Stephen Harper, , and ’s Politics of Identity

Howard Cody University of Maine

Dr. Howard Cody, Department of Political Science, University of Maine, 5754 North Stevens Hall, Orono, Maine 04469-5754 [email protected]

Abstract This article examines the visions of and Michael Ignatieff. Using two identity models allows for an examination of contemporary Canadian politics and its future. Despite considerable differences in principles and goals and the political competition between the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Parties, Canada’s well-established two-party dynamic continues as it did prior to these leaders arriving on the political scene.

only conservative party of the world that 1 Canada‟s Conservative Prime isn‟t the party of patriotism.” We have less information on Ignatieff. But he clearly Minister Stephen Harper secured re-election wishes to permit civic and a second consecutive minority nationalism to define their identity, and even government in October 2008 with an to secure Canada‟s survival. enhanced share of popular votes and parliamentary seats, leaving him just twelve To help us address these questions, MPs short of the 155 needed for a majority. we describe and analyze the two identity Harper‟s first minority had lasted a record- models we associate with Harper and setting thirty-one months. An economist Ignatieff: Canada as a decentralized from Calgary, Alberta, Harper holds federation of relatively autonomous conservative views on Canada‟s identity by individuals and provinces which operates in honoring individual responsibility, limited world affairs as a faithful ally of the United government and decentralized federalism. States (Harper‟s position); and Canada as a Michael Ignatieff, the opposition Liberal diverse multicultural society defined by party leader and Harper‟s possible mutual respect for rights (Ignatieff‟s successor, perceives Canada‟s identity very position). However, we acknowledge that differently. Ignatieff has embraced a civic observers of Canada‟s politics have nationalist rights discourse arising from identified a policy consensus on national Canada‟s cultural diversities. We survey the identity markers such as bilingualism and identity politics context in which they multiculturalism, open immigration, operate. What are the Harper and Ignatieff interregional wealth redistribution, tax- visions of Canada and its future? What are funded universal health care, and the the long-term implications of Harper‟s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms government? We argue that a majority- which has imposed a narrow range of seeking Harper aspires to wrest Canadian political debate on federal politics.2 Before nationalism and identity politics from the Harper took over Canada‟s Conservative left and reclaim them as conservative causes party, John Ibbitson detected a political like they are elsewhere. He wishes to culture which makes successful politicians change the perception that his party is “the

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 17 prove their visible commitment to historians, notably Donald Creighton, for moderation, pragmatism, and the ideological their “biased history” exaggerating John A. middle-road, especially in populous Macdonald‟s importance and his well- southern .3 For Richard Gwyn, known preference for a centralized state.9 Canada effectively operated as a “one-party According to Romney, this inaccurate and state dependent on the co-existence of two damaging interpretation has emboldened identical parties—one in, one out—in a kind successive federal governments to violate of Kabuki ritual.”4 More specifically, and provincial autonomy and precipitate threats more recently under Harper‟s government, to national survival like ‟s Jeffrey Simpson has identified four of sovereignty movement. English Canadian Canada‟s most pressing political issues as nationalism and centralist historians have “no-fly zones” which leaders of major impeded English Canadians‟ appreciation of parties tacitly agreed not to discuss before coordinate sovereignty‟s historical basis. and since Harper assumed power: Quebec‟s But coordinate sovereignty still prevails status and role in Canada, the Aboriginal amongst Quebecers.10 For Romney, there reserve system, how immigration “is doing can be no national unity until all Canadians more to change and challenge Canada than respect the same history—in this case, any other development”, and how Alberta coordinate sovereignty. Romney quotes “is becoming so much richer than the rest Bishop Desmond Tutu that “if you don‟t that it will strain all sorts of federal have some accepted history the chances are policies.”5 Simpson has since added you will not gel as a community.”11 Afghanistan policy to his list of taboos, in contrast to the vigorous debates in Britain Beyond question, Romney is correct and the United States on the subject.6 We about Quebecers‟ firmly entrenched view of suggest that Canada‟s well established two- Confederation. Quebec‟s pro-Confederation party dynamic is operating much as before leaders of the time proclaimed that the under Harper and Ignatieff, despite their provinces “will be sovereign in all matters dissimilar principles. which are specifically assigned to them,” as Joseph Cauchon put it.12 George-Etienne The Harper Model: Canada as a Cartier, Quebec‟s “father of autonomy”13, assured Quebecers that their “particular Decentralized Federation and rights and interests should be properly Faithful Ally guarded and protected.”14 The 1956 Harper has accelerated the ongoing trend “Tremblay” Quebec Royal Commission towards increased provincial power with his Report declared flatly that Canada‟s 1867 “open federalism” policy. Besides Harper, constitution “made the Province of this model has supporters in Paul Romney Quebec…the French-Canadian centre par and in Mike Harris and Preston Manning. excellence, and the accredited guardian for Romney, a historian, argues that Canada‟s French-Canadian civilization.”15 Quebec‟s 1867 Confederation was a deal between subsequent “Quiet Revolution” built upon autonomy-minded Quebecers and equally this foundation with demands for freedom autonomist Ontario Reformers which from federal interference. English Canadian founded a federal-provincial “coordinate historians‟ familiar argument that Cartier sovereignty.” For example, Reform leader and his fellow bleus willingly founded a George Brown‟s Globe newspaper endorsed “highly centralized state” despite their giving the new Dominion‟s provinces ample rhetoric still enjoys currency elsewhere, but 7 powers and full control over them. not in Quebec.16 Confederation represented the marriage of distinct but complementary Upper and Harris and Manning, in their 8 Lower Canada compact theories. Romney “Canada Strong and Free” project with denounces certain English Canadian ‟s free-market Fraser Institute,

