Policies, Politics, and Personalities

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Now, the real work begins. The general election is over and the federal government has set out its agenda through the throne speech. King Charles and Queen Camilla have left Canada. Parliament is back to its daily routines including question period. The question now is “What exactly, if anything, has changed?”

I find it helpful to answer that question using three different lenses: policies, politics, and personalities

Policies

While the Liberals continue in government (having already governed for about 10 years with Justin Trudeau as prime minister), their policy focus has changed. Six months ago, Mr. Trudeau led a government that put its climate and social policies in the front window. Today, Mark Carney is the prime minister of a government that, he tells us, is laser-focused on strengthening the Canadian economy. The consumer carbon tax dropped to zero percent on April 1. His government has introduced a bill to reduce the personal income tax rate for the lowest tax bracket to 14 percent from 15 percent (an average annual savings of $420 for taxpayers). Mr. Carney wants the tax cut to take effect on July 1. Meanwhile, the federal energy minister went to Alberta to promise “bold action” to fast-track energy infrastructure with a two-year project approval process. The prime minister and premiers are meeting on Monday to discuss the Liberals’ election promise to reduce interprovincial trade barriers by July 1. In mid-June, the G7 leaders will gather in Kananaskis, Alberta to talk trade. At the same time, the defence minister is making bold promises about Canada’s military spending. And the federal government has promised bail reform and measures to make homes more affordable.

Taken together, these policies are very different from the agenda of the Liberal government that preceded it. The talking points have moved from culture war to trade war. When US President Trump began making noises about making Canada the 51^st state, I opined in this space that while this was concerning, it was forcing Canadians to deal with issues they had neglected for far too long. Folks will differ on whether the response to Trump's rhetoric is appropriate, but you can’t deny that largely the same group that was in power during the Trudeau era is now pursuing a very different set of policy priorities.

Politics

Of course, implementing policies requires politics—the art and science of governing, persuading others, building coalitions, and managing bureaucracy. In short, politics is the process of translating words into meaningful action. In a democracy, that means mediating the different points of view of various parts of the citizenry into a single policy that applies to all of us. The “politics” part of governing is only just beginning for Prime Minister Carney.

It would be naïve to take all of the federal government’s promises at face value. History tells us that policy implementation almost always falls short of policy aspiration (or campaign marketing).

Take energy, for example. Given the government’s track record on building energy infrastructure over the past decade, I can understand why many are skeptical of the government’s commitment to “build, baby, build.” The government is carefully avoiding the words “oil and gas,” preferring to talk about “conventional energy” instead. It has indicated that it will not repeal some of the laws and regulations that the oil and gas industry believes prevents the building of infrastructure. Will we really have specific energy projects advanced by the fall and approved with shovels ready to go into the ground in late 2027 or early 2028? And until there are concrete steps taken along that pathway, some western Canadians remain unconvinced that anything will really change, so they continue to advocate loudly for structural change in the federal-provincial relationship (or outright separation). But there’s another wrinkle in all this. Quebec is due to have a provincial election no later than October 2026. Polls suggest the Parti Québécois is poised to win that election. The PQ has promised a referendum on Quebec sovereignty, which only complicates matters further for the federal government and other provinces. How will the federal government balance the demands of Quebec with the demands of Alberta and other provinces, not to mention Indigenous demands, all of which relate to building energy infrastructure that crosses provincial boundaries? Being good at politics—the skill of governing and achieving agreement—is a significant variable turning promised policies into reality.

The shadow overarching all this is the need for a new defence and trade relationship with the United States. There’s nothing new to say here except that having Prime Minister Carney instead of Prime Minister Trudeau doesn’t change the chaos or unpredictability since President Trump took office. We might prefer to ignore it personally, but economic decision-makers can’t since around three-quarters of our exports go to the United States. Tariffs and trade policy are existentially crucial to our economy. Even more significant is that because of the current situation's uncertainty, many major capital decisions to invest in Canada are on hold. Investors understandably want to be more certain of the long-term rules affecting their returns before making definite commitments. Favourable American court decisions may be welcomed, but the appeal and legal process only add to the uncertainty. And after a brief respite from the “51^st state” rhetoric, President Trump repeated it this week on social media, noting that Canada had a choice of paying 61 billion USD to sign onto his Golden Dome missile defence project or become part of it “for free” by giving up its sovereignty.

Personalities

“The job would be easy if there were no people involved,” I used to quip when working in the labour relations business. It also applies to politics. It will take considerable skill to balance the intense discontent within specific regions and communities in Canada, while also reassuring investors nervous about committing to the Canadian economy. Prime Minister Carney has an impressive business and banking resume, but politics requires different skills. So far, it appears that he can exploit his brand as a political rookie to do things differently. However, Mr. Carney will only be seen as a newcomer for a short period of time. It won’t be long before he’ll be forced to cut through some tricky knots in ways that pass muster in Parliament, the media, and the court of public opinion, not just around the boardroom table.

And it’s not just the personality of the prime minister that matters here. He must maintain the confidence and support of his parliamentary caucus, mostly made up of Trudeau-era MPs. Many were originally elected to Parliament long before he showed up, with a history of implementing an agenda of radical social change with much less focus on economic development. Will the trade-off be a quieter but still intense implementation of Trudeau-style social policy to satisfy his caucus while Mr. Carney puts the spotlight on his economic agenda? Arguably,  former prime minister Jean Chrétien succeeded in implementing his significant economic reforms in the 1990s with that strategy. Whether or not it’s his present intention, will that end up being the trade-off Prime Minister Carney makes to succeed in implementing his agenda?

