November 29, 2025
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
It all started with so-called “Red Tory” Chris d’Entremont crossing the House of Commons floor to the Liberal caucus, claiming that the Conservative Party of Canada no longer reflected his perspectives. His claim and his party-switch sparked questions about whether applying the “Red Tory” label to d’Entremont was still meaningful. Others wondered how exactly Red Toryism differs from other forms of conservatism. Two weeks and many online essays later, a significant and quite thoughtful debate has exposed very different understandings among Canadian conservatives of the purpose and task of government.
Leading the way is the recently launched website withoutdiminishment.com—an initiative of several younger conservative thinkers who say they “want to be able to talk about the hard stuff” and avoid a public conservatism that “can be defined exclusively in economic or pocketbook terms.” Guest contributor Anthony Koch, in an essay entitled “The state is the architect of culture, not a spectator,” calls the modern state “the chief engineer of national identity” and contends that “the progressive left has successfully captured our own institutions over the past thirty years.” So, he argues conservatives should not be shy about seeking power not only to undo that institutional capture but to replace it with its own.
Over at thehub.ca, editor Sean Speer responded with “Six reasons why a state-imposed conservative culture is a terrible idea.” He argues that it would be better “to restore public institutions to their proper purpose and then have the state leave me and my family alone.” So, Speer holds that Koch misunderstands the core concept of culture, “as defined by identity, belonging, moral purpose, [and] shared meaning,” and misses the fact that the “deepest and most enduring forms of culture, like faith traditions, family structures, moral codes, communal rituals, languages, and artistic canons, long predate the modern state and often survive it.”
Others waded in as well. Ben Woodfinden, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s former communications director, suggests at readtheline.ca that the debate over the purpose of government reflects demographic as much as ideological shifts. “It’s not a longing for some reactionary past; it’s a longing for a return to normalcy,” he writes. “It’s not economics or culture; it’s both.”
Howard Anglin, who served as deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and as principal secretary to Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, reflected on the debate. Acknowledging points made by various writers, he cautions that they aren’t accounting for the immense task for the state to enact conservative changes, “and then to protect them from ideological corruption.” He suggests that the modern state may not be up for the task, though he also sees weakness in other social institutions, including families and churches. Anglin argues that “they are no longer the stable and orderly units of society.” Sean Speer’s latest comeback emphasizes the role of subsidiarity, noting that the state should assume certain appropriate roles but remain conscious of its limits, for both principled and tactical reasons. “Conservatives’ best strategy is to make culture too decentralized, too plural, and too free for any government to control,” he writes.
Space doesn’t allow for a full and nuanced response to this important argument, in which both sides make valid points. However, perhaps a few relevant questions and short-form answers may be helpful to those trying to sort through where this debate might lead.
Is it the government’s job to produce identity and culture?
I’d answer with a firm “no.” The government’s job is order and justice. You can’t maintain order without limiting freedom. Similarly, justice is meaningless without some concept of “the good.” But I would argue that identity and culture, which include freedom, the good, and other elements, are, at their core, religious and philosophical concepts. The government reflects culture and identity. So, while it needs to make choices that involve these things, it can reinforce good habits (and discourage bad), but at best this is indirect and not at the heart of creating virtue.
If the state isn’t the chief engineer of these, what is?
You cannot separate concepts of freedom and goodness (which always intertwine with conceptions of truth and beauty) from the core question of purpose. Why are we here, and why (apart from self-preservation) do we need to live alongside other humans in an orderly manner? A society is organized around some concept of the common good, whether explicitly articulated or not. My Christian priors mean I see humans as created by God as His image-bearers. That becomes the starting point for answering the question about why we must live alongside each other in an orderly way. Illiberal institutions such as the family and church are the key places where the values that make common life possible are passed on from one generation to the next.
But in a society where most don’t attend church, and many families aren’t passing on such values, isn’t the state inevitably going to take over? If it is going to take over, why not promote conservative rather than progressive values?
I’d make both principled and pragmatic arguments against this understandable impulse. In principle, a coercive institution like the state cannot produce goodness, beauty, and truth. Such things belong to a different category. While both might provide means to help the poor, there is a difference between giving to charity and paying taxes. The state can incentivize good choices, of course. It can do it positively through incentives or programs. It can also do it negatively through so-called sin taxes or regulation. However, behaviour that is effectively compelled is duty. We all teach children to complete their chores as a matter of duty. They are better able to flourish, though, when they clean their room because they understand that keeping a tidy room is a better way to live and they no longer need the to-do list on the fridge. A sustainable vision of culture and identity—conservative, progressive, or otherwise—comes not from the to-do list governments impose but from cultural change. The state, through its choices, might encourage or frustrate those efforts, but it is beyond the state's capacity to create a flourishing culture.