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 18 implicitly apply Romney‟s history lesson to security and prosperity.24 Historian J. L. the federal-provincial relationship. They Granatstein agrees. Deploring Canada‟s appeal for a “rebalanced federalism” of failure to support the Iraq invasion, equal provinces and equal Canadians. Granatstein argues that public disagreement Under rebalanced federalism, will with the United States “hurts us stop its intrusions into provincial immeasurably with Congress, the jurisdictions so resented in Quebec and the administration, and the American media.”25 West. This will relieve the “dis-unifying Because “Canada simply cannot afford to tensions that afflict Canada” which federal alienate its largest customer, best friend, and energy policies and social programs in ultimate defender”, Canadians must end provincial fields like health, welfare, and their hostility to the United States and “get education have aggravated.17 These reforms on with that country”—especially given the will unleash the free market, enhance every growing ill will towards Canada which Canadian‟s quality of life, and strengthen Granatstein detects in the American political national unity by reducing federal taxes, class and media.26 regulation, and spending, all of which have grown much faster in Canada than in the Harper, who was once Manning‟s United States since the late 1960s.18 In their protégé in the Reform party, evidently conservative manifesto, Tasha Kheiriddin accepts the preceding four paragraphs‟ and Adam Daifallah similarly propose that arguments. Under Harper‟s open the federal government promote personal federalism, Ottawa leaves provincial responsibility, self-reliance, and freedom in responsibilities alone. Moreover, our holder a more competitive, entrepreneurial, and of two University of Calgary degrees in achievement-oriented society.19 Harris and Economics endorses the philosophy of Manning insist that their decentralized Austrian Friedrich Hayek. Hayek rejected Canada can maintain unity. A rebalanced government intervention in the economy for federation can identify and pursue common threatening personal freedom, but also interests through inter-provincial because it interferes with the “spontaneous “memorandums of understanding.” These order” which prevails when people are left “flexible bonds woven among the free to make their own choices in the provinces” can ensure each province‟s marketplace and take the consequences of commitment to national objectives without those decisions.27 Because economies are Ottawa‟s interference.20 self-correcting when left alone, and because state intrusion into economic decisions In foreign policy, Harris and represents “the road to serfdom”, Hayek Manning assert that the economic prosperity explicitly repudiated Keynesian needed for national identity and unity economics.28 Harper admires the neo-liberal requires a high level of cooperation and policies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald even integration between Canada and the Reagan. He regrets that Canada‟s leaders of United States. Even such sensitive matters their day, notably Conservative Prime as refugee acceptance policies and domestic Minister , failed to follow cultural programs should be harmonized their tax- and regulation-cutting example.29 between the two countries.21 Besides, Harris Some label Harper a Reagan-modelled and Manning imply that these countries‟ supply-sider preoccupied with reducing national values and priorities construe the taxes and the role of government, even at the world around them similarly. It is their expense of growing deficits.30 global roles that differ.22 So, deeper integration need not endanger Canada‟s But Harper surely appreciates that values, which they do not identify anyway.23 Mulroney‟s record, which Kheiriddin and Moreover, Canadians must be effective Daifallah criticize for lacking fiscal restraint, players in Washington to advance their raising taxes, and more than doubling the

