Throne Speech: Where Does Canada Go From Here?

On The Opportunities And Obstacles

It is clear I am in the very tiny minority that found today’s Throne Speech to be an abomination. The speech itself was light on policy details and anybody who had paid attention to the campaign knew all of it down to the cadence before it exited Charles’ mouth. The closest thing we got to news out of it was language around boosting supply to lower housing costs, which in combination with an answer given to CBC’s David Cochrane suggests he’s willing to see market prices come down. (One of the few good things that came out of today was Cochrane’s interview with Carney - the rare interview where both sides come out looking well. The Carney PMO would be smart to make these interviews a regular occurrence.)

But when it comes to the pomp and circumstance of it all, I was clearly in the minority. People thought somehow asking a foreigner who’s never lived in this country to come fight our battles for us was an articulation of Canadian sovereignty, which makes zero sense to me but you know, is apparently logical to some of you. It clearly pissed off Trump, who is back to 51st State crap by lying about an offer to become the 51st State being considered (it’s not) because of the cost of joining the Golden Dome, so I guess on that front it’s worth it.

What's interesting to me is not the speech itself, or the Charles of it all - the liveblog does a good job of going through the emotions of it all - but the idea of what happens when your party does something that is clearly good politics that is just completely antithetical to you. Carney did that today, and I’m not going to pretend that I’m any less gutted by it, but it’s also clearly going down well. And I don’t really know what that looks like if this site’s purpose is actually pragmatic progressivism.

Mark Carney is obviously the right person to lead this country - Justin Trudeau’s dumb and offensive decision to wear fucking green running shoes into the Senate today for the moment is a reminder that Carney’s brand of Liberal politics is so much better. The interview with Cochrane was further evidence, where it was almost less formal interview and more high level policy conversation. I know this, intellectually.

I also know intellectually it’s a good thing to do popular things. The Monarchy is rising in popularity, both as an institution and Charles’ personal ratings, and as a symbol he is mostly non-partisan - one of the few things that is, despite his fervent personal leftwing politics. I get the case for using all of the tools in the toolkit, and given it worked both for domestic and international audiences clearly Carney’s people will be calling this a success in the halls of power. From their standpoints I get it.

It’s also a handy wedge issue with the Conservatives, at a time when their coalition is wedged between anti-elite populists who view America as the model for humanity and the more traditional, wealthier, WASP-y Tory base of Monarchists who still think it should be called Dominion Day. Again, as a political act, it’s functionally impossible to call this anything except a success. Which in some ways makes it worse.

If this had been a disaster, it’d be easier to move past this. If this had gone up in flames I’d be able to quickly and efficiently take my victory lap and move on, but it worked. It did what they wanted it to do and bought them a day (at least) of very favourable coverage leading into a First Ministers’ Meeting and then the G7 summit. It’s frustratingly effective, annoying well put together. The political strategist in me, or at least the wannabe, can intellectually understand this is a masterclass of a day and of a strategy. And yet I’m fucking livid.

The answer is - has to be - that this is good, because I cannot expect other parts of the coalition to take half a loaf for the political good and then treat the idea of having to listen to everyone praise Charles as unacceptable. I hate the fact that we felt the need to bring him in, I hate the fact that such an eminently disastrous person would be King of Canada in the first place, but the Carney government got what they wanted today. It’s a sign they have pretty good instincts for how things will play, and that they’ll use the big set pieces to maximum effect. If my interests are merely partisanly Liberal, I’m pouring a drink tonight to some of the best signs of competence and forward planning in years.

That said, we can’t play this card too frequently, and I hope Carney knows that fact. Yes, Charles is the King of Canada, but he isn’t in any meaningful sense Canadian, and we need to win the war ourselves. We need to continue to define a Canadian sense of self that doesn’t simply involve being better than America or vague platitudes about hockey and politeness. I wrote last week about the need for a more coherent Foreign Policy, and a stronger articulation of not just what we believe when it comes to human rights in general and Gaza in specific, but why we believe them.

If this crisis with the Americans is exposing the need for a strengthened Canadian identity, then let Charles’ visit represent both the beginning and the end. Let it represent a new beginning, a return to our Westminster roots, a symbol of our dedication to independence, but also the end of a dependence. Let this be the last time we bring Charles across the ocean because we need him. If we want to revitalize the Crown here, to give meaning to the idea of a King of Canada, then let’s decide that not out of strategic need but genuine want. Let’s bring him back across the Atlantic because we want our King to have more and more of Canada seep further in, not because we need Trump to fuck off.

Let’s use this moment as a jumping off point for a more dynamic Canadian identity, that makes decisions from strength and not weakness, that embraces our past because we want to, and brings that past into the present and future out of genuine belief and not tactics. Let’s make today a genuine line in the sand, a rubicon that we’re not going back beyond. And let’s make it one that can bring both today’s biggest fans and its staunchest haters with it.

(As we ramp up coverage of the Carney era, national unity threats in Alberta and Quebec, and attempt to use whatever influence I have to influence this new government, consider a paid subscription. All work will remain free but a paid subscription is a way to support my work and enable me to continue to do what I love.)