Canada’s political spectrum has badly shrunk and it’s causing some interesting confusion.
Left and centre political ideologies traditionally held by the NDP and Liberals have grown indistinguishable as they both embrace a distinctly progressive agenda with little care for fiscal matters.
The Conservatives have staked out slightly right-of-centre ground rooted in economic principles while cautiously dipping into social and cultural issues.
With their focus solely on Quebec nationalism and sovereignty the Bloc Quebecois have no interest in Canada and I return the favour by placing them nowhere on a spectrum.
Meanwhile, the Greens live in irrelevance as the Liberals hijacked their raison d’etre of environmentalism and turned it into a one-note carbon crusade.
And the PPC, occupying the farthest right position, are unlikely to grow into a serious force in Canadian politics particularly with the Conservatives offering a palatable alternative.
But discussions of left, centre and right provide little value as traditional party postures and support bases have changed, and the midpoint against which to measure has wandered leftward. Right of left may still be left of centre. And right of a flabby centre may have little meaning. See what I mean?
At the same time fiscal, social, domestic and foreign policy positions are being combined into unusual configurations that don’t split along historical party lines.
Unlike our US neighbour it remains uncommon to hear Canadians strongly declare themselves aligned with a party ala, I am a Conservative, I am a Liberal, or I am a New Democrat.
More often our political affiliation lies in lower-case descriptions of being liberal, conservative, socially liberal, socially conservative, fiscally moderate, fiscally conservative, compassionately conservative, progressive or libertarian – to name just a few.
An increasing number, including within academia and activist groups, openly embrace socialism. And politicians such as Liberal Minister of Environment Steven Guilbeault recently declared his support of this failed political philosophy, stating, “I’m a Liberal and a proud socialist” - though it’s darkly humorous to note he declared pride in socialism and not his party.
Few Canadians label themselves as right-wing, far-right or fascist yet these pejorative labels are increasingly applied by those seeking to smear ideas straying beyond the redistributive economics, DEI and climate mantras of current years.
In recent years wokeism, populism, elitism and globalism have also found a home in our political lexicon, the latter fueled by organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and their Great Reset push. And recent fixations on gender, racial and cultural markers have been added as ways to politically identify.
This messy combo of loose party affiliations and crowded field of labels has Canadians struggling to describe themselves politically, leading to creative versions of, “I’m fiscally conservative but socially liberal”, or “I’m a fiscal moderate and social conservative”, or “I’m an environmentalist and feminist”, or “I’m a free-marketer with a conscience”… You get the picture.
To each person their definition means something unique. Yet poke below the surface and you’ll often find that differing labels reveal similar positions. Or the same labels represent divergent views.
Many also struggle with how to translate their political identity into a vote and often default to soft attributes such as who they like as covered in Post 19 | Do We Need to Like a Prime Minister? Therein, I proposed that substance should be a guiding attribute.
Let’s take that a step further into something more concrete.
Policies are the most solid elements on which to judge the position and intentions of a political party over pithy platitudes such as Diversity is our strength and catchy slogans of Axe the Tax. Or to get beyond the political labels we apply to ourselves and others. So we must dig further into policy to know what we truly want, and with whom we align in practice.
This need to go deeper struck me when reading a recent Globe and Mail article from John Ibbitson titled, “Jamil Jivani will fit right in with activist, populist conservatism of Poilievre”.
After writing positively of the incremental conservatism of Stephen Harper during his years in office, Ibbitson took the opportunity to backhand Pierre Poilievre and the incoming
for yet-to-be-committed sins, writing, “Mr. Poilievre is a very different kettle of fish. He claims Canada is broken and he aims to fix it. What would fixing it look like? It would mean eliminating the carbon tax and easing back on efforts to fight climate change. It would mean strict new controls on federal spending. It would mean dismantling the English side of the CBC. It would mean firing the governor of the Bank of Canada. It would mean tougher bail, parole and sentencing provisions, and ending support for the safer supply of drugs to addicts. Mr. Poilievre wants to allow jet aircraft to use Toronto’s downtown airport. He would withhold federal funding from municipalities that don’t build enough homes, and from universities that he considers too woke. He would speed up the accreditation for health professionals trained abroad. And more.”My initial reaction was mostly, “Yah, and…..?”. But allow me to parse out the policy elements and see if “activist populist conservatism” accurately describes them. And if so, are they scary?
