In 1965, George Grant grappled with the question of Canada’s soul in his landmark book, Lament for a Nation. Grant’s main lament was captured in his book’s subtitle: “The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism.” Grant’s warning is more relevant today than it was when he wrote it. Canadians, especially younger ones, appear less proud of their country than at any time in living memory, thanks to the collapse of the Laurentian Consensus and Justin Trudeau’s post-national identity politics. Unless the next generation of political leaders reverses this erosion of patriotism, the country’s future could be at risk.
To Grant, John Diefenbaker’s defeat in the 1963 federal election marked the demise of genuine Canadian nationalism. Grant saw the Pearson Liberals, who won the election, as internationalists committed to a liberal, progressive agenda that emphasized economic growth and integration with the United States. He believed that the Liberal-inclined elite benefited from and perpetuated an agenda that undermined Canada’s unique identity and sovereignty while claiming to represent Canadians’ best interests.
While Grant’s concerns about U.S. cultural and economic hegemony continue to resonate, he missed the birth of a new Canadian identity occurring right under his nose. As an English Canadian writer with deep admiration for Canada’s connection to the British Empire, Grant didn’t recognize the shakeup in identity produced by what Quebec politician and journalist Claude Ryan called the Quiet Revolution.
Pearson and the Liberals saw the Quiet Revolution for what it was and got in front of the parade, creating what John Ibbitson and I referred to in our 2013 book, The Big Shift, as the Laurentian Consensus. The main pillar of the Laurentian Consensus was reconciling the nationalist interests of Quebec with the rest of the country. It also embraced our growing multiculturalism that emerged after the Second World War.
While elements of the Laurentian Consensus go back to Canada’s founding in 1867, its peak was the Constitution Act of 1982 and the subsequent efforts by both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments to blunt the appeal of Quebec nationalism.
The Laurentian Consensus also defined majority-winning election strategies for both the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties from the 1970s until the early 2000s.
The strategy involved sweeping Quebec and winning enough seats in Ontario for a majority government. This middle-of-the-road approach aimed at winning the country’s middle worked for Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chrétien. The Laurentian Consensus had an associated elite—the Laurentian Elite. This included those holding key positions in public sector institutions that shape Canada’s national policies, including federalism, economic strategy, and social issues. Beyond politicians and public officials, the Laurentian Elite and their consensus dominated Canada’s cultural and social spheres, promoting progressive values, bilingualism, and multiculturalism. This group also included leaders in major financial institutions, large corporations, and influential business groups whose decisions often reflected the interests of central Canada’s urban centres, frequently at the expense of other regions, especially the West. The Laurentian Elite also understood the need to create consensus around symbols and institutions that could unite the country. Intentional efforts included a new Canadian flag, building bilingualism in national institutions, and a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unintentional efforts, such as introducing single-payer public health care, also became significant symbols of Canadian identity. Stephen Harper’s election victories in 2006, 2008, and especially 2011 dismantled the political logic of the Laurentian Consensus. Harper and his new Conservative Party showed it was possible to win national elections and even a majority government without sweeping Quebec. Harper won with a new coalition: car-commuting suburbs, especially in the 905 area code around Toronto, and Western Canada, which has Canada’s most rapidly growing population. While the Laurentian Elite cringed at what Harper and his Conservative Party might do to Canadian federalism and especially Canadian identity, their worst fears weren’t realized. Harper was an incrementalist by nature and was loath to move fast and break things. His governments practiced passive federalism. They respected jurisdictional boundaries, agreed to funding arrangements with the provinces, and mostly stayed out of their way. The result was intergovernmental and constitutional peace for a decade. On the Canadian identity front, the Harper Government was also low-key. Their inherently Tory approach would likely have met with Grant’s approval. Other than a predilection for Canadian military history, especially celebrating the anniversary of the War of 1812, and an interest in the North, Harper stayed away from the emerging culture wars ramping up across the Western world. In retrospect, though, Harper and the Conservatives missed an opportunity over a decade in power to define their version of Canadian identity. If Canada is no longer the country of the Laurentian Consensus and their elite, who are we? What unites Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Harper never told us. If Harper and the Conservatives neglected to define Canada’s post-Laurentian Consensus identity, their successors, the Liberal Party of Justin Trudeau, couldn’t stop talking about it. Even though the Trudeau Liberals won three elections by basically executing the political strategy of the Laurentian Consensus, they had no interest in resurrecting that version of federalism or view of Canadian identity. On federalism, the Trudeau government had a “my way or the highway” approach to dealing with the provinces. This was especially true when dealing with issues in Western Canada, especially around climate and the oil and gas industry. As a result, Western alienation, especially in Alberta and Saskatchewan, has not been this toxic since the National Energy Program days in the early 1980s. Also, Quebec nationalism appears to be on the rise again with the likelihood of the Parti Québécois being reelected to government in October 2026. On Canadian identity, the Trudeau Liberals eschewed history, traditions, and symbols that most Canadians could identify with and went all in on a pastiche of 21st-century therapy speak and trendy identity politics. What was the Trudeau version of Canadian identity? A newly elected Prime Minister Trudeau told the New York Times in 2015 that, “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada. There are shared values—openness, respect, compassion, willingness to work hard, to be there for each other, to search for equality and justice. Those qualities are what make us the first post-national state.” Over the subsequent decade of Trudeau governments, we learned what their version of a post-national Canada meant. We are a country defined by oppression and unresolved grievances. We shouldn’t be proud of our nation and the people who built it; we should be ashamed of it and them. Apologies needed to be made, statues needed to come down, buildings needed to be renamed, flags needed to be at half-mast. What we learned from this was what the Trudeau Liberals didn’t like about Canada. What we rarely heard from them was what they liked about it. Where does this leave the Canadian soul today? According to a recent Ipsos survey, 70 percent of Canadians agree with the new leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, that “Canada is broken.” Furthermore, 35 percent of Canadians feel less proud to be Canadian than five years ago, 32 percent are less likely to attend a Canada Day ceremony, 28 percent are less likely to display a Canadian flag around Canada Day, and 27 percent are less likely to speak positively about Canada to those not from Canada. These sentiments show a nation struggling with its identity and the symbols that once united it. Newton’s third law of motion states that every action gets an equal and opposite reaction. Newton’s law applies equally to politics. The Trudeau Liberals pushed the political pendulum as far as it could go on post-nationalism. It is almost certain that the Poilievre Conservatives will be Canada’s next government by October 2025. Let’s see how far they decide to push it back. So far, Poilievre has said little about Canadian unity and identity. All he has told us is that he plans to axe the carbon tax, go after the gatekeepers (whoever they are), build the homes, and make Canadians the freest people in the world. Let’s hope it’s more than this. What we really need from our next prime minister, regardless of who it is, is a full-throated defence of our history, customs, and symbols. Yes, we need to reckon with the mistakes of the past and the issues of the day, but we also need to be proud of what we have achieved as a nation together. We need to reawaken our Canadian soul.
Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs and co-author (with John Ibbitson) of Breaking Point: The New Big Shifts Putting Canada at Risk, which will be published by Signal on October 28th, 2025.
