Mike Harris, arguably Ontario's most politically polarizing premier since the Second World War, received a courteous and warm sendoff in the legislature from his fiercest adversaries this week. This treatment was as it should be, but as it has not been for a very long time in federal politics.
In this supposedly "kinder, gentler" country, prime ministers have more often than not treated their predecessors and successors badly, even poisonously. In the United States and Britain, by contrast, former presidents and prime ministers are treated by incumbents with respect and even dignity.
Remember the memorial services in the Washington Cathedral and at the Pentagon, and the one in London, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George Bush and Bill Clinton all attended the memorial service at the Washington Cathedral. Mr. Clinton not only went to the one at the Pentagon but his presence was noted by President George W. Bush. At the London service, former prime ministers James Callaghan, Margaret Thatcher and John Major were given places of honour.
These leaders had fought against each other in their careers. Mr. Carter defeated Mr. Ford for the presidency, and Mr. Clinton defeated the elder Mr. Bush. Mrs. Thatcher knocked Mr. Callaghan's Labour Party from office, and Labour's Tony Blair defeated Mr. Major's Conservatives.
These former leaders remain Republicans and Democrats, Labourites and Conservatives. They share only the common experience of having served in their countries' highest elected office. They still hold strong and divergent views about governance, but they appear together at important national events, treat each other with deference, and are so treated by incumbents of the offices they once held.
Contrast this behavior with Canadian federal politics. The mutual animus of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and former prime minister Brian Mulroney is visceral. Mr. Chrétien would never have dreamed of inviting Mr. Mulroney -- or John Turner and Kim Campbell -- to the Sept. 11 memorial service on Parliament Hill.
When South Africa's Nelson Mandela became an honorary Canadian citizen, Mr. Chrétien did not invite Mr. Mulroney to the ceremony, despite Mr. Mulroney's unswerving opposition to apartheid and support for Mr. Mandela. Mr. Chrétien, as Canadians know, has a vengeful, petty streak in his character that is revealed in his public attitude toward his predecessor.
Mr. Mulroney, for his part, bitterly resents the RCMP investigation into false allegations that he received kickbacks from the sale of Airbus aircraft to Air Canada, an investigation he believes Mr. Chrétien and his ministers abetted.
Mr. Mulroney, as prime minister, often found himself at daggers with Pierre Trudeau. He spoke harshly of Mr. Trudeau's record in office and did little to incorporate Mr. Trudeau into public events.
Mr. Trudeau re-entered public life by tearing apart Mr. Mulroney's Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional accords, attacks that more than anything else turned English-speaking Canadians against the deals. Mr. Trudeau typically minced no words, calling Mr. Mulroney a "sorcerer's apprentice" and a "sly fox" whose constitutional efforts amounted to a "total bungle."
Mr. Trudeau did not treat his predecessor, Lester Pearson, with much courtesy, either. Former privy council clerk Gordon Robertson recalled in his memoirs how hurt Mr. Pearson was by his treatment at Mr. Trudeau's hands. And, of course, Mr. Trudeau never hid his scorn for his successor, Mr. Turner, who, in turn, has been largely frozen out by Mr. Chrétien.
The only notable exception to this pattern of bad-mouthing was Mr. Chrétien's appointment of Ms. Campbell as consul-general in Los Angeles. Mr. Chrétien apparently felt sorry for the former Conservative prime minister, who didn't have a full-time job after losing the 1993 election.
Why can't Canadian leaders treat predecessors and successors with a modicum of respect? Canadian debate can be rough, but so can British and American politics.
U.S. presidents are heads of state, so perhaps in retirement that standing gives them a respect that former Canadian prime ministers do not merit. But the rivalries among them have run exceptionally deep, as between Mr. Clinton and the Bush clan.
All leaders, whatever the country, have healthy egos. They need them to advance their careers and deal with the inevitable criticisms of politics. So ego alone cannot explain why we "kinder, gentler" Canadians cannot find decorum and civility among federal leaders past and present.
Maybe the answer lies in the particular personalities who have dominated Canadian politics for 30 years. If so, their treatment of each other has brought them no credit and has rendered tawdry this aspect of our national life.
Ontario and other provinces handle these matters much better. Mr. Chrétien could start a new federal tradition by following provincial examples. But don't hold your breath.