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 19 national debt, suggests that Canada‟s Ottawa only when they simultaneously conservative heritage has handed a free- appeal to Flanagan‟s “three sisters”: marketeer something of a poisoned Western populists then in the Reform party, chalice.31 Indeed, Kheiriddin and Daifallah traditional Progressive Conservatives denounce John A. Macdonald, the father of primarily in Ontario and Atlantic Canada, Canadian conservatism, as a non-ideological and Quebec‟s “soft” nationalists then centralist, a supporter of government supporting the Bloc Quebecois.37 Like spending, and a drunk besides.32 Harris and Manning, Harper believes that Macdonald‟s successors as Conservative Ottawa can relieve alienation in Quebec and Prime Ministers, including John the West by largely withdrawing from Diefenbaker and Joe Clark, fare scarcely Canadians‟ lives. In his Calgary address, better, at least in their (non-)ideology and Harper proposed that Quebecers outside spending policies.33 All in all, Canada‟s Montreal resemble Westerners. He conservatism affords Harper little collective explained Quebec sovereignty‟s appeal to memory and few identity markers to exploit “voters who would not be out of place in when seeking public support.34 Red Deer, except that they speak French rather than English. They are nationalist for For Robin Sears, Harper‟s Canada the same reason that Albertans are differs strikingly from the “caring and populist—they care about their local identity sharing society of peacekeepers” asserted by and the culture that nourishes it, and they many Liberals since the Lester Pearson- see the federal government as a threat to Pierre Trudeau era. Harper‟s policy agenda, their way of life.”38 Thomas Walkom calls a “heterodox blend of conservatism, Harper a radical “in the true sense of the populism, and nationalism”, features proud word” for wishing to make changes which membership in the “Anglosphere” and a cut to the root of Canada‟s politics. For status as loyal ally of the United States, example, Harper is a moralistic social whenever possible also serving alongside conservative determined to assign all social Australia and the United Kingdom; a strong services, from health care to child care, to and respected military willing and able to the provinces to operate as they choose with use force to defend Canada‟s national and no federal interference.39 security interests (not to serve as non- combatant peacekeepers); a decentralized On foreign policy, Harper was federation where Ottawa does not impose “unequivocal” in his support for the Iraq federal programs on Canada‟s provinces or invasion, which he deemed a test of municipalities; and a diverse, multicultural Canada‟s resolve, reliability as an ally, and society—but one with common goals, capacity to meet its responsibilities which values, and institutions rather than a cultural Canada failed disgracefully. Iraq showed mosaic that celebrates differences.35 Harper that liberals are defeatist on terrorism for their moral relativism and moral Harper has proceeded cautiously for neutrality, and for rejecting “any tradition or the most part. He respects his precarious convention of morality” in the face of minority position. He also accepts the oppressive governments‟ threats to western advice of his University of Calgary mentor values and human rights.40 But Harper has Tom Flanagan, who observes that Canada is said little about Iraq since taking office.41 In not yet a conservative country. Flanagan 2006, he “enthusiastically embraced” the counsels that winning a majority requires NATO mission in Afghanistan and incrementalism and “moving towards the rhetorically aligned Canada with President position of the median voter.”36 In his 1996 George W. Bush and Prime Ministers Tony “Winds of Change” speech to a conservative Blair and John Howard in NATO-led conference at Calgary, Harper suggested that operations enforcing (in his words) a conservatives can take and hold power in “fundamental vision of civilization and

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 20 human values” worldwide.42 Harper has The Ignatieff Model: Canada as assured Australia‟s Parliament that Canada a Multicultural Mosaic stands proudly with the United States, Our second identity model has been Britain, and Australia in their “noble and addressed by philosophers Will Kymlicka necessary” defense of democracy over 43 and Charles Taylor, and by Andrew Cohen tyranny. For Harper, to whom Lawrence and John Ibbitson as well as by Ignatieff. Martin assigns an us-versus-them “clash of 44 For all of them, Canada is defined largely by civilizations template” , Canadians‟ identity the presence of disparate groups. and patriotism lie in respecting their regional Kymlicka‟s Canada is a federation of diversities, but especially in honoring moral groups, some based on nationality imperatives which bind them to their (Quebecers, Aboriginals, and English Anglospheric principles and to the global 45 Canadians) and some on territory (provinces responsibilities these principles impose. and regions). Each group respects the others‟ right to keep their distinct cultures To a large extent, Harper, who 52 pledges to “stand up for Canada”, is viable. But only the three “nationality- grounding his view of patriotism and based” groups, including English Canadians identity in Canada‟s military. Support for as a language community with shared the Canadian Forces, who have suffered interests, have “adopted a nationalist over 130 fatalities to date in NATO‟s project.” They alone deserve self-rule, Afghanistan mission, is “something semi-detached from Ottawa, inside a 46 redesigned asymmetric multinational emotional” for Harper. For some, Canada 53 enjoys a proud military history as “never federation. Historically disadvantaged one to back away from war.”47 Canadians groups like women, gays, and ethnic seem to like Harper‟s muscular foreign minorities merit guaranteed representation in Parliament, possibly through fixed quotas of policy. Pollster Frank Graves finds that the 54 military has supplanted medicare and the seats. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as “the Taylor, unlike Kymlicka, proposes most recognizable face of the federal 48 to extend equal recognition and status to all government.” Lawrence Martin laments of Canada‟s “deep diversities.” These that 9/11 has shifted the political spectrum include Kymlicka‟s identity groups like rightward, affecting Liberals and women and gays. Quebecers also need Conservatives alike. Canadians seem not to formal recognition of their distinctiveness.55 mind that Harper has effectively redefined But English Canadians maintain regional Canadian patriotism by replacing their identities. They will accept Quebecers‟ traditional voice of moderation in global recognition only if they and their regions affairs through diplomacy and peacekeeping secure a similar status. Whatever Canadians with a “glorification of the armed 49 do, they must avert a sense of relative services.” Rick Salutin charges that Harper deprivation, or the “real heat…generated is “rebranding” Canada “to get government from the perception of recognition denied, out of the business of social and economic the sense that one group counts for nothing activity” by “shoveling funds into the 56 50 or too little.” military.” However this may be, we cannot ignore the military‟s growing status and the Before entering politics, Ignatieff flag-waving displays (as along Ontario‟s was a noted public intellectual with a Highway 401, Canada‟s “Highway of Harvard doctorate in History and numerous Heroes”) which Canadians traditionally books on nationalism, ethnicity, and rights. associate with Americans.51 Harper‟s For him, Canada is “simply a patchwork approach to Canadian patriotism and quilt of distinctive societies” (English national identity clearly resonates with many Canadians, Quebecers, Aboriginals, and Canadians.

