[JaredMilne]

It’s common these days to hear the claim that Red Toryism is dead in Canadian politics. Many observers believe that the demise of the older version of Canadian conservatism, popularized by the likes of John A. Macdonald, John Diefenbaker and Robert Stanfield, is gone for good. Canadian conservatism has supposed shifted to more closely mimic its American counterpart. Now, Canadian conservatism is supposed to emphasize the marketplace, laissez-faire individualism and drastically cutting government spending and taxes. Red Toryism had a more positive role for government in society and the common good, but that’s supposedly gone now, with the rise of the Reform Alliance in the 1990s and its eventual growth into the modern Conservative Party of Canada, which now governs Canada with Stephen Harper at the head of a majority government.

So Red Toryism is dead...isn’t it?

In fact, I don’t think that Red Toryism in Canada is as far gone as other observers believe. Even today, when the old Canadian consensus is supposedly dying out, I’ve found a lot of evidence that many elements of Red Toryism are still alive and vital in Canada. Indeed, even the more populist version of conservatism advocated by Western Canadians like Preston Manning is not as different from ‘traditional’ Red Toryism as most people believe.

Now, just over halfway through Stephen Harper’s first majority government is a good time to study whether Red Toryism is really as dead in Canada as many people seem to think. To do that, we can analyze some of the key principles of Red Toryism as outlined by B.C. scholar Ron Dart. In an extensive article, Professor Dart analyzes eleven of the main principles of Red Toryism. Examining each of these principles in turn can determine whether they are no longer as relevant in Canada as some people claim.

1. Tories are concerned about the insights of the past and the truths learned by those who have come before us.

At first glance, this doesn’t seem to exist much in Canada anymore. Many Canadians don’t know very much about our national history. In his book Canadians: A Portrait Of A Country And Its People, Roy MacGregor cites journalist John Ibbitson, who claims that immigration has “swamped” the history of the old Canada. Ibbitson urges Canadians to be “ahistorical” by forgetting the old issues like Quebec nationalism, the Aboriginal Treaties, the National Energy Program, Meech Lake, etc., and instead seeing Canada through the eyes of those most recently arrived.

Despite Ibbitson’s pleas, many Canadians don’t seem very inclined to follow his advice. The Idle No More protest movement, for instance, is heavily based on reminding Canadians about the Treaties that the Canadian Crown signed with the country’s Aboriginal peoples to gain legal access to the land, and to defend their Treaty rights. These rights are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and have been repeatedly confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. More generally, elders also play a critical role in Aboriginal societies, providing advice for leaders and youth based on the lessons of the past.

This trait exists just as much among non-Native Canadians as well. Western Canadians, especially in Alberta, are often leery of intervention by a federal government whose actions they felt often benefited the provinces east of Manitoba at the West’s expense. Alberta, in particular, still has bitter memories of the National Energy Program, which did so much damage to its economy. These feelings fueled Western alienation and the rise of the Reform Alliance under Preston Manning. They also exist at the other end of the country. Former Newfoundland & Labrador Lieutenant Governor Ed Roberts told Jeffrey Simpson about the idea of the ‘Fighting Newfoundlander’, who stood up for his province against a bullying federal government in Ottawa.

Such feelings run deep in Quebec, too. Quebec’s provincial motto is “je me souviens”, or “I remember”, and its history has been marked by the Francophone population’s long refusal to assimilate into an English-speaking continent. Quebec’s controversial language laws are one of the most notable examples of this refusal, steps taken to maintain their Francophone character and distinct society.

The actions of the federal government itself have also played into various elements of our history. Stephen Harper has worked extensively to play up elements of Canada such as the War of 1812, the monarchy, and the North, to boost his party’s image and also to gain support for its agenda. Senator Hugh Segal penned an editorial citing John Diefenbaker’s legacy, doubtless to further build support for Conservative initiatives such as Harper’s Arctic sovereignty project.

One may question the value of these beliefs and actions, but they’re solidly rooted in our history. Indeed, one of the biggest problems facing Canada today, much as it has always been, is the fact that we often don’t know each other’s history. Our perspectives, whether Western alienation, Quebec nationalism, Newfoundland & Labrador’s assertiveness, and so much more, has been affected by the past and how it’s shaped our present.

