Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Liberal colleagues have got to be happy with the reaction to the Speech from the Throne King Charles III delivered – on their behalf – on Tuesday, May 27.
The Official Opposition Conservatives took issue with the Speech, naturally. Taking issue with the government of the day is a key piece of any Official Opposition’s job description.
But their criticism was muted.
The Conservatives were reduced to saying they approved of the Speech’s general aims but were disappointed in its lack of details.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre told Canadians his party would introduce an amendment to the Speech which would provide those missing details.
For instance, the Conservative amendment would repeal the Liberals’ 2019 Impact Assessment Act.
That Act governs the federal role in approving mega-projects such as pipelines. Among its provisions: to provide funding for grassroots, community input and respect for Indigenous rights.
The Liberals are not likely to support repeal.
But Mark Carney’s new energy minister Tim Hodgson has clearly and emphatically indicated he agrees with the Conservatives that the current approval process is too slow and cumbersome.
On May 23 Hodgson told the Calgary Chamber of Commerce: “Canada will no longer be defined by delay. We will be defined by delivery. No more five-year reviews. Decisions will come in two years for all projects.”
NDP strongly hinted it would vote in favour
At the other end of the political spectrum, the New Democrats, via their interim leader Don Davies, said they found a lot they could support in the Throne Speech.
Davies liked the emphasis on housing, especially on building affordable, multi-unit housing.
He also approved of the government’s goal to foster a “strong independent Canadian economy”, with Canadian companies producing Canadian goods and services in Canada and “becoming champions on the global stage”.
The Carney government’s goal of “diversifying trade relationships and reducing reliance on the U.S.” and promoting internal trade and labour mobility within Canada is something New Democrats can support as well.
Davies did express some disappointment – in the absence of any mention of healthcare or Indigenous housing, for instance, or in the lack of measures to protect workers against tariffs.
And the NDP’s interim leader shared the view of many economists that the fiscal foundations for what the Speech promises are dubious.
The Liberal government intends to reduce the tax on the lowest income bracket by one per cent and will introduce legislation to that effect. Plus, Carney has already reduced the consumer carbon tax to zero and cancelled the Trudeau government’s increase on the inclusion rate for capital gains taxation.
Taken together, these measures will cost the government multiple billions of dollars.
Carney has promised not to touch any of the previous government’s social programs, some of which were part of the NDP’s conditions for propping up the Trudeau Liberals. Those include child care, dental and pharma care.
The prime minister says he will make up the shortfall in revenue through undefined government efficiencies, some of which could include replacing public servants by AI tools.
Davies suspects the net result will be “a cut to public services Canadians rely on.”
The seven New Democrats have not yet tipped their hands on how they will vote on the Speech, when that vote happens on June 4. (Even if the Conservatives, as is almost certain, vote nay and the Bloc Québécois joins them, the NDPers alone would have enough votes to put the government over the top.)
But the thrust of Davies’ remarks was that there is enough in the Speech to like to satisfy his much-reduced caucus.
King’s presence designed to influence opinion in Europe more than the U.S.
This year’s Speech was as much about political theatre as it was about policy.
That the King rather than the Governor General delivered it testifies to that fact.
None of the Speech is written by the King or his entourage at Buckingham Palace. The Throne Speech was entirely, as it always is, an Ottawa production.
But those on the Canadian prime minister’s team who drafted the Speech did an artful job of making it seem as though King Charles was, at times, speaking for himself.
The authors of the speech had the King refer to his “dear late mother”.
They also had him quote himself as having said, on a previous visit, “every time I come to Canada a little more seeps into my bloodstream, and from there, straight to my heart.”
The personal touch was important, especially for a non-Canadian audience.
Lots of commentary on the King’s visit focused on the U.S. angle. Many opined that Donald Trump would be impressed. The current U.S. president is said to be a fan of the British Royal Family.
The new U.S. ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, tried to throw cold water on that notion. He told interviewers the U.S. government would be more interested in the content of the Speech than who delivered it.
Trump reinforced that view when he used social media to repeat his 51st state threat/invitation a few hours after the Speech.
The real international audience the Carney team had in mind was in King Charles’ home, the U.K., and in Europe more generally.
The U.K.is so desperate for trade partners, in the wake of the self-inflicted wound of Brexit, that U.K. prime minister Keir Starmer was loath to utter even the slightest criticism of Trump’s verbal attacks on a fellow Commonwealth member, and the oldest one at that.
Starmer’s display of abject kowtowing to the bully in Washington was a deep disappointment, almost a shock, to Canadians, including the current Canadian PM (and former Bank of England governor).
Bringing Charles III to Ottawa, and having him utter such words as those that follow, has provided something of an antidote to the Starmer government’s craven stance vis-à-vis Trump:
“Today, Canada faces another critical moment. Democracy, pluralism, the rule of law, self-determination, and freedom are values which Canadians hold dear, and ones which the Government is determined to protect.” (Emphasis added)
The word out of London is that the Palace felt a bit squeezed between the Starmer team’s desire to strike a deal with Trump and the King’s duty to a country of which he is (still) the head of state.
It is quite likely there were some fairly frantic back-and-forth communications between Ottawa and London on the wording of the Speech.
It is telling that the Speech made no reference to the current U.S. president’s unprecedented (in modern times) challenge to Canadian sovereignty. On that issue, one can safely assume the King’s minions asked their Canadian counterparts to be careful with their wording.
In the end, the drafters of the Speech came up with a brilliant solution. They had the King deliver the stirring words of the English version of Canada’s national anthem: “the true north strong and free!”
They could not have invented better words.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
