In the late 1960s, Michael Ignatieff was a student at the University of Toronto and an editor at The Varsity. Now, more than 40 years later, he is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada facing a potentially volatile parliament. In August he stated his intention to challenge the Conservative government on matters of confidence, possibly forcing an election this year—though the Bloc and New Democrat support for the government, and the Liberals sinking poll numbers, make this prospect unlikely. With this new break in the action, Ignatieff had time to answer a few questions via email for The Varsity about national identity, the current situation in parliament, and his experience as an undergraduate at U of T.
The Varsity: Thanks for speaking with us. First, on a personal note, do you have any memories from your time at our newspaper—or our university—that you could share with us?
Michael Ignatieff: I was at U of T in the late sixties. It was probably the most exciting time to be a university student in the last century. Vietnam was on. Mike Pearson had just kept Canada out. There was a culture of passion and protest that was everywhere you looked on campus. We started doing these teach-ins, which were sort of half-lecture, half-protest, with a good amount of conversation thrown in. And there we were, in our late teens and early twenties, arguing the biggest issues of the day and never trusting anybody over thirty. It was incredibly exciting. And I had the most incredible friends, who became co-conspirators in all this stuff—Bob Rae and Jeff Rose and others.
TV: A common theme in your newest book, True Patriot Love, is the notion that Canada is somehow an “unfinished project.” You assert that Stephen Harper has approached the country as a finished product and that this has been one of his failings as prime minister. In the last 30 years, Canada has faced fundamental challenges to the character of its federalism: two referenda on Quebec sovereignty, the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, and the recent constitutional crisis, among others. Could you comment on the underlying problems facing Canadian federalism and on the “unfinished” nature of Canada as a national project?
MI: For as long as we’ve existed, Canada has been a country of epic undertakings and national dreams. In my great-grandfather’s day, it was the transcontinental railroad. Since then, we’ve had the Trans-Canada Highway, universal health care, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Big ideas, big projects—and, above all, national projects—that pull the whole country together to say, yes, we can get this done together.
We’re a big country. Vast. And very different, from one end of the country to the other. And when you’ve got a federation as big and broad as Canada, you can start to pull apart if you focus on the differences. The story of Canada is the story of resisting that, of pulling together. Our national unity is the biggest national project of them all.
So these great national endeavours are some of the adhesive that holds this big country together, that keeps us moving forward together, that unites us—not in spite of our differences, but because of them.
We need to set ourselves new projects, new national undertakings. I’ve talked about high-speed rail and West-East power grids. We live in a great country, the best in the world, but as soon as we let ourselves believe that our work is finished, we’ll start falling behind.
TV: You’ve spent much of your career as a journalist and scholar exploring some of the most troubled regions in the world. Countries in the Balkans, Africa, and the Middle East are still affected by conflicts between secular, religious, and ethnic forms of nationalism. True Patriot Love begins with a passage about the meaning of national feeling as an “act of imagination” defined collectively by a series of competing viewpoints. Is the conflict between different conceptions of a nation the symptom of a healthy country or of an unhealthy one?
MI: This is the magic of Canada. The immigrant who was born somewhere else but moved here, or someone who’s worked abroad and come home, or someone who’s been here all their life—we all imagine Canada in different ways. You can be Quebecois and a Canadian in the order that you choose. Or Acadian or Jamaican or Indian or Chinese. Our diversity is our greatest strength. We’ve built a country where our different viewpoints are more than the sum of their parts—they add up to a richer country. This isn’t just healthy, it’s what makes us Canadian.
TV: You also comment in your book that Canadian political culture has a somewhat anti-rhetorical tradition when compared to, say, that of the United States–a country whose tradition of rhetoric has perhaps reached its apex in the age of Barack Obama. First of all, what do you think accounts for this difference? Is it a strength or a weakness?
MI: Pierre Trudeau made “reason before passion” his motto, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t passionate. Far from it. He channeled his passion through his actions, through the arguments he made in defense of his policies. I think Barack Obama is similar in that respect.
