Stephen Harper, Michael Ignatieff, and Canada’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 Stephen Harper 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 Canadians 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 Ontario.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 Quebec‟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 Vancouver‟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, Ottawa 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