The King’s Speech

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

HERE'S MY TAKE

King Charles is coming to Canada essentially to deliver a speech. But it won’t be any speech. On Tuesday next week, he’ll sit in the Senate chamber to deliver the throne speech, an essential matter in Canada’s parliamentary system. This is much more than a matter of pageantry and pomp. Without the throne speech, Parliament cannot be convened.

Contrary to popular perception, Canadian elections don’t choose governments; they elect Parliaments or, more technically, the members of the House of Commons who, together with the Senate and the Crown, comprise the Parliament. The Crown invites an individual to form a government that, in order to be legitimate, must be able to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons to remain in office. That individual—the prime minister—forms a cabinet and prepares a throne speech. The Crown delivers the throne speech in summoning Parliament, presenting the government’s agenda for the upcoming session. An endorsing vote (on a motion which is part of “the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne”) is the public evidence that the government enjoys the confidence of the House. Maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons is at the core of responsible government in a Westminster system of government.

Many may consider all this to be civics trivia, but the symbolism accompanying every throne speech matters. Tuesday’s speech is significant for even more reasons than usual. The most fundamental detail of significance is to publicly confirm that the government has the confidence of the House. Who will support the minority government to ensure the motion on the throne speech passes?

Prime Minister Carney has made clear he will not be relying on any formal deals with other political parties for support in the House. The Conservatives, as His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, are expected to live up to their title and oppose the speech from the throne. This is normal practice (with the occasional exception). The Bloc Québécois and the NDP are different matters. The NDP’s seven MPs are still divided regarding the appointment of veteran MP Don Davies as their interim leader. Will they all vote the same way or might the Liberals exploit this division to secure an effective majority through some compliant and cooperative New Democrats? Bloc leader Yves-François Blanchet indicated that he did “not see any scenario other than collaboration for at least a year,” which would lead one to expect BQ support for the motion. However, as sometimes is the method of the Bloc, it might provide de facto support simply by abstaining from the vote (which deprives the House of votes cast against the speech). Given the Bloc’s opposition to the monarchy (which Blanchet in a 2022 House of Commons speech described as a "racist," "archaic," "almost archeological," and "humiliating" institution that should be scrapped), abstention might provide a means to make a statement to its constituency. Pundits will be reading the tea leaves to see how the opposition parties position themselves and what it might hint about how this Parliament will function. Still, the outcome of an approved throne speech seems practically inevitable.

The more interesting symbolism comes from the invitation for King Charles to deliver the speech in person. (Technically, he could’ve done so anyway as the reigning monarch, but the request came from the prime minister, and the King accepted.) While the pageantry involved is an intentional spectacle (and yes, I am looking forward to seeing the horse-drawn landau, military salute, and other bits of pomp and circumstance taking place just 500 feet away and visible from the Cardus office), the message all this liturgy conveys is more significant. It is a very public assertion that Canada is a sovereign constitutional monarchy, very different from the United States. In a context where the value of our sovereignty has been questioned, the King’s visit reminds Canadians of our roots (which include very conscious decisions not to join the United States). In a world in which the United States is increasingly isolationist, King Charles is a symbol of internationalism since he is head of state for 15 Commonwealth realms, including Canada. His appearance in Canada’s Senate to deliver the throne speech reminds the world that Canada’s heritage of freedom and national ethos differ from those achieved through the American Revolution. In a context of a changing relationship between Canada and the United States, the symbolism of the event is a statement in its own right, not just about our past but also about the possibilities of the future.

In that vein, it seems only appropriate to point out that if Prime Minister Carney is intentional about this symbolism having weight (which, from various statements, it would seem he is), he should take care not to undo his good work by adopting republican styles of governing from the United States. Making a show of signing documents at a cabinet table is an Americanism. Canadian prime ministers lead governments that present legislation to Parliament. That Parliament, including the House of Commons representing the people and the Senate representing the regions, then consents (or doesn’t) to that legislation and the raising and spending of money. If the symbols are intended to remind Canadians how different we are from Americans, Mr. Carney’s adoption of new, American-inspired symbols is both off-message and sends disturbing signals.

I’ve made it this far talking about a speech without referencing its contents. That’s not because the content is unimportant, but rather because we can only speculate about it. Even so, I don’t expect any surprises. Prime Minister Carney’s single, austere, and brief mandate letter to cabinet generally (as opposed to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s unique, flowery, and wordy instruction letters to each minister) set the tone for the expected government agenda. Politico’s Playbook on Thursday summarized it this way. “Out: Climate, diversity, social justice, sunny ways, idealism. In: New allies, trade, technocracy, AI, infrastructure, productivity, defence.”

In an age of cynicism, it is easy to point out inconsistencies and shortcomings. Responsible government requires a well-functioning opposition, media, and civil society to do just that. I don’t doubt that Tuesday, and especially the following days, will provide plenty of opportunity to offer critiques. However, at the time of the throne speech, it seems good to acknowledge that we’ve just had an election in which Canadians have spoken. Whatever we think of the outcome, we need to provide an opportunity for the government to deliver on its promises. The seven priorities outlined in the mandate letter do provide a different tone from the Trudeau Liberal government that preceded it. So, we will watch with interest to see the extent to which The King's Speech will result in action.

