The Conservative Narrative Of Canada: Differences And Divergences
Recently in Maclean’s magazine, Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells discussed the narrative created by the Conservative Party for their vision of Canada, as compared with the narrative that had been offered by the Liberal Party.[1] While the Liberal narrative put an emphasis on such aspects as the Charter of Rights, the national flag, the CBC, medicare, peacekeeping and the United Nations, the Conservative narrative emphasizes the Canadian military, support for families and the economy, the RCMP, Tim Horton’s coffee, hockey and Arctic sovereignty. While what is included in both narratives is significant, what is missing can prove to be just as telling-namely, an emphasis on American-style sink or swim individualism and market freedom.
When developing their new country, one of the major reasons the American Founding Fathers chose a federal system of government was to divide state power between multiple levels of government from gaining too much power over the citizenry.[2] In Canada, by contrast, Conservative governments have made essential and long-lasting contributions through their own nation- and province-building initiatives: John A. Macdonald built the CPR and opened the West for settlement; R.B. Bennett created the CBC, the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board; John Diefenbaker instituted agricultural reform, northern development, full voting rights for Aboriginal people and the Canadian Bill of Rights while continuing to expand the Canadian social safety net put in place by the Liberals; Peter Lougheed used the royalties from Alberta’s oil reserves to diversify the province’s economy, build new schools, hospitals and infrastructure and invest in other Canadian projects; Robert Stanfield modernized Nova Scotia’s infrastructure and instituted the province’s first economic development and medicare systems; and Danny Williams until very recently used Newfoundland & Labrador’s oil wealth to turn it into a “have” province.
Even today, the pattern continues. Rudyard Griffiths, former head of the Dominion-Historica Institute and writer for the National Post, describes himself as a “libertarian” on his Facebook page while warmly praising many Canadian nation-building initiatives in his writings.[3] Preston Manning specifically addressed and debunked the idea that the Reform Party was interested in abolishing the Canadian social safety net,[4] instead emphasizing the dangers that resulted from extremely high government deficits and debt, which would have hampered the federal government’s ability to meet the needs of Canadians.[5] Link Byfield, candidate for the conservative Wildrose Alliance party in Alberta and son of former Alberta Report publisher Ted Byfield, notes that Albertans are neither particularly right-wing or left-wing, being capable of supporting both individual initiative and collective solutions.[6]
In the field of current public policy, the Harper government continues to provide direct support for families making their own child care choices through the support cheques it offers.[7] In all the rhetoric over the long-gun registry, it has apparently been overlooked that Canada has required the registry of handguns since 1934, and all the controversy over gun registration seems to have been on long guns only, with little to no talk of ending the handgun registry. Harper’s initiatives towards rebuilding our armed forces and asserting sovereignty over our Arctic territories can themselves be seen as further nation-building initiatives, respectively tying back into Canada’s proud military history and its contributions in the World Wars, and the North’s deep-rooted place in our national mythology. The Conservative Party’s founding principles describe a balance of individual rights and responsibilities and progressive social policy. While government activity should be limited to those duties that cannot be discharged by the individual, that does not preclude the state providing assistance and compassion for those in genuine need.[8]
Conspicuously absent in all the Canadian conservative thought and action described until now are attempts to ban abortions or gay marriage, gun ownership as an inherent right, or capitalism or marketplaces as an inherent virtues in and of themselves that should not be regulated, as opposed to merely the best means of creating wealth and scientific progress. Such beliefs are commonly associated with the Republican right in the United States, but from everything I have seen and read they are not nearly as widespread in Canada. Indeed, Preston Manning specifically addressed the idea of an American-style evangelical movement in Canada-in his mind, one of the things that distinguished true Christianity from spurious Christianity was that the true faith never sought to forcibly impose its solutions on those who did not choose to receive it.[9]
Many Americans abhor any type of gun control, the debate over the gun registry in Canada focuses almost exclusive on long-barrel guns, while the idea of dismantling the handgun registry has seemingly not been raised at all. As previously noted, Canadian conservatives are perfectly willing to use the powers of the government to undertake positive nation- and province-building initiatives when they are in office, whereas such government action tends to be viewed with more suspicion among Americans outside of specific areas. Whether or not one believes the more moderate language of conservatives such as Harper and Byfield reflects their true beliefs, the mere fact that they regularly speak in more moderate terms illustrates some of the essential differences between Canadian and American conservatism.