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 21 immigrants) which “do not inhabit the same languages in alone. Immigrants historical reality.”57 Their founding need a civic nationalist (not ethnic- mythologies are incompatible and will grounded) rights-based community where remain so.58 History will never be the same Canadians accept and respect each other, in for Quebecers and English Canadians, who all their diversities, as rights-bearing cannot agree on what the Plains of Abraham equals.67 Ignatieff‟s civic nationalism aspires battle means.59 Quebecers will continue to to create a wholly inclusive society in which cherish their victimology with its “old no one is refused equality or participation in memories of hurts and slights.”60 Besides, public governance or in the institutions of for Quebecers “English Canada as a whole civil society. In his Canada, individuals has become less and less relevant”, while may define their own identity and political Quebec “has ceased to define itself in terms engagement for themselves, rather than of Canada.”61 So does Ignatieff consider having them imposed. So the liberal state‟s Quebecers as victims of destructive ethnic objective is to provide citizens with the nationalism, which (as he concludes from space and the ability to live their lives as the Balkan wars of the 1990s) is exclusive, they see fit.68 Ignatieff speculates that civic emotional, repressive, and subject to nationalism amid ethnic diversity has the violence?62 Not at all. In contrast to the potential to make Canada the civic society Balkan experience, Quebecers have par excellence, a worldwide exemplar of fashioned an “officially French society” tolerance in an era riven by ethnic conflict.69 where they feel comfortable and secure.63 But he does not contend that Canada already Ignatieff has overcome his earlier has attained his civic nationalist ideal. reservations about Quebec‟s ethnic nationalism. He became convinced that, Canada‟s civic nationalism thanks to their newly achieved linguistic and somehow must also accommodate cultural security, Quebecers have attained an Quebecers and Aboriginals as “constituent admirable and inclusive civic nation, groups” with enduring ethnicity-based victimology and all, whose rights culture loyalties. Indeed, these and other “collective benefits all Quebecers, regardless of identities and longings are primary and ethnicity or language.64 Ignatieff also passionate and…there‟s no point in arguing evidently agrees with Kymlicka that about them.”70 As Liberal party leader honoring Quebec‟s French character Ignatieff is currently encouraging Quebec advances national unity by facilitating nationalists to connect with Canada and, not Quebecers‟ acceptance of, and integration incidentally, with a party which many into, Canadian society.65 Quebecers unhelpfully associate with Trudeau‟s rejection of group rights.71 But how can multicultural Canada Ignatieff is now reassuring Quebecers that survive with no common language, his views have evolved, distancing him from consensus on history, or sole identity for its Trudeau. He now comfortably accepts their immigrants to integrate into? Immigrants communal rights and by extension Quebec‟s demanding inclusion cannot accept the effective autonomy. He further recognizes concept of Canada basically as a pact that Quebecers‟ primary allegiance will between founding races. Such a definition remain with Quebec.72 He does not reveal of Canada “seems to accord no place to whether he could accept Harper-like them.”66 For Ignatieff, who names Isaiah decentralization or if he fears Taylor‟s “real Berlin and Pierre Trudeau (and Trudeau‟s heat” from non-Quebecers‟ perceived Charter of Rights) as his inspirations, only relative deprivation. But Nurse insists that “rights delivery…will hold us together.” Ignatieff, like most Liberals, supports a “big Canada must integrate into western liberal state” capable of putting in place and values a rapidly growing immigrant enforcing the physical, legal, and population speaking more than seventy