2. Tories have a passion for the commonweal and the commons. The good of the people and the nation, with each finding their place in an organic whole for the common good, is an essential part of Tory politics.

One common claim,popularized by the Manning Centre For Building Democracy, was that Canadians are becoming more individualist in their beliefs, more conservative and less likely to support government intervention and social programs. Whether or not that’s true is another matter. According to Jeffrey Simpson, Canadians’ prime interests in government spending are things like education, health care and poverty reduction, with much less support for things like justice or defence spending. Frank Graves believes that Canadians are growing increasingly concerned about issues like income mobility, doubting that hard work alone will guarantee success, while support for minimal government is itself shrinking. Thomas Walkom believes that Canadians by and large don’t have much ideology, or are centrist, balanced between communal support for people in need and the belief that governments should keep their noses out of private affairs like sexuality and abortion. An anonymous commenter by the name of Citizen X believes that Canada continues to remain a generally centrist nation.

At the provincial level, Alberta is considered to be the most individualist and conservative province. But even here, however, former Premier Ralph Klein’s “Third Way” proposals to increase the role of private health care largely failed due to widespread opposition from his own caucus. The Wildrose Alliance, the province’s leading Opposition party, has also specifically stated that any reforms it would make to the provincial health care system would comply with the Canada Health Act. Many conservative Americans fiercely oppose Obamacare, but even in Alberta most conservatives accept the need for public health care. They support a private sector role for health care because they believe that it will complement the public one.

If all of this is true, then why did Canadians give the Harper Conservatives a majority in 2011? The Conservative party’s own founding principles talk about a balance between progressive social policy and fiscal responsibility, and that governments must respond to those who need help and compassion, even as it emphasizes that individuals are responsible for helping themselves. Andrew Coyne believes that under Harper the Conservatives continue to maintain much of the status quo they inherited from previous governments, while Dan Gardner points out that Canadian conservatives are generally much much more moderate than American Republicans. Tom Flanagan, the Conservative party’s former campaign director, claims in The Literary Review Of Canada that the Liberal consensus lives on, and is simply under new management.

In his seminal book The New Canada, which discussed the early years of the Reform Alliance movement, Preston Manning specifically discussed and debunked the idea of abolishing public health care and the social safety net. Rather, Manning said that the Reform Alliance way of addressing the problem was for government to ensure people had the tools to solve their own problems. As quoted by Mel Hurtig (in his book The Betrayal of Canada), Brian Mulroney also built support for the 1988 free trade agreement by claiming that it would raise extra government revenue that would go to support the social safety net.

Of course, the New Democratic, Liberal and Green parties all go further than this. Even in 2011, the election that got Stephen Harper his majority, over 59% of Canadians voted for these three parties. If Canadians were no longer concerned about the common good, would these parties have really gotten that much support?

3. Tories do not separate ethics from economics. The tendency to divorce ethics and economics runs contrary to the best of historic Toryism that grounds political life in the classical virtues of courage, wisdom, justice and moderation.

Much of what was discussed in regards to principle #2 can also be repeated here. As previously noted, many Canadians continue to support a positive role for government in various aspects of life. They also believe that social spending can benefit those less fortunate and society as a whole.

Canadians aren’t always convinced that what business wants to do is necessarily a good thing. Naturally, there are those on the political left who protest various projects proposed by oil companies or other private businesses, but what’s striking in Canada is how and when such opposition arises from right-wing commentators.

Enbridge is trying to make the case for building the Northern Gateway pipeline by highlighting the advantages that it will bring for all Canadians. However, the pipeline is opposed not only by environmentalists, but by British Columbians such as lifelong federal Conservative Party member Alex Tsakumis, who condemns Northern Gateway as “completely wrong-headed”, saying that he “doesn’t give a damn about it.” Another prominent pipeline project, the Keystone XL pipeline that would send oil from Alberta to the United States, was criticized by the late Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta. Lougheed believed that Alberta was better off refining its bitumen locally and keeping the refining jobs here.

Other people, many of whom are not known for their progressive street cred, have said similar things about foreign ownership of Canada’s essential natural resources. Prominent Canadian oil executives have spoken out about the need for Ottawa to ensure a certain level of Canadian ownership of the oilsands. Prominent business writer Diane Francis has called for tougher rules on foreign takeovers, opposing the takeover of Saskatchewan’s iconic Potash Corporation. Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall, and Canadian resource company CEO Dick Haskayne both agreed with her.

