Many Canadian conservatives hold a deep admiration for Edmund Burke, often expressing their sentiments with nostalgia. They invoke his ideas in discussions about common sense and gradual change, suggesting a longing for a cohesive society that values established norms and institutions. However, the reality of Burkean conservatism in Canada appears more as an aspiration than a practical agenda. The Canada that Burkeans envision, where institutions honor the past, is largely absent today.

Howard Anglin has pointed out that liberalism has eroded many of the traditional bonds that once held society together, leaving it precariously balanced on a few procedural threads. He argues that liberalism has effectively “swallowed its tail.” Activist courts have expanded their powers under the Charter, often prioritizing “social justice” and special interests over the foundational principles of a free society.

As a result, the demand for a larger bureaucracy has surged to enforce newly invented rights. Since 2015, Canada’s federal public service has expanded by nearly 40%, costing approximately $71 billion annually. This growth translates to about nine federal employees for every 1,000 residents, significantly higher than in comparable countries. Currently, around one-quarter of Canadians are employed by the state.

Critics argue that this burgeoning bureaucracy operates like a managerial army, claiming to enhance society while undermining its historical narrative. The government has become a powerful force in shaping culture, determining which traditions are deemed “heritage” or “contraband.” This power has been seized by progressive elements, influencing schools, accreditation bodies, and cultural institutions.

Recent actions, such as the removal of materials related to Sir John A. Macdonald from Library and Archives Canada, illustrate this trend. Many museums now focus on themes of “settler” humiliation, while historic churches have faced arson attacks without a national reckoning. The cultural landscape has shifted dramatically since the era of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who transformed Canada’s identity from a bicultural Dominion to one defined by modern values.

In response, some conservatives propose ambitious reforms, including tax changes and enhanced parental leave, hoping to restore a sense of intellectual diversity in universities. However, these measures may be insufficient for a nation that increasingly views its foundational principles as problematic.

To reclaim what is worth preserving, conservatives may need to adopt a more aggressive approach. This includes dismantling the bureaucratic structures that have proliferated under the Liberal government and defunding NGOs and consultancy firms that thrive in this environment. A significant reduction in bureaucracy is seen as essential for restoring liberty and fostering a free economy.

In provinces like British Columbia and Ontario, the hiring of government managers has surged, while essential services and private-sector jobs have declined. Conservatives at both the provincial and federal levels must act decisively while in power, or risk merely maintaining the status quo of modern progressivism.

A renewed commitment to law and order is also crucial. While authorities pursued those involved in the 2011 Stanley Cup riot, they have been less proactive in addressing the vandalism of churches and statues. This inconsistency raises concerns about the motivations of those in power, leading citizens to question whether key figures in the Liberal regime sympathize with the vandals.

Using state power to restore Canada aligns with conservative principles rather than betraying them. Sir John A. Macdonald was not merely a classical liberal; he was a nationalist who utilized patronage to unify the Dominion and reward those who shared his vision. A government’s authority extends beyond fiscal responsibility; it has the opportunity to shape culture according to its ideals.

The Liberal Party has effectively embraced this privilege, becoming the more dominant political force in Canada. If conservatives genuinely believe their vision offers a better alternative, they must seize the opportunity to reshape institutions and appoint like-minded individuals. Failure to do so risks relegating their governance to a mere extension of opposition.

Success in this endeavor could restore stability and confidence in Canada, allowing for a resurgence of Burkean modesty. Until then, Burke’s reflections may serve as a reminder of the cultural battle that conservatives face, compelling them to either engage in the fight or risk fading into obscurity.