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 22 constitutional infrastructure of a liberal interpretations.”80 Yet Ibbitson maintains order.73 that Canada has made itself into the world‟s most successful country by “profiting from Ignatieff acknowledges some the explosive creative forces that are contradictions and complications in his unleashed when people of different races, approach. He concedes that politics under cultures, and lifestyles live together and civic nationalism is fragile, unruly, bond.”81 Ibbitson displays more confidence contentious, and features “semi-permanent in this bonding than all others cited in this political crisis.”74 He realizes that civic section, Ignatieff prominently included. For nationalism lacks ethnic nationalism‟s Ibbitson, only the cultural dynamism from emotional allure. Ignatieff appreciates that 250,000 immigrants each year can rescue ethnic identities, but not civic nationalism, Canada from its deep regional divisions and can fulfill the need for belonging. But as advance the causes of national unity and civic values are indispensable for freedom, identity.82 they must take precedence.75 Nurse finds that Ignatieff harbors “passionate concern, Conclusion and worry” about civic nationalism‟s 76 In a sense, Stephen Harper and Michael prospects for success in Canada. In Ignatieff are rights-professing idealists who Nurse‟s view, neither Ignatieff nor anyone agree that “the world needs more Canada.” else can reconcile Quebec and Aboriginal Both are moralistic internationalists who identity models with an individual-based champion individualistic Anglo-Saxon civic nationalist society. Moreover, values. Both believe that Canada can and Ignatieff cannot explain why we should should serve as an exemplar deserving expect Canada‟s rapidly growing ethnic emulation. In Harper‟s case this means that minorities, primarily from group-oriented Canadians must robustly defend their Asian cultures, to choose his individual- Anglospheric convictions and participate in empowering civic nationalism over their wars to do so. For Ignatieff, Canada must more emotionally compelling communal 77 serve as a beacon of human rights which solidarity. shows the world how to accommodate disparate peoples in a single state. Further, Cohen doubts that Canada‟s both see Canada as home to diversities they multicultural society can integrate must safeguard. Harper affirms respect for immigrants in accordance with Ignatieff‟s the autonomy of Canada‟s varied formula. He defies a taboo which Ignatieff individuals, regions, and provinces; Ignatieff ignores. He attacks multiculturalism‟s affirms respect for the rights of Canada‟s operation if not its principle for turning varied linguistic and ethnic groups. While Canada into “an ethnic archipelago with their conservative and liberal views nothing in common.” Canada does not even naturally influence their assessments of offer its immigrants Ignatieff‟s inadequate Ottawa‟s role, government in general, and civic nationalist model. It furnishes them Canada‟s global responsibilities and only an “empty vessel” lacking the reputation, growing similarities between integrating political culture which any 78 Conservatives and Liberals mitigate these “united self-assured nation” needs. In this differences. For one thing, Harper‟s setting, mass immigration and Harper-style Citizenship Minister Jason Kenney, like power decentralization hold disintegrative 79 Ignatieff, argues that multiculturalism has its potential, particularly in combination. Like limits. Canada‟s immigrants have a “duty to Bishop Tutu, Cohen proposes socializing integrate.”83 They must set aside old immigrants into a single interpretation of loyalties: “We want people to be Canadians Canada‟s history, even as he effectively first and foremost.”84 Also, with 9/11 having agrees with Ignatieff by calling Canada‟s shifted Canada‟s political center towards history a “minefield, a clash of continentalism, Liberals who once opposed