Further evidence can be seen in the recent American health care debate, where many conservative Americans opposed the notion of being “forced” to buy health insurance or seeing their tax dollars go to provide universal access, while in Canada the debate over private and public health care delivery centers more over which is more efficient while still allowing for universal access. Just as with their leftist counterparts, opinion among Canadian conservatives is by no means unanimous, when National Post writer Jonathan Kay comments on how he finds many of the arguments made by Toronto Star writer Linda McQuaig and tax professor Neil Brooks in their book The Trouble With Billionaires to have been “reasonable”[10] while Gerry Nicholls criticizes Stephen Harper for supposedly focusing more on “populist” conservative issues such as the family, the military and criminal justice while avoiding issues related to individual freedom and smaller government.[11]
Many of the issues that would take center stage in an American conservative narrative play far less of a role in the narrative of Canada developed by the Harper Conservatives and described by Coyne and Wells. Subtle but important differences can be found, namely the ideas of Christianity and religion as being a much more private matter that can serve as a helpful moral guide but should not be legislated on those who do not desire its solutions, weapons ownership as being a matter of convenience rather than an essential freedom, and a positive role for government to play in the economy and society. These exist to differing variations and in different forms among different thinkers and politicians, but they are aspects that help distinguish Canadian conservatism from its American counterpart.
These differences, along with a greater recognition of the balance between individual and collective rights, and between government action and the free market, further distinguish Canada as a whole from its southern neighbour.
[1]Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells, “Coyne vs. Wells on Five Years of Harper.” Video debate available on Maclean’s magazine website, January 27, 2011. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/27/coyne-v-wells-on-five-years-of-harper/ See also Paul Wells and John Geddes, “What You Don’t Know About Stephen Harper”. Maclean’s magazine, January 31, 2011, section 2. http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/01/31/what-you-dont-know-about-stephen-harper/2/
[2] See James Madison’s theories on the American “compound republic” in Samuel La Selva’s The Moral Foundations of Canadian Federalism: Paradoxes, Achievements and Tragedies of Nationhood. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996. Pages 34, 121, 174 and 188–189. See also Will Kymlicka and Jean-Robert Raviot, “Living Together: International Aspects of Federal Systems.” Canadian Foreign Policy, 5(1), Fall 1997, pages 1–50, page 14 in particular.
[3] Rudyard Griffiths, Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2009. Pages 121–137.
[4] Preston Manning, The New Canada. Toronto: Macmillan Canada, 1992. Pages 258–259 and 314–315.
[5] Ibid., pages 337–339.
[6] Cited in Stephen Dafoe, “Byfield Acclaimed as Wildrose Alliance Candidate.” Morinville News, October 11, 2010. http://morinvillenews.com/2010/10/11/byfield-acclaimed-as-wildrose-candidate/
[7] Wells and Geddes, section 2.
[8] Founding Principles of the Conservative Party of Canada. http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/
[9] Manning, pages 99–100.
[10] Jonathan Kay, “The Rich Are Bad For Your Health.” Review of Linda McQuaig’s and Neil Brooks’ The Trouble With Billionaires. Published in The Literary Review of Canada, December 2010.
[11] Cited in Bruce Cheadle, “Harper in Control as Decade Winds Down, But Polls Say Canada Hasn’t Moved Right.” The Canadian Press, December 20, 2009. http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/cp-article.aspx?cp-documentid=23111013
This article was originally published in February 2011, and was inspired by a debate at Macleans Magazine between Canadian political writers Andrew Coyne and Paul Wells about the different narratives of Canada promoted by the Liberal and Conservative parties.
Originally published at www.vivelecanada.ca.