Concerns about foreign ownership don’t just exist in the natural resources sector, either. Authors such as John Ralston Saul, Mel Hurtig (in his book The Truth About Canada) and Rudyard Griffiths have all noted how prominent Canadian businesspeople and writers such as Peter Munk, Gordon Nixon, Dominic D’Alessandro, Donald Macdonald, Roger Martin, Dick Haskayne, Gerald Schwartz, Ian Tefler, Thomas Caldwell and Scott Hand have all expressed worries about how much of Canada’s economy is owned by foreigners.

Contrast all this with the received wisdom that it doesn’t matter where capital is located, and that only the market should determine who owns businesses or what decisions they make. Even conservative pundits, politicians, businesspeople and writers concerned about the impact market decisions and desires have on the greater Canadian society as a whole. And this is just what conservatives have expressed concern about, ironically sharing many of the same concerns as progressives and leftists.

Some critics might dismiss all this as self-serving, as the businesspeople and pundits are merely trying to protect their own interests. That claim doesn’t take into account the writings of businesspeople like Dick Haskayne, who recently penned the book Northern Tigers: Building Ethical Canadian Corporate Champions. Nor does it take into account the opinions of famous Canadian entrepreneur Brett Wilson, who speaks glowingly of the time he took away from business to spend with his family, and the great reward that can come to businesses who practice corporate social responsibility. Such Canadians, on every part of the spectrum, can and frequently do show great concern for how the decisions of the market impact the greater Canadian society.

Such a blending of ethics and economics can also be seen among Canadians in general. As previously noted, opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. goes well beyond environmentalists, with many ordinary citizens concerned about their own livelihoods in case of an accident. Similarly, Royal Bank of Canada ended up in extremely hot water after it began replacing Canadian workers with temporary foreign workers to pay them less money. The company issued a public apology for its actions, but many people saw its actions as being too little, too late.

4. Much of the Tory tradition has a deep respect for the land and recognizes, only too keenly, that the environment is a branch that we sit on. If we cut the branch off, we will fall and experience great hurt and harm.

One of the prime motivations behind the Idle No More movement is its opposition to the changes to environmental law recently made by the Harper government, claiming that the changes risk the contamination of our clean drinking water. Its advocates note that these changes pose a risk to all Canadians, whatever their background. Opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline, as demonstrated by blogger Alex Tsakumis, is not limited to progressive environmentalists. Other conservatives, such as former Nova Scotia PC Environment Minister Mark Parent, have also spoken to the need to pay attention to green issues.

More generally, Preston Manning, one of Canada’s most iconic conservatives, has come out in recent years as a passionate advocate of what he calls “green conservatism,” and stating in the Calgary Herald that Albertans need a “wake up call” on the environment. Notably, he also supports the idea of applying “full cost pricing” to energy production, including carbon emissions, and thinks the concept of a “carbon tax” is a misnomer. The Manning Foundation for Democratic Education, which Preston Manning heads, also recently sponsored a study published by the University of Calgary calling for “full cost carbon pricing” on contaminants, water use and greenhouse gas emissions. The report talked about how difficult, if not impossible, it is to reclaim clean air and water if they are destroyed, and how important it is to save them for future generations. This is much like the “seven generations” principle advocated by First Nations people who believe it is important to consider the impact that today’s decisions have on the next seven generations of descendants.

5. Tories do not artificially separate state and society. The state has a vital role to play in creating the common good as does society, and the task is to decide what is necessary for one and all, hence the role of the state.

Despite all the talk of Canadians shifting to the right and becoming more conservative and individualistic, there continues to be a prominent and positive role for government action in Canada. The Harper government continues to actively promote the role it has played in ensuring the health of the Canadian economy through its Economic Action Plan on the Internet and in TV ads, with investments in such things as job training, infrastructure and more. The home pages of many Conservative Members of Parliament are rife with the announcements of federal support for local projects. National Post columnist Andrew Coyne declared that the 2012 federal budget was the “terminus of Tory radicalism”, committing the federal government to do all of the things it has always done. Preston Manning has advocated for governments to serve as a “facilitator” in creating the conditions that enable stakeholders to come together to solve issues of mutual interest.