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 23

Canada-US free trade now urge more tightly But by late 2009 he had accepted his Liberal integrated bilateral economic and border predecessors‟ close engagement with China policies.85 Bipartisan consensus extends to benefit Canada‟s economy.95 further to supporting asymmetric federalism featuring effective autonomy for Quebec, Walkom, Salutin, and others on the maintaining immigration at the current high left may overestimate Harper‟s capacity or level, and respecting all five of Simpson‟s his will to impose his vision of Canada‟s “no-fly zones” or policy debate taboos. identity, at least in his precarious minority situation. Michael Bliss concludes that, at Foreign issues offer added home and abroad, Harper‟s current policies convergence. Ignatieff vigorously supported “might have been drawn from the Jean the Iraq war in its early stages with the Chretien-Paul Martin songbook.”96 For human rights justification that Saddam Simpson, the “muddling middle of the Hussein was a “genocidal tyrant.”86 While Canadian political spectrum” has Ignatieff now concedes he had been “wrong, “enveloped” Harper, who has “banished all wrong, wrong” on Iraq, Gopnik labels his the usual conservative talismans” such as foreign policy views as “hawkish.”87 That deregulation and reducing the size of may be exaggerated, but Ignatieff is closer government. Harper has replaced to Harper than to his own party‟s conservatism with a “mighty spending marginalized “soft power” left.88 Then there machine” similar to his Conservative and is Afghanistan. It was Liberal Prime Liberal predecessors, along with stimulus Minister Paul Martin, Harper‟s immediate deficit spending to bolster Conservative predecessor, who committed Canadian fortunes at the next election.97 Flanagan forces to volatile Kandahar as part of his disowns such policies as “survival without strategy for dealing with the post 9/11 any sense of direction.”98 But they reflect a world.89 Harper maintains a more identity- political culture which pulls politicians from validating commitment to Afghanistan than both the left and the right towards the Martin or Ignatieff. But Andrew Cooper consensual middle.99 finds Harper‟s policies there and elsewhere approaching a traditional bipartisan This phenomenon plays out in both consensus mixing liberal internationalism parties. Before entering politics, Ignatieff (Canada as the “quintessential joiner”) with asserted that “Democracy is rough and functional or niche diplomacy.90 Ignatieff‟s tumble…but…it is better than bland or Afghan policy is similar to Harper‟s.91 managed consensus.”100 Perhaps so, but Ignatieff also shares Harper‟s reluctance to Canada‟s rough and tumble politics is filling propose major initiatives on climate change. the policy debate vacuum with personal No wonder. According to Simpson, attack and “increasingly hateful political Canadians want climate change “action”, but rhetoric.”101 The true radical Conservative “not if it unduly causes them to alter their Harper and the big state Liberal Ignatieff behaviour or costs them anything.”92 accept federal politics‟ current consensus, Opinion polls suggest that, over time, which is both bland and (tacitly) managed. Canadians are according climate change less Ignatieff may welcome the rightward urgency.93 Finally, Harper‟s evolved foreign policy shift. He endorses Harper‟s approach to China upholds Cooper‟s thesis. moralistic internationalism and his domestic In 2006, Harper sounded more like a social and foreign initiatives, which increasingly conservative than a business conservative resemble Liberal policy in any case. Unlike when he refused to forge closer economic some previous Liberal leaders, Ignatieff is ties with China. He attacked its human proposing neither a strong, activist federal rights record and declared that “I don‟t think government nor an engaged and creative Canadians want us to sell out important foreign policy.102 So while Harper and Canadian values…to the almighty dollar.”94 Ignatieff advance distinctive identities for

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 24

Canada and different aspirations for its might matter little, substantively, which future domestic and global roles, their leader of these increasingly similar parties of policies are similar, despite their rhetoric. It patriotism leads Canada in the near future.

1 Jeffrey Simpson and Brian Laghi, “Incremental Man.” Globe and Mail, October 4, 2008. 2 James Laxer, “More Than Politics, This is a National Crisis.” Globe and Mail, April 26, 2005. 3 John Ibbitson, “The Dirty Little Secret about Canadian Politics.” Globe and Mail, April 7, 2003. 4 Richard Gwyn, “Canada as a One-Party State.” Policy Options, October 2001, 18. 5 Jeffrey Simpson, “Muddling Through: A Curious Approach to Nationhood.” Globe and Mail, June 30, 2008. 6 Jeffrey Simpson, “Despite Our Setbacks, All Quiet on the Afghan Front.” Globe and Mail, October 6, 2009. 7 Paul Romney, Getting It Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation. Toronto: Press, 1999, 91-94. 8 Ibid., 283. 9 Ibid., 83-108. 10 Ibid., 277. 11 Ibid., 277-278. 12 Janet Ajzenstat, Paul Romney, Ian Gentles, and William D. Gairdner, editors, Canada’s Founding Debates. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, 1999, 312. 13 Daniel LeBlanc, “Ottawa Drafts New Deal for Provinces.” Globe and Mail, July 30, 2008. 14 Ajzenstat et al., 285. 15 Report of the Royal Commission into Constitutional Problems. Quebec: Queen‟s Printer, 1956, I:66. 16 Note John A. Dickinson and Brian Young, A Short History of Quebec. Fourth edition. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, 2008, 190. 17 Mike Harris and Preston Manning, Vision for a Canada Strong and Free. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2007, 223-224. www.fraserinstitute.ca 18 Ibid., 118-123. Note this book‟s table at 121 on trends in Canadian and United States government spending. 19 Tasha Kheiriddin and Adam Daifallah, Rescuing Canada’s Right: Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Mississauga: John Wiley and Sons Canada, 2005, 247. 20 Harris and Manning, 225. 21 Mike Harris and Preston Manning, International Leadership By a Canada Strong and Free. Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2007, 46. 22 Ibid., 47. 23 Ibid., 63. 24 Ibid., 67. 25 J. L. Granatstein, Whose War Is It? How Canada Can Survive in the Post-9/11 World. Toronto: HarperCollins, 2007, 90-93. 26 Ibid., 107-108. 27 William Johnson, Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada. Revised paperback edition. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2006, 47. 28 Ibid., 46-48. The expression “we are all Keynesians now” does not apply to Stephen Harper. 29 Ibid., 49. 30 Eugene Lang, “Big-Spender Harper True to His Neoconservative Roots.” , November 30, 2009. 31 Kheiriddin and Daifallah, 21. 32 Ibid., 5. This description differs somewhat from American conservatives‟ hagiographic portrayals of their Founding Fathers. 33 Ibid., 12. 34 For a recent defense of the moderate, less ideological “Red” Toryism which Harper is trying to extirpate from his party, see Hugh Segal, “Balance is Part of Tory History.” Globe and Mail, March 11, 2009.

