The Tribune

By Peter Young

In April, I wrote in this column about an extraordinary turnaround in Canadian politics, with the Liberals narrowly winning a general election under a new leader, Mark Carney, despite having been well down against the Conservatives in the polls. The election was dominated by President Trump’s warnings about Canadian independence and analysts believe that what made a major difference was Carney’s focus on standing up to him to protect the nation’s overall interests.

Trump had posed a threat to Canada’s economy with new tariffs that would have a serious impact given that the US is its largest trading partner by far. He also threatened the country’s independence by claiming it should be the 51st state of America, and he even disparagingly called the former prime minister “Governor Trudeau”.

Following his election victory, the new premier was quick to visit Washington to tell Trump in no uncertain terms that Canada would “never, ever” become the 51st state. He was also quick off the mark in formally inviting King Charles, in his capacity as Canada’s head of state, to open the next session of the nation’s Parliament on 27 May. His intention was surely clear to all. It was a strategic decision amidst strained relations with the nation’s giant neighbour to the south to show to everybody, beyond any doubt, that Canada would stay in its entirety as an independent sovereign state.

The King, accompanied by the Queen consort, duly made the short two-day visit to Ottawa last week, delivered the speech from the throne and opened the nation’s 45th parliamentary session. This is rare but not unprecedented as Queen Elizabeth herself delivered the speech in 1977 when she celebrated her Silver Jubilee.

The speech is the government’s agenda for the coming session and it is normally the function of the Governor General, as the monarch’s representative in Canada, to read it out. This is because Canada is one of the 15 nations - including Britain itself and, of course, The Bahamas - which remain as a realm rather than a republic and have therefore kept the monarch as head of state.

As well as setting out the government’s priorities, the King was also able to put his personal mark on the speech by stressing his support for the country staying “strong and free”. The visit was his twentieth to Canada over the years; and it was considered by many to be one of the most significant of them as visible evidence of Canada’s existing sovereignty and an implied rebuke to Trump.

Clearly, the speech and visit as a whole were a great success. As head of state, King Charles is a constitutional monarch and should not normally stray into politics. But, bearing in mind the recent invitation to the US president to make a state visit to Britain - and without mentioning him by name even if the tensions were implicit in the speech - he seems successfully to have sent coded signals and symbolic gestures of support for Canada. He praised it as a proud, resilient and compassionate country and stressed the need for open global trade to deliver prosperity to all Canadians, while also saying that the Crown had always been a symbol of unity for the whole country while representing stability and continuity.

For his part, Mark Carney said that the King’s visit “clearly underscores the sovereignty of our country” and highlights the strength of the relationship between Canada and the Crown. The King’s address was given a heartfelt standing ovation in the Canadian Parliament and the royal couple also received a warm welcome from the public during their brief visit.

It is worth mentioning, however, that the whole idea of this visit would probably not even have been countenanced a decade ago. As an example of the then mood of the country, in 2011 a Conservative government’s action in officially replacing Quebec artwork with a portrait of The Queen was heavily criticised as being out of touch with modern times.

According to royal historians, throughout its more than 150-year old history, Canada has sought increasing independence from the Crown while remaining part of the Commonwealth. As former British colonies, America and Canada took different paths towards independence. Following a lengthy revolutionary war, the US founding fathers inevitably severed all formal connections to the Crown, but Canada’s separation was more gradual and its ties have never been completely broken; for example, Canada’s parliamentary system is modelled on Westminster’s.

It appears that in the 19th century loyalty to the Crown was seen as desirable because of a perceived need to keep separate from the US. But that changed in the 1960s as the majority French-speaking province of Quebec began to assert its own identity and threatened separation.

Meanwhile, there were moves to untangle Canada from its colonial past and consolidate its internal unity; and, in 1982, the nation’s constitution was repatriated from the UK giving full legislative powers to the federal government in Ottawa and to the provinces, thereby making Canada fully independent while maintaining its link to the Crown as a realm.

Generally, commentators seem to think that Carney’s approach to the King was a master stroke in combating the US president. His attitude differs from that of Liberals in the past and he has succeeded in securing visible confirmation of Canada’s basic rights as a sovereign state that will be protected.

As one UK press commentator put it in its simplest form, Canadians seem to be happy to cling to King Charles as long as he keeps them safe from Trump!