Things are no different at the provincial level. Even John Ibbitson, one of Canada’s more conservative pundits and a leading advocate of what he calls the “Big Shift” among Canadians shifting to the right, admits that the Red Tory Danny Williams’ market interventions and demands that the province get a bigger share of oil royalties brought pride and prosperity to Newfoundland & Labrador, with policies that are widely popular among Newfoundlanders.

In my home province of Alberta, the place where the more individualistic, market-based conservatism supposedly has its deepest roots, Alberta has done such things as actively build Internet access for rural communities, provided various subsidies,tax rebates and royalty relief programs to the oilpatch and created the Alberta Treasury Branch as a means of providing an alternate source of credit to Albertans. It is unlikely that this Crown Corporation is going anywhere, given its strength and the value of its investments. Even the Wildrose Alliance, the most conservative of Alberta’s major political parties, is on record as supporting everything from having government intervention to increase and expand the market for natural gas to reduce electricity price spikes for consumers and businesses, to creating incentives to have more of Alberta’s bitumen refined in the province instead of being shipped elsewhere, a policy that remains very popular with Albertans.
Many other examples, of course, exist all across Canada at every level of government.

6. Tories are concerned with the common good, which also means an attachment to the commons. There is of course room for private space and concerns, but it must be balanced with concern for the public space and place that people share in common with one another. Tories are also concerned that the classical liberal emphasis on acquiring wealth and possessions often ends up eroding the common space people share, and ends up excluding people in the greatest need.

Much of what was mentioned in previous entries also applies to this element of Red Toryism. The Harper government continues to promote its action to support the economy; businesspeople like Brett Wilson and Dominic D’Alessandro support the commons through philanthropy and express concern about foreign ownership of our natural resources and economy; Danny Williams’ skilful use of government power has made Newfoundland & Labrador prosperous and enabled the population as a whole to benefit from their resources; Preston Manning talks about the positive role government can play in facilitating relationships between stakeholders on environmental matters; opposition to the Northern Gateway pipeline crosses partisan lines in British Columbia; Alberta has provided alternative sources of credit to citizens through the Alberta Treasury Branches and provides various subsidies to the oil and gas industry; the Idle No More movement states that its actions concern issues that affect all Canadians, and not just Aboriginals; and the federal Conservative party’s founding principles talk about the need to support those citizens who are in genuine need of help.

The province of Quebec has been perhaps the most active in building a common space for citizens through the use of its language laws, most notably Bill 101. During and before the 1950s, Francophone Quebecers often lagged behind Anglophones in income and business ownership, even as they were frequently required to learn English to speak to their employers. The government of René Lévesque tried to change that with Bill 101. Bill 101 required the children of immigrants to study in French, restricted the display of English on public signs, and more. The law was widely condemned as racist, and several of its provisions were struck down by the courts. Thousands of Anglophone Quebecers left for other provinces in protest.

However, 30 years later, Quebec’s language laws have proven themselves to be very successful. Since Bill 101 was established, Quebec Francophones have made valuable gains in income and business ownership, to the point where they are now pretty much equal to Anglophones. Bill 101 has also helped establish a new sense of social and linguistic peace in Quebec, as many Anglophones and Francophones have come to accept it. Even prominent Anglophone critic Julius Grey, who opposed several provisions of the law in court, stated that the law as it exists now is a worthwhile one for society, as it has helped break down old linguistic barriers. It has also contributed to the strengthening of French in Quebec, as many immigrants to the province now learn French and continue to build the province’s Francophone community.

There are several more elements to Red Toryism, which will be the focus of the second part of this essay.

Sources cited:
Harold Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Pubilishers, 1977. Pages 140-144.

Kelly Cryderman, “Albertans Need A ‘Shock’ On The Environment: Manning Says It’s Time For New Ideas.” Calgary Herald, May 22, 2009.

Tom Flanagan, “Re: ‘Has the Centre Vanished?’ by Stephen Clarkson.” Literary Review of Canada, November 2011. Page 30.

Rudyard Griffiths. Who We Are: A Citizen’s Manifesto. Vancouver, B.C.: Douglas & McIntyre, 2010. Pages 23-24.

Mel Hurtig, The Betrayal Of Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Stoddart Publishing Company, Limited, 1991. Page 136.