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 25

35 Robin V. Sears, “The Ripple Effect from Quebec‟s Realignment Election.” Policy Options, May 2007, 18. www.irpp.org 36 Thomas Flanagan, “Ottawa Is Worth a Mass: Stephen Harper‟s Rise to Power.” Inroads 19, Summer- Fall 2006, 82-83; Tom Flanagan, “Thou Shalt Not Lean Too Far to the Right.” Globe and Mail, September 22, 2007. Harper agrees. He advises Conservatives to be “tough and pragmatic, not unrealistic or ideological” in dealing with the economic downturn. Steven Chase and Bill Curry, “Harper Warns Tories to Avoid „Ideological‟ Governing.” Globe and Mail, November 13, 2008. 37 Johnson, 263-265, 431. 38 Ibid., 264. Emphasis added. Red Deer is a conservative city in central Alberta. 39 Thomas Walkom, “Harper a Radical in True Sense of the Word.” Toronto Star, June 5, 2004. 40 Ibid. 41 John Ivison, “Harper‟s Foreign Policy Anti-Doctrine.” , November 28, 2007. 42 Gillian Steward, “Military Can Still Count on the West.” Toronto Star, March 17, 2009; Munroe Eagles, “Canadian-American Relations in a Turbulent Era.” PS XXXIX:4, October 2006. www.apsa.net 43 Mike de Sousa, “Our Cause is Noble, Harper Tells Australians.” CanWest News Service, September 11, 2007. www.canada.com 44 Lawrence Martin, “Here‟s How Obama Can Raise Harper‟s Game.” Globe and Mail, January 15, 2009. 45 Ivison; John Ibbitson, “Empire Strikes Back in Harper‟s Rhetoric.” Globe and Mail, July 27, 2006. 46 Simpson and Laghi. 47 “Editorial: Canada Never One to Back Away from War.” National Post, November 11, 2008. 48 Erin Anderssen, “Canadians Embrace New Role for Military.” Globe and Mail, November 6, 2009. 49 Lawrence Martin, “It‟s only been a Decade, but the Conservative Way is Redefining Us.” Globe and Mail, November 18, 2009. 50 Rick Salutin, “Think Remembrance, Then Think Rebranding.” Globe and Mail, November 13, 2009. 51 Michael Valpy, “Warriors Once More, We Struggle with What It Means.” Globe and Mail, November 10, 2008. 52 Will Kymlicka, “Multinational Federalism in Canada: Rethinking the Partnership.” Roger Gibbins and , editors, Beyond the Impasse: Toward Reconciliation. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, 1998, 20-27. 53 Will Kymlicka, Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998, 127-129, 155-166, 178-179, 183. 54 Ibid., 114-120; Will Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, 147. 55 Charles Taylor, Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, 1993, 191-195. 56 Ibid., 195. 57 Michael Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution. Toronto: Anansi, 2000, 120, 134. 58 William Johnson, “Where Does the „True Patriot‟ Really Stand on National Unity?” Globe and Mail, April 30, 2009. 59 Michael Ignatieff, “The History That Matters Most.” Rudyard Griffiths, editor, Great Questions of Canada. Revised edition. Toronto: Key Porter Books, 2007, 25. On this 1759 battle‟s contested status to this day, see “Fighting Old Battles.” Economist, February 26, 2009. 60 Ignatieff, “The History That Matters Most”, 39-40. 61 Michael Ignatieff, Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism. Toronto: Viking, 1993, 123. 62 Andrew Nurse, “‟A Necessary Precondition: Michael Ignatieff and the Dilemmas of „Civic Nationalism.‟” Andrew Nurse and Raymond B. Blake, editors, Beyond National Dreams: Essays on Canadian Citizenship and Nationalism. Markham: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 2009, 28-31. 63 Adam Gopnik, “The Return of the Native.” The New Yorker, September 7, 2009, 32. 64 Donald Ipperciel and Jennifer Woo, “Between Freedom and Belonging: Ignatieff and Berlin on Nationalism.” British Journal of Canadian Studies 22:2, 2009, 170. 65 Will Kymlicka, “Citizenship, Communities, and Identity in Canada.” James Bickerton and Alain-G. Gagnon, editors, Canadian Politics. Fifth edition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009, 32. 66 Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution, 130. 67 Ibid., 129-130. 68 Ibid., 53; Nurse, 32.

