bit of something for everyone in my book because of the 24 different topics.

But I wonder how well a Laurier biography, which would have to be at least 500 pages, I wonder how well that would sell in today's Canada, which which frightens me because he's one of our greatest prime ministers and he deserves a magisterial biography. And so I just wonder what the appetite for would be, not that it shouldn't be written, but it's just a question, who's going to buy that book and how much will they gravitate to it? I don't know the answer, but I'm interested in the topic. Well, my answer would be certainly every university in the country, every college in the country, every library in the country, but that still might not get you to 5,000, which is what you need for a bestseller in this country. Right. But it has to be, you know, it has to be the right writer too. We don't need an intensely academic treatment of Laurier. We need a book like Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote about Lincoln or any of the presidents that she's written about. Someone with that kind of writing chops who can, you know, tell a great story. That's the kind of person we need to write that book. Right. James, one of the things I liked that you did in the book was that you put, for those prime ministers who have died, their final resting places. And, you know, I'm one of, I'm sure a lot of people in this country who've got sort of a, I don't know, a weird fascination about their final resting places. And I'm not too far away from Mount Pleasant Cemetery in Midtown, Toronto. And I've gone there, oh, I don't know, dozens at least, but maybe even hundreds of times, you know, just on walks.

And, of course, that's where you'll find William Lyne, McKenzie King, our longest serving prime minister. One of the things I've never understood was he's not from Toronto. He lived in Toronto, but for a very short period of time, he certainly is our longest serving Prime Minister better known for being affiliated with Ottawa. Why is he buried here? That's such a good question. And I wish I knew the answer. It may be related to his family plot in Mount Pleasant Cemetery. I'm not 100% certain of that, but I think it may well be because his mother is there too. So if I remember correctly. So yeah, that's right. There's a whole plot there for King family members.

And so it must be related to the previous Toronto ancestry, perhaps his grandfather, William Lyon McKenzie. So it must be related to the family history in Toronto as opposed to his history being born in then Berlin now Kitchener. So that's my educated guess. That's a great answer. But you know, I don't think William Lyon McKenzie, his grandfather, first mayor of Toronto, I don't think he's buried in that cemetery.

I think he's buried somewhere else. But the mum is there. Yeah, I've got to look into that. That's a good one. Okay, I'm going to ask you, we're going to keep this parlor game going for a little longer here because I want to ask you about Pierre Trudeau. He's the guy you pointed out earlier,

transformational prime minister, official languages act, official multiculturalism act. 40 years later, 18% of Canadians can converse in both of our official languages. 18%. Now, I know that's up from, say, a decade or two ago, but the question has to,

to be asked. Was it worth all the hassle? I think it's a great question and it's one that I've thought about for a long time because my own position is that bringing in the Official Languages Act was a fundamental thing that Pierre Trudeau did. And I know in 2025 we sort of there's been a lot of talk about whether we need bilingual institutions anymore, but I would ask listeners and readers to try to go back to the 1960s where Canada was fundamentally different and there were questions about Quebec's place in Confederation, a French-speaking Quebecer didn't have a place at the leadership table in Ottawa. And so by Trudeau coming in, and I think he called it French

power, when he brought in the Official Languages Act, it meant that Quebecers, French speakers, francophones from anywhere across the country, could have a role to play at the civil service level, at the highest levels, even at the medium level in the civil service, where previously it would be the domain of unilingual anglophones. This was an important part of Canadian history and really a lot of what we've been doing over the past, well, since 1867, and really beyond that earlier in Canadian history, is trying to figure out the relationship between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. And so I think Trudeau made a smart move there. And this is another example of why a good education in history,

history is important to understanding the country because today we sometimes question whether bilingualism is necessary or not and I think it's worthwhile to question those things because we're a country of 41 million people now, but in the 60s around Trudeau's time, maybe we were 10, 11 or 12 million people. And so the demographics of the country have changed. But in the 1960s, it was different. Quebec might have separated. There was the FLQ, the Front de Liberation, to Quebec look agitating for separation. And so something had to be done. And I would say that it's important for English-speaking Canadians to step into the shoes and find out what it might have been like to be a unilingual Francophone living in Quebec. And one of the best ways I've tried to do that in my teaching was to read my students, Rock Carrier's The Sweater. And in that story, Rakhier's mom is trying to order a Montreal-Canadian sweater for her son. But the Eaton's catalog is only in English. So what she's supposed to do is she doesn't know how to handle it.

So imagine not being able to do the simplest things like shop in your own language. And that's the way it would have been in a lot of instances for unilingual Quebecers. And that's how the kid in that story got a maple leaf chance instead. That's right. He got a Maple Leaf Jersey instead, and he wished, he went to church, and he wished for a hundred million moths to come and eat it up. So the other thing is bilingualism is actually an asset. And I don't understand why more Canadians don't see bilingualism as an asset. It is a tool that you can carry with you around the world when you speak a second language.