Mel Hurtig, The Truth About Canada: Some Important, Some Astonishing, And Some Truly Appalling Things All Canadians Should Know About Our Country. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 2008. Pages 191 and 204-207.

Preston Manning, The New Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Canada, 1992. Pages, 94-109, 168, 258-259, 304 and 314-317.

John Ralston Saul. A Fair Country: Telling Truths About Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Viking Canada, 2008. Pages 215-216.

Jeffrey Simpson, Faultlines: Struggling For A Canadian Vision. Toronto, Ontario: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994. Page 157.

[DrCaleb]

Been waiting a while for this Jared! Well done.

[JaredMilne]

At this time, just over halfway through Stephen Harper’s first term as a majority government, it’s worth finding out if traditional Canadian conservatism, more popularly known as Red Toryism, is dead. B.C. scholar Ron Dart has analyzed eleven of the main principles of Red Toryism in an extensive article on the subject. The first part of this essay reviewed six of the main principles of Red Toryism, and whether they were still present in Canadian politics. The second part of this essay analyzes the other five, and analyzes how they relate to the federal Conservatives getting a majority government under Harper.

7. Tories believe that education should not only be used to teach specific skills, but also to encourage people to think critically about life. Facts and statistics are not only the only important parts of education-education should also lead people reflect on what life should truly be about and how to live it.

This Red Tory trait is the most difficult one to objectively measure, particularly in the political field. Every individual person will have their own ideas of what they want to do with their lives, and what goals are most pursuing.

However, we can see some indication with Canadian businesspeople and political thinkers like Brett Wilson, Preston Manning and Dick Haskayne who, as previously noted, have emphasized the benefits of corporate social responsibility,
environmental sustainability and philanthropy. While the American economist Milton Friedman decried the idea of “corporate social responsibility” and claimed that businesses don’t have any obligations other than to their shareholders, people like Manning, Haskayne and Wilson have shown how business can be concerned about more than just profits. Similarly, the “teach-ins” organized by the Idle No More movement were meant as a way to educate people about the problems faced by Aboriginal people and the Native perspective in dealing with them.

However, in an era when university tuition continues to increase, government funding for higher education continues to be cut, and liberal arts programs, especially, are under pressure because of the belief that they are not worth pursuing in a competitive economy, this is perhaps the Red Tory trait that has faded the most in Canada. Indirect education, such as that advocated by activist groups like Idle No More or individual Canadians like Manning, Haskayne and Wilson, will likely play an increasing role in complementing the formal education offered by schools and universities.

8. Tories believe that we are fallible beings, capable of the best, the worst and the mediocre. This means we must hear from those who see differently. A bitter ideological approach of left, right or centre brings the danger that, in life as in politics, ideology rather than dialogue will carry the day. Tories recognize that good intentions can go bad, and are suspicious of too much power being placed in any person, place or institution.

As we have seen, conservative people, governments and parties in Canada can and frequently do take certain actions that are stereotypically considered progressive or left-wing. They have supported carbon pricing, stimulus packages and government support of industry, opposed the proposed routes of oil pipelines, providing public sources of credit to citizens, supported intervening in electricity markets to curb price spikes, advocated for government facilitating relations between stakeholders, expressed concern about the amount of foreign ownership in Canada’s economy, and more.

Some conservative pundits, such as Terrence Corcoran, lament what they view as the “incremental” political strategy advocated by the likes of Tom Flanagan. Others, like Jonathan Kay, in his review of Linda McQuaig and Neil Brooks’ book The Trouble With Billionaires, has written about how it is easier for a poor person to become wealthy in the more interventionist Canada than it is in the laissez-faire United States. Kay admitted that he was struck by how reasonable he found many of McQuaig’s and Brooks’ arguments, pointing out that they were making a very capitalist argument when they note that market economies prosper when the middle class has the income to buy more products and services. What irritated him was not the basic arguments the authors were making, but what he considered the book’s tone of active dislike for rich people.