I’ll make one final note about this debate. Some participants have referred to other social institutions—Burke’s “little platoons” in conventional conservative language—as if they are alternatives to the state. My own understanding is that, in the way God created and ordered the world, social institutions not only reflect different jurisdictions (spheres), but also different capacities and ways of doing things (norms) that are required for a flourishing human life. When we debate whether the family, religious institutions, or the state should be the primary architects of values and identity, as if they are equal choices, we miss the point that they are fundamentally different institutions with distinct ends or purposes. I don’t go to my auto mechanic to buy my groceries, the wide range of products offered by Canadian Tire notwithstanding. Different institutions embody specialized capacities, competencies, and jurisdictions. They are not interchangeable.
This debate is ongoing. While still primarily on the platforms of alternative media (which are increasing in their profile and reach these days but remain quite niche), the implications are far-reaching. Here’s hoping that it all leads to a better articulation of how we might together imagine a more flourishing society as an alternative to the troubles of our times.
A Quebec Briefing
I was trying to make sense of the crisis that is engulfing the Quebec Liberal Party and consulted my colleague, Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard. Prior to joining the Cardus research team over the summer, he served as speech writer and strategic planning advisor for the cabinet of Quebec’s premier. I found his explanation helpful and asked him to share it with the Insights readers. Realizing that all provincial politics matters and with talk of separatism part of the conversation ahead of Quebec’s 2026 election, I figured this would be of broader interest.
Seismic changes in Quebec politics – Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard
The fall of 2025 has been a moment of great changes in Quebec provincial politics, as the next election is set for October 3, 2026, less than a year away.
After two terms in office, Premier François Legault’s Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) is now third in the polls, with Paul St-Pierre-Plamondon’s Parti Québécois (PQ) leading. In the last few months, four members of the National Assembly (MNAs), including two ministers, have left the governing party’s caucus or resigned, leaving the CAQ weakened as observers wonder if Legault will lead it into the next election. Last month, the premier hit the “reset button” with a new throne speech that signalled a rightward turn, with reducing the bureaucracy, imposing stricter regulations on unions, and defending Quebec’s identity as the government’s big priorities. At the same time, the historically social-democratic PQ is also shifting to the right on economics, by pledging to abandon corporate subsidies if it were to win the next election. Previously isolated in its defence of economic liberalism, the Conservative Party of Quebec (PCQ) welcomed the government's shift positively, while seeking to push it further.
Last week saw the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) and Québec Solidaire (QS) embroiled in internal crises. The PLQ’s parliamentary leader, Marwah Rizqy, was suspended by party leader Pablo Rodriguez for firing her chief of staff without his approval and asserting that the party was involved in partisan spending of parliamentary funds. At the same time, accusations arose that Mr. Rodriguez's leadership campaign had bribed party members to secure their votes, undermining his leadership. At QS, eight months after former leader Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois resigned, saying he failed to turn an activist party into a party fit to govern, MNA Vincent Marissal left for the same reason, blaming members for being too radical and looking to join the PQ instead. With these divisions, the PLQ's comeback, which has seen it return to second place in the polls, appears to be fragile, and one wonders whether QS will fall below the five-seat mark in the next election.
With less than a year to go before the election, the conversation in Quebec is dominated by a “blue” bloc (CAQ, PQ, PCQ) that seeks to appeal to French-speaking voters with a nationalist, centre-right message. The PQ, first in the polls at around 33 percent, hopes to maintain its lead to trigger a third referendum on sovereignty, which a clear majority of Quebecers reject. The progressive bloc formed by the PLQ and QS is weakened by internal squabbles and will need to pull itself together before the election. It is still too early to predict the outcome of the election, but Quebec's mainstream seems to be firmly rooted in centre-right nationalism (if not sovereignty), a shift in public opinion that began with the election of the CAQ in 2018.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
This week’s memorandum of understanding between the Alberta and federal governments paves the way for the possibility of a new pipeline to the west coast, although the process remains complicated by politics. Pipeline politics has a long history in Canada. The 1956 TransCanada Pipeline caused a constitutional and political uproar when the Liberal government of the day shut down Parliamentary debate to force a vote for its approval. If the recent announcement ends up resulting in an actual pipeline, it would add to the more than 840,000 km of transmission, gathering, and distribution pipelines that exist nationwide. This pipeline is seen as strategic as it would increase export options to Pacific markets (bypassing the United States), expand overall export capacity, and provide an alternative to existing eastward or US-bound pipelines.
.
TAKE IT TO-GO
The Weather Network predicts Ontario will get a “December to Remember” thanks to a looming polar vortex. I’m sure they’re not just trying to create a swirling controversy with flake news. Even so, it’s hard to believe that December and 2026 are almost here. Since they are, however, let me sign off with some year-end advice. Don’t let any storms snow you under. Just chill the inbox, skate through your priorities, and don’t drift too far off course as you deal with any surprise tasks. If the forecast has you feeling a little frost-rated, take heart: even the coldest snaps eventually thaw and every blizzard clears. In the meantime, take some time to build a snowman and throw a few snowballs. Then come in, warm up, and plough through the rest of your work as you finish up your 2025 tasks. There are still a few weeks of work diligence required before we take our year-end break. Here’s hoping that both the work and the parties combine to make this December one to remember.
I’m off to Calgary this week, but I hope Insights will be in your inbox again next Saturday morning with a chinook of warmth and more than just a hot take to help us get through the expected cold.