Getting into politics requires a measure of idealism as well as a heavy dose of ambition. Politicians’ personality profiles, especially party leaders, do not represent the general population. To implement desired policies, you need to have power, and to get power, you have to win it from others (who may have a different policy agenda). Politics is a battle for power that allows you to implement policies you claim to be in the country's best interest (with the happy consequence of you also enjoying the perks of power). There’s a mysterious mix of loyalties, friendships, grudges, tempers, compromises and deal-making that get pulled from the political toolbox in the process, and every political leader uses them in a different combination.

Yes, history will ultimately measure the success of any government by the policies it implemented and how they affected the country. However, in real time, politics and personality are decisive in determining what policy gets implemented. The different lenses of policy, politics, and personalities are helpful in interpreting what is happening and understanding what is likely to come next as we navigate these challenging times.

WHAT I’M READING

Trump’s Tariffs in (Temporary) Trouble

A day after a US court struck down US President Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs against most of the world, as well as many tariffs against Canada and Mexico, an appeals court has granted a stay to the original ruling. The White House is preparing for a fight all the way to the Supreme Court over tariffs, if necessary. Politico has the backstory on the original court ruling.

Is Parliament Still Relevant? 

Sure, MPs and senators are back in Parliament, but some thoughtful voices suggest that doesn’t matter nearly as much as it did in the past. Kevin Pike wrote a compelling op-ed on how events have evolved to reduce Parliament to a place of pomp and pageantry, but, for all intents and purposes, it is meaningless as we now have executive “government by assumption.” Andrew Coyne’s new book, The Crisis of Canadian Democracy, systematically works through all of our primary political institutions—the House of Commons, Senate, caucuses, political parties, and even the election process—documenting the shift between original intentions and current practice which all combine to a reduction of accountability and a crisis of responsible government in Canada.

Burkean Sorrows

It’s probably a 10-minute read for most people published by theideasletter.org, but if that’s your thing, I’d highly recommend Iza Ding’s essay regarding the challenges facing liberalism. It helpfully makes important distinctions between historical French, English, and American conceptions of liberty, noting that the differences rest more in temperament than in political theory. It’s a playfully literary take on history that embeds a pretty sombre take on our present moment. It was recommended to me by a colleague as “worth a read,” and I heartily concur.

Delivery Dilemma

Speaking of reader-recommended long reads, former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole writes in The Walrus about “political stunts and posturing” that effectively killed Canada Post. I won’t spoil the story for you, but I will tell you it involves Justin Trudeau, Denis Coderre, and a jackhammer. Meanwhile, negotiations continue between Canada Post and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Defence is Big Business

Whatever promises Canada’s government makes and/or keeps regarding defence, it’s going to involve big business and a lot of foreign companies. And of the top three defence companies, two are American and one is French, according to this Visual Capitalist chart. Many of these companies do have some presence in Canada because of past military purchases and ongoing service, as well as some non-defence-related work they do. But if you want to see the corporate beneficiaries of Canada’s promised defence bulk-up (and the ReArm Europe plan), the above graphic is a good guide. 

TAKE IT TO-GO

Glorious Weirdness

Celebrating being weird is weird, but I’m with Ben Woodfinden, who described the spectacle and ritual surrounding the Speech from the Throne as a “glorious weirdness.”

Weird isn’t usually a word we claim for ourselves, but in a paragraph devoted to wordplay, it is worth pointing out that we’ve been weirdly wielding the word weird for over a millennium. In the past two centuries, the word was understood to mean unique or unusual. However, before that, the word meant “fate” and is used that way multiple times in the epic English poem Beowulf (which English students of my vintage studied in high school as the oldest surviving English poem—see, Mr. Imrie, I was paying attention!)

The weirdness of fate and uniqueness come together when the House elects a speaker and he is dragged reluctantly to the speaker’s chair, unusual for a position that includes a healthy pay bump, a government-provided residence, and their own brand of scotch. But the spectacle of being “dragged” to the speaker’s chair makes a bit more sense when one considers that historically, speakers have lost their heads after delivering unfavourable news to the reigning monarch. Despite the feigned reluctance, the next day, the Usher of the Black Rod went from the Senate to the House of Commons to summon the speaker to attend the King’s speech. The speaker did so, stood at the bar of the Senate, and recited a ceremonial introduction to the King on behalf of the subjects’ representatives in the House of Commons.

Woodfinden focused on the service of the Usher of the Black Rod and the significance of the King reading the speech as part of the glorious weirdness, highlighting origins that can be traced back to 1348. The speaker’s loyalty to the House over the King, even if it would cost him his life, originates from the events of January 4, 1642, when King Charles I entered the House of Commons seeking to arrest five members who were leading the opposition to him. The speaker refused to turn them over, famously declaring: “I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me.”

I’ll admit to having watched these weird events with a secret ambition to become either the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Usher of the Black Rod. Their roles capture the importance of our history and the rich legacy of the constitutional monarchy in which we are blessed to live. Yes, it may be weird, but it is a glorious weirdness.

Whether the week to come ends up being weird or normal, I hope to be back in your inbox next Saturday morning to talk about it.