The same traits are also observable with apparently left-wing parties, too. The federal Liberal party that was condemned for Pierre Trudeau’s huge increases to the national debt later balanced Canada’s books in the 1990s under Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. Even as they created the long gun registry and signed the Kyoto Accord, the Chretien Liberals were also cutting taxes. Frances Russell cited Toronto Star columnist Anthony Westell, who pointed out that under Jack Layton the NDP moved solidly towards the centre, spending just as much time attacking the Michael Ignatieff Liberals as they did attacking Stephen Harper in the 2011 federal election. In Nova Scotia, the recently defeated government under Darrell Dexter balanced the budget and cut funding to education, and it was seen by some observers as not doing enough to keep its social activist base happy. As leader of the federal NDP, Tom Mulcair has ruled out raising taxes on the wealthy if elected, despite star candidate Linda McQuaig’s support of the idea.

Canada’s major political movements are quite comfortable with ignoring rigid ideology if they deem it necessary, and in many cases have been rewarded by Canadians for doing so. The other essential Tory trait, that of being wary of too much power concentrated in any one person or institution, was reflected in Edmonton-St. Albert MP Brent Rathgeber’s resignation from the Conservative caucus. In an article posted on his website, Rathgeber criticized the way staffers in the Prime Minister’s Office would try to dictate to elected MPs what they should say or do. He believes that the Harper government has failed to support transparency and open government. He also said that sitting MPs should not behave like “trained seals”, and expressed concern about how much power was being amassed in the PMO. Similarly, conservative Harper supporters at the conservative Free Dominion website have expressed their anger at the Harper government’s use of omnibus bills in Parliament, which they consider an abuse of democracy.

The story is no different in Alberta. The Wildrose Alliance party, viewed as the most right-wing of the major parties in Alberta, is now debating whether to revisit some of its most contentious policies. This reflects leader Danielle Smith’s comments about the party needing to do some ‘soul-searching’ about some of its policies, which were rejected by Albertans. Political columnist Don Braid considers this an attempt to move the Wildrose to the political centre.

Finally, one might note the emphasis on dialogue that is so important to Red Toryism. This is an issue within Red Toryism itself. As conservative blogger Patrick Ross has noted, those who advocate for a more individualist conservatism certainly don’t deserve to be pilloried as “un-Canadian” for their views. They are part of the larger conservative tradition in Canada, which can evolve and grow from the conservatism of 1867. Certainly few Red Tories today would advocate forcibly assimilating Canada’s Aboriginal peoples the way that so many Canadians, liberal and conservative alike, wanted to do in the 19th century!

For that evolution to take place, more positive dialogue is necessary, not the insults that different groups and entities throw at one another. This cuts both ways-certainly Red Tories don’t deserve to be attacked as ‘not true conservatives’ any more than individualist conservatives deserve to be attacked as un-Canadian! Notably, Red Tory writer Richard Clippingdale notes that prominent Red Tory thinker Robert Stanfield would have seen some worrying trends in the Conservative party of Stephen Harper, but he would also have seen several encouraging trends. Clippingdale also noted that several of the current Conservative government’s own goals would have fit into a pattern inspired by Stanfield.

9. Tories believe that religion has a positive role to play in society, and that religious institutions and teachings can provide important lessons and connections to the past.

This is another Red Tory trait that has faded somewhat over the years. Controversial social issues such as abortion and gay marriage are largely seen as settled, and Stephen Harper has renounced any idea of reopening them. In general, Canadians have far less support for open, evangelical conservatism than there is in the United States.

Even then, however, there are signs that there is still controversy among conservatives over issues traditionally supported by religious activists. Conservative MPs such as Stephen Woodworth and Mark Warawa have made Parliamentary motions that would revive the abortion debate, and anti-abortion activists are campaigning in Harper’s own riding. Conservative MP Rob Anders urged anti-abortion activists to “stack” Conservative nomination meetings. Conservative blogger and political thinker Patrick Ross cites polls that have over 60% of female Canadians supported restrictions of some sort on abortion.

Support for Israel is also an important conservative issue, including among religious conservatives, and Harper has been active in doing so. His support is being recognized by Toronto’s Jewish community by their naming a new Israeli bird sanctuary after him. Harper’s support is based on such things as Canada’s voting against Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and his refusal to condemn either Israel’s 2006 offensive against Hezbollah or its expansion of its settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Critics such as Marci McDonald wonder if this is part of a larger, though downplayed, affiliation between Harper and Canadian evangelicalism,although McDonald admits that it’s unclear how much Harper’s spiritual beliefs have impacted his politics.

