David McLaughlin was President and CEO of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and a Conservative chief of staff.
Justice Minister Peter MacKay's departure from federal politics reminds us that without Mr. MacKay, a united Conservative Party would not have been possible. And neither would a Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
But is it the type of Conservative government either envisaged?
On the level that counts most, the answer is a resounding "yes." It is a winning party on the centre-right of the political spectrum no longer splitting votes and electing Liberal governments by default.
On another level, unlikely. It practises a form of conservatism that resembles aspects of the two founding parties' platforms but has morphed into something at once familiar and strange. It is a post-ideological party chasing electoral opportunity with fewer and fewer traditional conservative moorings.
This is a function of three factors: the merger constitution, minority government and Mr. Harper's brand of leadership.
The Conservative Party's constitution opens with a preamble setting out its "beliefs" to guide policy formation. You will find the words "balance," "diversity" and even "coalition," the party's form of "big blue tent;" statements that are encompassing in language but vague in application.
The rationale for this is simple. These were negotiating words. They were meant to bridge differences not sharpen divides. This was a unity exercise designed to allow conservatives to see themselves in this new home. Differences between conservatives and conservatism were muted in favour of creating sufficient common ground in their common cause: defeating the Liberals.
The second factor is the electoral circumstances of minority Parliaments in which the new Conservative government found itself. A majority coalition of conservatives garnered only minority favour from Canadians. The tripwire of non-confidence votes and an abrupt election meant this new Conservative government had to tread carefully to grow its support into majority territory. Competence and confidence of step in government mattered more than ideological purity.
Finally, there is Stephen Harper. In the early days, Mr. Harper was more potential asset than the real thing. Voter angst about his leadership kept the Conservatives from forming a majority government until his fourth try in 2011. Mr. Harper moderated his tone, scaled back his public visibility and adjusted policies to form and keep government on the basis of two kinds of voters: conservative-values-based voters and non-ideological swing voters.
It worked. Today, Mr. Harper is more asset than liability to his party, offering a strong contrast in style and substance to his two main opponents, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. He and his party retain a resilient base of support that could keep them in government, if not a majority.
In doing so, though, he has created a government and party with recognizable strains of conservatism but more and more one of his own personal making and circumstances. It has contradictory elements – smaller government but activist state interventionism and spending – that defy traditional conservative gravity.
From boutique tax credits to cheaper wireless rates to hockey-rink infrastructure, this has become a populist conservative party unabashed about using the levers of government to advance electoral appeal. Its sharp partisan rhetoric and focused spending announcements are meant to keep its appeal to values-based voters fresh while nourishing a party fundraising apparatus, one in which it has amassed a huge and decisive advantage.
Consistent conservatism was neither sought nor practised. A consistent conservative would have reined in government spending at the outset and recovered from deficit earlier. A consistent conservative would see the value of using market-based instruments such as carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, not bureaucratically designed regulations.
But conservative policy certainty would have sat uneasily in a coalition party out of power and be a hindrance to growing the party's electoral appeal under this leader. Any notion of "conservatism" would have to emerge from what the government did, not what it said. Circumstances more than conservatism would instead define its path.
A superficial checklist might reveal the government in practice as more Reform than Progressive Conservative. Smaller government, tougher justice, anti-gun-law and anti-Wheat Board. But there was always a constituency for this in the former PCs. Similarly, for lower taxes and more defence spending.
Mr. MacKay's departure reinforces that while "reform" and "progressive" conservative views still exist in the Conservative Party of Canada, it has actually been Mr. Harper's party for some time.
He has through time and chance fostered his own form of conservative certainty, creating "blue lines" which few if any federal conservatives dare to cross. An absolutism in what a conservative can stand for has set in. This is his legacy.
For better or worse, a "Harper conservatism" now defines this still-new party and its future. It is what an inevitable new leader will have to confront.