3 days ago
The King of Canada, and other things nobody understands
In 2002, then-defence minister John McCallum admitted that the first time he'd heard of the Raid on Dieppe was when he attended a ceremony in France marking the battle's 60th anniversary.
In an attempt to redeem himself from embarrassment, he wrote a letter to the editor of the National Post – in which he confused Vimy, Canada's First World War victory, with Vichy, France's collaborationist Second World War regime.
Before entering politics, Mr. McCallum had been a university professor, the chief economist of a bank and dean of arts at McGill. With a resumé like that, you're not supposed to be last off the turnip truck. In most countries, you wouldn't be. But this is Canada, where our history is a self-erasing tabula rasa.
Which brings us to the visit of King Charles III to deliver the Throne Speech – and high-level Canadian officials revealing low levels of Canadian knowledge.
On Monday, the social media account of Governor-General Mary Simon tweeted the following: '#GGSimon was honoured to have an audience with His Majesty King Charles III at @RideauHall as part of Their Majesties' Royal Visit to Canada.' And then: 'These ongoing conversations deepen the meaningful bond between our nations. GB. CA.'
The people who wrote those words work in the office of the person delegated to represent our head of state. Yet they're under the impression that our head of state is the ambassador of a foreign government – 'GB' for Great Britain.
Vimy, Vichy. King of Canada, King of Kensington. Whatever.
The post was later removed. But the high-level misunderstandings continued on Wednesday in Question Period.
A Bloc Québécois MP asked why taxpayers' money had been wasted on 'the King of England.' I get that this is the term the BQ always uses, but come on: There hasn't been a King of England since 1707. Wanting to end the monarchy is a perfectly reasonable position, but at least know what you're swinging at.
Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture (real title, I swear) replied that there was nothing unusual about the visit because, even when the King doesn't attend in person, 'it's always the British Crown that reads the speech.'
Opinion: King Charles's visit to Canada was a show of weakness, not strength
The 'British' Crown? Seriously? The minister of Canadian Identity needs help identifying the pieces on our constitutional chessboard.
The personified symbol of national sovereignty (it sounds weird, I know) who read the Throne Speech is not a representative of the British government. In fact, given that the King was participating in a ceremony of Canadian sovereignty directed at an American audience, it's possible that Britain – where he's also the head of state – would have preferred he not come. But the request to the Canadian head of state came from the Canadian head of government, and as such would have been received as something of an obligation.
The guy who arrived on a Canadian plane, rode through the streets of Canada's capital, visited the Canadian national war memorial and opened the Canadian Parliament with words written by his Canadian ministry, was the King of Canada.
He was not on the clock in Ottawa as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or King of Australia, or King of the Bahamas. Fifteen countries share the monarch, but he occupies each post independently.
Someone working at Starbucks while attending university is not the representative of Starbucks to their school. Nor are they their school's representative to Starbucks. Same thing here.
Coyne: This was the moment Charles became King of Canada, and Canada his kingdom
We're trying to make a big show of how we're not Americans, yet when we encounter our most shockingly not-American bits, we trip over them.
Even Prime Minister Mark Carney has had trouble. Since the election, he's several times said that Canada has three founding peoples – English, French and Indigenous – with the monarchy related to the first of them.
Leaving aside whether we should be talking anymore of 'founding peoples,' the reason for the Crown, or this visit, isn't that. Canada is an independent constitutional monarchy, and the King of Canada is the independent constitutional monarch. The government advised the monarch that he was needed to take part in an important constitutional convention, so he did. A historical connection to Britain is how we got here, but Canada's Crown has long been independent of that. Canada has many people of Indian ancestry, but that doesn't mean Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is going to be asked to read the Throne Speech.
Is Canada a weird country? Sometimes. It's the result of a history of not being American. And this particular arrangement is almost impossible to change, so you might as well embrace it.
Stay weird, Canada.