Regular readers will know I advocate for a much more pragmatic approach to net zero policies aimed at climate change including in Post 30 | Is Net Zero Mostly Wrong? So to ease back not only on the carbon tax but also the headlong jump into a net zero economy with all its downsides and unknown consequences – seems wonderfully reasonable.
The need for strict new controls on federal spending is glaringly evident given nearly limitless examples of waste, duplication and excessive spending the past years. I have called for fiscal sanity in multiple articles including Post 7 | Relentless Government Growth & Reach. And more Canadians are finally waking up to our untenable finances.
The CBC should be seriously re-thought and restructured. The future altered state remains to be determined but its outdated mandate, terrible execution and economic non-viability make this an overdue exercise – not a sacred cow.
Poilievre’s comments a few years ago about the Bank of Canada governor were unfortunate rhetoric. While correctly inspired by the bank’s slow response to inflation, his stated intent to fire the governor was poorly thought out and I hope doesn’t make a serious reappearance.
Statistics show massive crime spikes in the five years following Trudeau’s 2019 catch-and-release Bill C-75, that modernized our Criminal Code and tell a shocking tale of Canada’s safety and social decline. So tougher bail, parole and sentencing provisions are desperately needed.
The failed experiment of safe supply has now been well-documented and we see the results in exploding homelessness, rising crime statistics, social decay and nearly 4000 drug related deaths in 2023 alone. The need to reverse this disastrous policy is evident.
The Toronto airport expansion reference seems to be based on a comment Poilievre made at a Toronto party rally last year. I have little opinion on the matter but hope the Conservatives don’t expend political capital on this and doubt it is their intent.
Housing is a complicated beast and my position remains that our federal government owns limited direct purview, but significant indirect responsibility with various levers at their disposal. Having written on it in several posts including Post 22 | Productivity Drowns in Regulations and Lack of GDP Targets, I encourage our federal government to focus on creating conditions that increase productivity and GDP to drive up growth and naturally tamp down inflation, including through reduction of regulatory impediments, while simultaneously developing sensible immigration policy. If earmarked federal funds can be leveraged to reduce regulatory hurdles at additional levels of government then let it be a useful tool, but a federal government needs to stay in its lane.
We should have a baseline expectation that organizations funded with taxpayer money – including universities teaching young minds - reflect a majority Canadian view in their policies and positions. This includes the foundational defense of our history as written in Post 23 | Canada Must Regain Balance. If that is considered pushing against wokeism, so be it.
Given all our healthcare woes including the structural shortage of doctors and nurses, a plan to accelerate accreditation for health professionals trained abroad while tying it into an integrated immigration policy – should be welcomed with open arms.
As for Ibbitson’s “and more” conclusion, let us indeed hope much more will be done in returning Canada to better balance.
Whether these policy positions label me an activist, populist, little “c” conservative, big “C” Conservative, friend or devil in your eyes, I do not know. Just a few years ago they would have mostly represented a middle-of-the road Canadian view.
What I do know is that exploring and taking a position on policies is more instructive than simply applying political labels. It requires some reading and a bit of critical thought beyond the headlines, but offers greater clarity.
Meanwhile, I will continue striving to be a Pragmatic Canadian and applying a few labels of my own along the way.
Stay tuned and stay pragmatic.
Fabulous piece. I agree with every point … and more. If the conservative policies align to this, then they have my unwavering vote. Please keep the enlightening words coming. I look forward to opening my Saturday morning inbox.