As he noted in The New Canada, Preston Manning has also been up front about his own spiritual beliefs, and how they led him to public service. He also specifically notes that, as important as it is, true faith distinguishes itself from spurious faith in that it does not seek to forcibly impose its solutions on people who do not want it. The Idle No More movement, in standing up for the Treaty rights of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, also has important spiritual roots in that, as Aboriginal activists Harold Cardinal and Ovide Mercredi have noted, many Aboriginals feel that their religious identities are intimately tied up with their Treaty rights. Asking them to abandon their Treaty rights is almost like asking them to abandon their religions.

10. Tories believe that there is in reality a good, a better and a best, as well as a bad, worse and worst. Beyond debates on matters such as freedom, individuality and equality, there must also be a question of what ideals these matters help us attain. What do we actually use the liberty and individuality we possess for?

The question of whether people want to strive for something more fulfilling than simply acquiring more money and possessions is well worth debating, as well as what exactly the best goals are to pursue in life. However, like trait #7 this is difficult to objectively measure. Some goals may be viewed as more worthy than others, and what one person might view as a waste of time could in someone else’s opinion be well worth striving for.

However, as a people Canadians have often had a positive influence on the world well out of proportion to our small population. As noted by Roy MacGregor, Canadians have given the world everything from the Canadarm to kerosene to caulking guns to Pablum to the telephone to insulin to standard time to combine harvesters to green garbage bags to the electron microscope to instant potatoes to snowblowers to AM radio to the Blackberry to electric stoves to IMAX to the Robertson screw to Muskol to the snowmobile to the paint roller to five-pin bowling to the Wonderbra and Trivial Pursuit.

Throughout history, Canadians have often played extremely influential roles, whether in Hollywood (from actors like Mary Pickford in the early days of Hollywood to the likes of James Cameron today), in sports (Dr. James Naismith was the inventor of basketball), the World Wars (when Canadians fought with all their hearts for freedom in World War II, and caused even the Imperial Germans to fear them in World War I), the battle against cancer (with the Terry Fox runs that have raised millions for cancer research), international diplomacy and peacekeeping (Lester Pearson helping to defuse the Suez Canal crisis, creating modern military peacekeeping in the process), the fight against apartheid (John Diefenbaker getting South Africa expelled from the Commonwealth, or Brian Mulroney’s supporting role in opposing apartheid) and opposition to genocide (Romeo Dallaire’s courageous efforts to protect innocent Rwandans). Even today, Canada continues to be a leader in scientific advancement and contributions to the arts, punching well above our weight.

Not all of these things were done out of altruism, of course. In many cases, the people behind them wanted to profit from what they had created. However, the fact that they might have personally gained from their efforts did not prevent many other people from benefiting as well, and the overall effect many Canadians have had on the world has been a highly positive one. In that respect, for all of our other failings as a society, Canada has often striven for the better and the best.

11. Tories recognize the way the British, French and Aboriginal institutions have all contributed to the founding and development of Canada. This is in contrast to “boutique” multiculturalism, which ignores how these cultures have built Canada and continue to remain so important today.

Despite the idea promoted by some versions of multiculturalism that all cultures are relative, and that only individual rights matter, the fact remains that the British, French and Aboriginal cultures have an important place in how Canada has grown and developed. That role also continues even today.

Many of the examples cited for previous Red Tory traits also apply here. The Idle No More movement certainly doesn’t think that Aboriginal people are just individual Canadians with rights. The support for Bill 101 in Quebec also clearly indicates the feeling many Francophones in that province feel for maintaining their culture. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms the educational rights of the French- and English-language minority communities, and the Treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples.

Many conservatives oppose the idea of multiculturalism. In his book The New Canada, Preston Manning laid out the Reform Party’s opposition to multiculturalism and its belief that the federal government should treat all Canadians strictly equally. Particular treatment for certain Canadians, such as Francophones or Aboriginals, ought to be left to local governments. Political commentator Ezra Levant goes further, decrying multiculturalism as enabling violent extremists to import their violence and attack other citizens. Levant specifically lays out Western values, such as the separation of church and state, that ought to be supported over other cultural values imported by certain immigrants. In both cases, the conservative movement specifically supports maintaining the values that we have inherited from Britain.