And we know all the stories about Europeans who speak two, three, four, five, and more languages. A second language is a wonderful asset to have. it's also one of those things that separates us from the United States. And so, you know, I think the Official Languages Act was a smart move, and I still support official bilingualism since 1969 when Pierre Trudeau brought it in. Let me do a Trudeau follow up with you. And admittedly, again, I'm going to require some speculation from you on this. Trudeau becomes Prime Minister in 68.

Majority government wins another election in 72, another one in 74, loses to Joe Clark in 79. but Clark's interregnum is very short, and then Trudeau comes back with another majority in 80. And my question is, what if Clark had succeeded? What if Trudeau's tenure had ended after just those 11 years, and he didn't get that last majority government term from 80 to 84? How would we be characterizing his prime ministership today? Very differently. And I use that as a pivot point in my Trudeau chapter.

What if in 79 or 80 was the end of the Trudeau era? He would have been remembered as a mid-level Prime Minister with some achievements, such as the Official Languages Act. I think he would have received some accolades for handling the October crisis of 1970 and some environmental policies. But that's just a medium level of achievement, and we probably wouldn't be talking too much about him today. I don't even think he'd be in the top six prime ministers. So he really made hay from 80 to 84 with the charter was a huge achievement. So those last four years, he made a big difference. Those first 10 years were quite good, but not history, not as transformational as we have

seen Trudeau turn out to be. It's interesting. He would not have had the achievements of that last term, right? The repatriation of the Constitution, the charter of rights. and freedoms, the peace mission that he attempted to conquer at the end of his career and bring the world around to the dangers of nuclear weapons. But on the other hand, he was quite despised by most of the country by the end. Maybe he wouldn't have been as hated as he left if he had left in 1979, because after all, Clark won that election. But Trudeau bested him in the

total vote, right? Trudeau got 40%. Clark only got 36%, but won more seats. So you might have to take the good with the bad if Trudeau had left earlier. Right. And then in that final term was also also the national energy policy, which everyone hated him for in the West. And also, you know, there was a tired governments really reveal themselves. And the Trudeau government was tiring. He spent a lot of political capital to get the charter and the patriation through. And, and so the government was really out of gas when he left office. So, you know, it's interesting. It's a great parlor question. If Trudeau, never served after 79. Okay, let's get back to your main mission in life, which is teaching history to people of all ages, but you know, you were a high school history teacher for the longest time. So my question is, do you think we can swing the pendulum back to the point where school systems, school boards, ministries of education find it important to bring back the teaching of prime ministers and that kind of history? You know, I'm not, I'm not too hopeful on that front, although maybe the publication of a book like this might make a difference. But then if you look

at an institution like the library and Archives Canada, they had a website on there fully devoted to Canadian prime ministers and they took it down. And they said they would put it back up, but they never did. So if we have other institutions in the country that aren't, we that type of history, then it's going to make it a little bit harder. All I can say is that, you know, like-minded Canadians, people such as me and others who appreciate leadership and the importance of, you know, Petrius Dutille is another historian who's written extensively about Canadian prime ministers. We have to keep doing our job and keep leaning into the wind in this to make sure that this

kind of history is talked about. And remember, you know, the classrooms are very, very important places. And I'm not certain that, um, that education faculties are emphasizing these types of things. So it's a tough row to hoe. But there's also the public history. So things like your podcast, TVO when it was doing its things. CBC needs to get back in the business of doing really good and interesting history documentaries. There are many ways to bring Canadian history to the public face. It's not just education. And so we need to keep fighting for that, whether it's through documentaries, books, government funding for these things is essentially, is very important. And places like the library and archives Canada need to lead the way, but they're not leading

the way right now. So it's the cause of my life and I'm going to keep fighting it for as long as I can. Well, I think you're making some progress, James, and I say this as a kind of a neutral observer on the outside. I just note that, you know, the statue of Sir Johnny McDonald on the south lawn at Queens Park, the cladding has been taken down. McDonald is now available for viewing. Yes, there is security there to make sure it isn't vandalized, but, and there is a plaque that will be put there with some historical context of McDonald's record. I also note in Wilmot, Ontario, which is near Kitchener, that the monuments to all of the former, not all of them, but most of the former prime ministers are being resurrected. That whole project was on hold. They were taken away. Now

they're going to be put back up. What do you read into all of that? So these are encouraging signs. And I think that this is the sign that destroying history and vandalizing statues isn't really the Canadian way. And it's not going to further, it doesn't further reconciliation if those were the reasons for taking down statues, and it doesn't further an understanding of Canadian history, though I might just add these kind of controversies do get people talking about Canadian history, which I think is a positive thing. So there, I'm pleased to see places like Wilmot bringing back their prime minister's path. I'm pleased to see Sir Johnny coming out from the cladding in front of the Ontario legislature. There are still many other places such as