WHAT I’M READING

Final Solutions?

Canada’s euthanasia regime has grown relatively quickly over the last decade. Each time the country was poised to take another step down toward easier and more accessible premature deaths, critics who raised cautions and concerns were dismissed as alarmists. Last week, a Quebec radio host took a shocking next step down this scary staircase. Speaking of euthanasia for permanently institutionalized people with severe disabilities, he said, "I prefer the solution of bringing them to a kind of liberation. I don't mean 'dying.' But a way to end their pain." These comments did provoke some outrage, especially from disability groups. However, the host’s comments follow a cultural pattern we’ve seen before with euthanasia: things that were previously unthinkable become part of the public conversation of so-called options, possibly on their way to becoming even socially acceptable. In the meantime, euthanasia has gone from exceptional to routine.

Freedom to Be Vulgar

John Weston, a former Conservative MP and a founder of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, wants the vulgar “F#*% Carney” flags gone from outside the Ottawa building that houses the Prime Minister’s Office. He made his argument in an Ottawa Citizen op-ed article this week, something that’s especially significant, given his distinguished record in taking on civil liberties cases, including ones related to free speech. Mr. Weston says the profanity-bearing flags degrade “our nation’s highest office using hallowed public space,” a matter consequential for “democracy’s health.” His article raises interesting points about the extent to which “the weeds of profanity and contempt” need to be eradicated while protecting the right of protest and free speech. 

Guns, Butter, and Cars 

The “guns versus butter” dilemma is classic economic shorthand for the tensions between spending for defence or production. However, auto parts executive Rob Wildeboer told a Toronto conference on Canada-US trade this week that the present tariff war might be resolved if Canada addressed three areas of American concern: Canada’s supply-managed dairy industry, other supply-managed agricultural sectors, and the digital services tax. “Those are the three pinch points for the Americans,” Mr. Wildeboer said. “So I think if you’re in a negotiation, you deal with those three things, then you’ll find the auto tariffs go away.” (Full disclosure: Mr. Wildeboer is a Cardus board member.) Of course, even coming to terms on the required trade-offs still requires a mechanism that is reliable beyond the whims of a president, an issue the UK has raised, where some are suggesting their deal with the United States “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.”

US Ambassador to Ukraine Resigns

Truth is said to be the first casualty in the fog of war and in the midst of high-level discussions seeking to end the Ukraine-Russia conflict, I certainly am in no position to opine on the details. As we try to make sense of the changing position of the US administration, the resignation of the US ambassador to Ukraine seems noteworthy. She penned an op-ed in the Detroit Free Press providing her perspective.

On Dangerous Reading

With a hat-tip to the Insights reader who passed this along to me, I share an article in nonprofitquarterly.com that makes some powerful arguments on the importance of exposing children to “unsafe” reading. “But books are not meant to be safe,” writes the author. “As Madeleine [L’Engle] wrote in A Circle of Quiet, ‘We’ve come to the point where it’s irresponsible to try to protect [children] from the irrational world they will have to live in when they grow up….Our responsibility to them is not to pretend that if we don’t look, evil will go away, but to give them weapons against it.’”

MEANINGFUL METRICS

Flying Not So High

An insider report on sustainable aviation fuel options isn’t my regular fare, but the social media graphic highlighting the economics of an American Airlines flight from Dallas to London prompted me to dig into the source. I knew business and premium fares pay an airline’s bills, but I was still surprised to learn that 71 percent of all economy class seats on this flight provide only 16 percent of the total revenues. The profit margin of 4.6 percent (before taxes) also surprised me. While the article was framed as a consideration of what it would take to get airlines to transition to a more environmentally friendly fuel option that would increase flight costs by about 4.5 percent, there were many data points in the argument with broader implications for how we might fly in the future.

TAKE IT TO-GO

A Windsor Knot Better than Not the Windsors

Raising the monarchist-republican debate on the eve of the King’s visit might cause a succession of knots in the stomachs of our monarchist neighbours, so I’ll resist. Not that a light-hearted takeaway needs everything to be tied in royally prim and proper perfection, but I will restrain myself as a loyal subject of His Majesty (and out of deference to the zealous folks at the Monarchist League of Canada).

Among the royal tidbits I learned in the lead-up coverage was that 1939 marked a reigning monarch's first visit to Canada. King George VI, better known to this generation as Bertie from the movie The King’s Speech, is a sympathetic figure as he worked to overcome his speech impediment. There are plenty of metaphors in both a royal stammer and overcoming it, and becoming king of the pun-castle is a role I’d be sure to enjoy. If the royal lineage of George begetting Elizabeth begetting Charles begetting William begetting George is to be commented on, I’ll confess that the current monarch is my least favourite. Still, he’s my king and as a loyal subject, I will reign in any court jest that comes to mind. Instead, I will just wish all the royal watchers well (noting that I will be among them) as we celebrate the King's speech on Tuesday. Like them or not, we are better off being a constitutional monarchy, and the House of Windsor is what that brings.

Long live the King!

Looking forward to being back in your inbox next Saturday morning.