More generally, one can observe how many immigrants integrate into Canada. While they might speak their ancestral languages to friends, family and other people within their own cultural group, they typically learn English and/or French to interact with other Canadians. This applies even to Francophones outside Quebec-in Edmonton, for example, I have observed how immigrants from African countries that used to be colonized by France or Belgium use French to interact with the local Franco-Albertan community, who then help them integrate into Canadian society.

This illustrates how multiculturalism and the idea of founding cultures in Canada can in fact get along. Our founding cultures may not disappear, but they do change and evolve, as immigrants bring their own cultural experiences and traditions. Old grudges and religious practices that are incompatible with Canadian law, such as the requirements of Shariah law, are unlikely to be welcomed, but such things as music, literature, food and religious beliefs that do not clash with Canadian law can only enrich the country. Perhaps multiculturalism ought to be more centred within a specifically Canadian context, illustrating how our founding cultures have grown and changed with the influences of new arrivals.

Conclusion

With all this in mind, some people may still wonder why Canadians gave Stephen Harper a majority government in 2011. His views, stemming from his days leading the National Citizens Coalition, are supposed to be quite clear, as is his image of a hardline, hard-right leader who doesn’t care for dissent.

In my view, Canadians gave Stephen Harper a majority government precisely because he has moved towards the centre and pursued many of the centrist, Red Tory policies mentioned above. He might like to personally go much harder to the right, but he can’t if he wants to maintain the support not only of many Canadians, but of many of his own more moderate party members. That’s why Tom Flanagan talks about the old Liberal consensus being under “new management” in The Literary Review of Canada. The end result is that Harper has had to try and achieve his goals through what Flanagan calls “incremental conservatism”, whereby he’s had to try change things gradually, one step at a time. Journalist Tim Harper noted that, even back in the 1990s, Harper was promoting compromise and change, and that while Harper projects a bold public image he’s more willing to quietly compromise than people might think. This is what made many Canadians comfortable enough to give him a majority government.

Finally, as many of the above examples show, Red Toryism has powerful roots even in Western Canada. In fact, I think that the populist conservatism associated with Western Canada and the Red Toryism associated with Central Canada are in fact much more common than most observers realize. The roots of Western alienation and the protests of the Reform Alliance movement came from the feeling that the West was often shut out of federal decision-making and that federal policies favoured Central Canada at the West’s expense. In terms of their actual policies and ideas, however, Western conservative populists have often had much in common with Red Tories, even today.

Even if you believe that they only do this for political gain, the fact that they see political gain from doing indicates that Red Toryism continues to have a lot of traction in Canada.

Red Toryism isn’t dead in Canada. It may be understated, but it’s still very much alive.

Sources cited:
Harold Cardinal, The Rebirth of Canada’s Indians. Edmonton, Alberta: Hurtig Pubilishers, 1977. Pages 140-144.

Richard Clippingdale, Robert Stanfield’s Canada: Perspectives of the Best Prime Minister We Never Had. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008. Pages 73-74 and 110-111.

Tom Flanagan, “Re: ‘Has the Centre Vanished?’ by Stephen Clarkson.” Literary Review of Canada, November 2011. Page 30.

Roy MacGregor, Canadians: A Portrait Of A Country And Its People. Toronto, Ontario: Viking Canada, 2007. Pages 14 and 177.

Preston Manning, The New Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Canada, 1992. Pages, 94-109, 168, 258-259, 304 and 314-317.

Ovide Mercredi and Mary Ellen Turpel, In The Rapids: Navigating The Future Of First Nations. Toronto, Ontario: Viking Press, 1993. Pages 21 and 106-109.

[Jabberwalker]

SHHHH! We're only supposed to meet in secret!


BTW, Joe Clark has just published a new book about Canada's place in the wider world. We're only allowed to talk in secret about that one, too.

[smorgdonkey]

I'd say that most Conservatives were really happy that Harper got in but mostly just because they had too long been under Liberal majority. Now that Harper has been in, they are realizing that this is not what they want at all and that he has taken hypocrisy and all of the negatives to a whole new higher level. Mr 'clean up government' has done a very poor job...even fiscally (maybe especially) which I thought would be the one area that he would do ok in.

[bootlegga]

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

Red Toryism isn’t dead in Canada. It may be understated, but it’s still very much alive.

Agreed - excellent read! +5