In Canada, we talk about peace, order, and good government. It’s a philosophy that puts our collective wellbeing, the health of our whole society, first. Americans talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is a more individualistic take. I think that’s where the difference between our rhetorical traditions begins. Americans look for presidents who can rally and inspire the nation to greatness. Canadians look for prime ministers who take their inspiration from our whole society, and who will move us forward together.
TV: One of our country’s most respected political journalists, Chantal Hébert, concluded the introduction of her recent book, French Kiss, by saying: “On the left and on the right, in Quebec and in the rest of Canada, the old coalitions that saw Canada through the twentieth century have broken down. The next majority government in Canada will belong to whomever is the most adept at reassembling the pieces of the federation before it is broken up for good into irreconcilable blocks.” Canada is in the midst of a unique period in its political history: three successive minority governments and the recent crisis in which, in your own words, “the prime minister pitted region against region, province against province.” Are we destined for an age of more minority governments, or do you believe majorities are attainable in the present circumstances?
MI: I’ve said that we’re a big, broad country, and that our diversity is our strength. But there’s a deep consensus among many Canadians that we want government to lead in growing the economy, we want Canada to have a respected voice in the world, and we want to be united as one great people sharing one great country. That’s the vision we’re going to offer Canadians in the next election, and it’s very different from what we’ve got from Stephen Harper.
TV: The Liberal Leadership convention held in Vancouver in early May was different from other conventions that have been held by your party in the past. What was the overall mood, and what were some of the most important things to emerge from the gathering?
MI: The convention was part of a long process of renewing and uniting the Liberal Party. In Vancouver we came together as party and we came out of that weekend with a resolve to do politics differently. Vancouver was about refocusing our energies on being the party of our national unity and our national purpose. We also moved to a one-member, one-vote leadership process so that every Liberal will have a say in who leads our party.
TV: Pierre Eliot Trudeau is often criticized for alienating the western provinces through his national energy program. In one of your first major speeches as leader you said that the Liberals had made mistakes with Alberta in the past. What kind of relationship should the Liberal Party try to cultivate with that province?
MI: Alberta and Western Canada should never feel like they’re left out of the debates that shape our country’s future. I’ve spent a lot of time in Alberta, and I work closely with a good number of Albertans. They’re some of the most fiercely proud Canadians you’ll ever meet. The whole country has benefited from Alberta’s entrepreneurial, risk-taking, cutting-edge spirit. We need as much of that Alberta spirit as we can get, if our economy is to grow and create the jobs of tomorrow.
TV: Both the Liberals and the NDP had a pretty strong showing in Atlantic Canada during the last election. Nova Scotia has just elected the first New Democratic government east of Ontario, and Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams remains one of Stephen Harper’s most vociferous critics. Though your party supported the Conservative budget, you allowed your MPs from Newfoundland to vote against it. Could you comment on this decision and on the broader picture that exists in that part of the country?
MI: Stephen Harper used a federal budget to settle a personal score with Premier Williams. That’s no way for a prime minister to behave, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians were justifiably angry. So were we. We needed to send a message to Stephen Harper, and to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we did.
We listen to Atlantic Canadians. We hear what they expect from their federal government. And Liberals are ready to deliver for Atlantic Canada.
TV: Lastly, parliament resumed on September 14 and Senator David Smith indicated at the time that the question of EI Reform is “not a defining issue that merits bringing the government down.” How will the Liberal Party position itself on EI Reform, and is there still the possibility of an immediate election even if this issue is no longer central?
MI: We believe in regional fairness for EI. We want more Canadians who pay into the EI system to be eligible for benefits if they lose their job through no fault of their own. The bill that the Conservatives finally brought forward on EI falls well short of these goals.
Our experience in trying to make progress on this issue with the Conservatives tells us two important things—two things that go well beyond EI, and that Canadians should consider when they’re asked to choose their next government. The first is that the Conservatives have no real interest in making parliament work for Canadians. They’re only interested in holding on to their own jobs. The second is that helping laid-off workers isn’t just a matter of compassion for Liberals, it’s an integral part of our economic recovery. It puts stimulus in the hands of people who will spend it immediately to provide for their families while they find their next job, and it helps to ensure we don’t leave people behind as our economy recovers. But EI is just another political bargaining chip for Stephen Harper.
Canada can do better. That’s why we oppose this government.