Victoria, Hamilton, Prince Edward County, Charlottetown, these places that still have Sir Johnny McDonald in storage units. And I don't think that's great. But. And Kingston, his home riding for good six. It's just, it's unbelievable that even Kingston, you know, Queens University changing the name of the Sir Johnny McDonald Law Building, some of these things are just, you know, they're so understandable that it's a pity to see. And I just wish more people could take a nuanced view of history instead of just slicing it up into little pieces and taking the one piece that fits their agenda and then saying, well, that's how we're going to make our decisions. It's just, it's not, it's not the way history really works. It's meant to be a deliberative

and deep discussion based on evidence and not a political tool to achieve your own agenda. There is a group that sort of started up. It's a bunch of ad hoc volunteers started up a couple of years ago called, I think the Canadian Institute for Historical Education, which wants to focus on facts as opposed to whatever the particular ideology of the zeitgeist of the day is. And I wonder, and in the interest of full disclosure, my wife's a volunteer with that group, do you think they've had any impact? So I should also get full disclosure because I'm on the advisory council of the organization. Yeah. So I believe they are making an impact. And, you know, it's interesting because it's a grassroots organization and it's across party lines. There are former politicians from the conservative stripe. There are former politicians from the NDP, former from liberals. So there's a very pan-Canadian kind of, or the political spectrum is well represented in the organization. And I think that they are making a difference because, for example, this organization, was lobbying the Toronto District School Board to not go through with their plans to rename schools that were named for Johnny McDonald, Henry Dundas, and Edgerton Ryerson. And in the end, the provincial government stepped in and said, we're not proceeding with this.

And so that was a positive outcome for the organization. And I think grassroots organizations are always very important. I think it's a great example of civic action where people are concerned. concerned and they mobilize and try to make a difference. And we need more. There are organizations out there in Canada that are advocating for Canadian history and we have to keep supporting them. Okay. I've got a couple of questions left and they're really off the beaten path here. So humor me for a second while I ask these questions. I want to take you back to last year. There was a by-election in the riding of Toronto St. Paul's in the middle of the city of Toronto. I heard of it.

where I am coming to you from right now. And that's one of the safest liberal seats in the country. And the conservatives ended up winning that riding in a by-election, which was one of the the single most important pieces of evidence that Justin Trudeau's time was up. Do you happen to remember who the conservative candidate who won that riding happened to be? I do. And I was actually there with the candidate when he found out that he won. I gave my brother a big hug. And so Don is my brother, and he won that by-election. That was a great family moment. And just a, you know, I think anyone who's been in politics will understand the thrill of the victory.

And it was great to be there with my brother. And the funny story is I had actually gone home because there's three o'clock in the morning. And I don't know if you remember that it was the long ballot initiative. And so the results were coming in very slowly. And so my brother was behind, and I said, it's probably not going to change until 7 in the morning. So I'm just going to go home and get a few hours of sleep. By the time I got home, I got a text saying, you better come back because things are changing. And by the time I got back to his place, I opened the door, gave me a big hug because victory had been finalized.

And so it was a great moment to be part of that. Now, of course, the Liberals took the seat back in the general election, and his tenure as an MP was very short. What did he think about it all? I think that it was one of the great thrills of his life. And being a member of parliament is a privilege. And it's also very exciting. He loved it. And he worked very hard to, in the riding, worked very hard during the election campaigns.

And he loved being a member of parliament. And I wouldn't be surprised to see him back in the House of Commons one day. Gotcha. Okay. My last question is this. I've known you for a little while. Well, more than a little while, actually. And I have no idea what J.D.M. stands for. I know James is your first name, but you never go by James. You're always when you write, be it letters to the editor of the newspapers or your books or whatever. You're always JDM. So let's go. Fess up now. What's your whole name?

So my full name is James David Murray, and David is my father. Murray is my grandfather. And the reason I go by the initials is when I was a teenager, there were a bunch of these old scrapbooks and other paraphernalia. that my great-grandfather had kept. And I noticed that everybody went by their initials in the early 1900s. And so I thought it was a very, it's a nod to history and to a bygone era when men often went by their initials. So I decided that I would go by my initials as a nod to my family history in the old days when it just looks a little bit more elegant. And so that's why I decided to go by my initials, a little nod to the old days. you, S.H. Paken thinks that's a great idea, and I'm glad to finally know James David Murray Stewart, what your full name is. I am happy to recommend the prime ministers published by Sutherland House

Press, and the author has been our guest. James, thanks so much for joining us on the Paken podcast. It's been great conversation, Steve. Thanks very much. Peace and love.