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 26

69 Nurse, 24. 70 Ignatieff is quoted in Gopnik, 31. 71 For a discussion of Trudeau‟s efforts to define rights exclusively for the individual and not for collectivities, see Samuel V. LaSelva, “Understanding Canada‟s Origins: Federalism, Multiculturalism, and the Will to Live Together.” Bickerton and Gagnon, 9-14. 72 L. Ian MacDonald, “Ignatieff Cracks the Quebec Identity Code.” National Post, April 3, 2009. 73 Nurse, 33. 74 Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution, 6; Nurse, 38. 75 Ipperciel and Woo, 170. 76 Nurse, 47. 77 Ibid., 42-47. 78 Andrew Cohen, The Unfinished Canadian: The People We Are. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2007, 157-163. Some second-generation immigrants, like Sri Lankan Tamils, identify with Canada more weakly than their parents do. Canadians have yet to consider how this trend might affect national unity. Margaret Wente, “Can You Belong to More than One Nation?” Globe and Mail, April 23, 2009. 79 Cohen, 256. 80 Ibid., 51-92. The “minefield” reference is at 76. 81 John Ibbitson, The Polite Revolution: Perfecting the Canadian Dream. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2005, 3. 82 Ibid., 12-14. 83 Lawrence Martin, “Enough of Multiculturalism—Bring on the Melting Pot.” Globe and Mail, March 31, 2009. 84 David Stoffman, “An Ideology, Not a Fact.” Globe and Mail, August 21, 2009. 85 Thomas Axworthy, “A Strong Canada in a Shared Continent.” Toronto Star, December 30, 2007. 86 Rachel Cooke, “Michael Ignatieff: From the Late Show to Prime Minister in Waiting?” Guardian, September 27, 2009. 87 Ibid.; Gopnik, 29. 88 For the “soft power” perspective of the Liberal party‟s left which Ignatieff appears not to share, see Lloyd Axworthy, Navigating a New World: Canada’s Global Future. Toronto: A. A. Knopf, 2003. 89 Roger Sarty, “The Interplay of Defence and Foreign Policy.” Robert Bothwell and Jean Daudelin, editors, Canada among Nations 2008: 100 Years of Canadian Foreign Policy. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen‟s University Press, 2009, 138; Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang, The Unexpected War: Canada in Kandahar. Toronto: Viking, 2007. 90 Andrew F. Cooper, “Redefining the Core Ingredients of Canadian Foreign Policy: Afghanistan as the Main Game.” Bickerton and Gagnon, 359. 91 Haroon Siddiqui, “Afghanistan Stumps Obama, Harper, Ignatieff.” Toronto Star, December 13, 2009. 92 Jeffrey Simpson, “Geographically Speaking, What on Earth is Canada Doing?” Globe and Mail, December 12, 2009. 93 Michael Adams and Keith Neuman, “Assertive Action on Climate Change isn‟t yet a Bread and Butter Issue.” Globe and Mail, December 14, 2009. 94 Fred Edwards, “Chinese Shadows.” Bothwell and Daudelin, 309. 95 John Ibbitson, “For Harper, Canada‟s Future is Asian.” Globe and Mail, December 7, 2009. 96 Michael Bliss, “Has Harper Found His Tipping Point?” Globe and Mail, October 1, 2009. 97 Jeffrey Simpson, “How Conservatives Have Benefited from Hard Economic Times.” Globe and Mail, October 16, 2009. 98 John Ibbitson, Open and Shut: Why America Has Barack Obama and Canada Has Stephen Harper. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 2009, 54. 99 Ibid., 30. 100 Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution, 6. 101 Robin V. Sears, “Minority Government: From Productive to Dysfunctional.” Policy Options, October 2009, 35. 102 Jeffrey Simpson, “An Opposition Leader Has a Lousy Job.” Globe and Mail, October 9, 2009.

Southern Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 3, 1 (June 2010) 27