Latest news with #JohnDiefenbaker
Globe and Mail
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Sixty years ago, a philosopher said Canada would be absorbed by America. He could still be right
Michael Ignatieff teaches history at Central European University in Vienna. Sixty years ago, an obscure professor of theology at McMaster University published the most excoriating attack on the Canadian liberal establishment ever written. In an essay entitled Lament for a Nation – a torrent of righteous indignation funnelled into 95 blistering pages – George Grant accused Lester Pearson and the Liberals of selling out the country to the Americans. John Diefenbaker and the Conservatives had at least tried to stand up to the empire, he argued, but the Liberals, having won the 1963 election, had capitulated to the Americans by allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on Canadian soil. This, Grant claimed, was the culmination of a long history whose fatal first step had been taken in 1940, when Liberal prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and U.S. president Franklin Roosevelt met at Ogdensburg, N.Y., and agreed to create a Permanent Joint Board on Defence. When America finally joined the Second World War in 1942, the two countries steadily integrated defence production. The Canadian War Production Board, led by the American-born Canadian industrialist C.D. Howe, transformed Canada into an industrial powerhouse that turned out ships, aircraft and tanks for the war in Europe and Asia. This pattern of wartime continental integration only accelerated in peacetime. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Liberal governments built pipelines to ship Alberta's oil south, strung electricity grids to take our hydropower to American cities, and in 1965 signed a pact to integrate U.S. and Canadian auto production. As Canada joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and then the North American Aerospace Defense Command, completely subordinating our economy and defence to the interests of the empire, Liberals pretended we could hold on to our political freedom. Grant vehemently disagreed. Once a country surrendered its economy and its defence, he argued, it gave up its political independence. For Grant, all that was left was to lament the nation that its elites had allowed to die. Sixty years later, the Canada that Grant thought was doomed is still here – but the questions he posed remain unanswered. His pessimism may have been unrelenting, but it had a bracing honesty even in its exaggerations. It feels more adequate to the threat we face from President Donald Trump than pretending, as we are doing now, that buying Canadian and cancelling our American vacations will get us through the crisis. For Grant struck a nerve by asking a question we still haven't answered: What kind of national independence is possible for a country that shares an undefended border with the incorrigibly violent, expansionist and yet irresistibly attractive monster state to the south? In Grant's era, the issue was allowing Americans to station nuclear weapons on our soil. Today, the issue before us is whether to sign up for Mr. Trump's 'Golden Dome,' the air defence system that is supposed to protect us at an estimated cost to us, as Mr. Trump said in May, of US$61-billion – a number that he increased by US$10-billion at June's G7 summit. Canada's ambassador to the United Nations Bob Rae is not the only one who thinks Mr. Trump's offer has turned North American defence into a protection racket. The still more existential question that Grant asked Canadians 60 years ago, Mr. Trump has put to us once again. He asks, with his customary brutality: Since America protects Canada, and Canada couldn't survive without U.S. markets and U.S. technology, why keep up the ridiculous fiction of pretending you are an independent country? Mr. Trump's questions may be infuriating, but they must be answered. Our newly elected Liberal government is now trying to answer them, and unlike the elites of 60 years ago, they are at last responding to the economic threat to our sovereignty. Mark Carney's government, together with the provinces, have promised to abolish internal trade barriers and strengthen our east-west connections with pipelines and power grids, railways and faster internet. We are supposed to be diversifying our markets and reducing our dependence on the U.S. in our defence and in the economy. Recovering Canada's economic autonomy is the key to regaining political independence. That's the program, but the key to its success is not in our hands. Mr. Trump remains a tariff man, as he proclaimed at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alta. He just doesn't care what we want, and we may lose the access to his market that, whether we like it or not, remains the key to our prosperity – even our survival. Sixty years ago, Pearson's Liberals confronted the same nation-building challenge. Then-finance minister Walter Gordon wanted the federal government to respond to our economic and defence dependency on the Americans, but Pearson dropped Mr. Gordon and changed the subject, choosing instead to modernize Canada's symbols and rid itself of the British vestiges that Grant believed were what had held us together. Pearson discarded the Red Ensign, the flag Canadian soldiers carried when they had fought for King and Empire. Pearson backed these gestures of emancipation from the old British identity by creating a new social contract at home, based on the national pension plan, Medicare and unemployment insurance. In 1967, amid the euphoria of self-discovery, we celebrated the country's achievements at Expo. At the same time – less noticed, but even more fundamental – Canada opened its doors to non-European immigration and a new Canadian identity as a multicultural society began to take shape. Grant watched as Pierre Trudeau tried to rebuild a Canadian identity around the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a repatriated constitution, and overtures (albeit unsuccessful ones) to bring Quebec into his new constitutional order. Liberal elites are rightly proud of these changes and the new Canada of multicultural inclusion that came into being. Looking back now, however, the question is whether multiculturalism and Mr. Trudeau's 'rights revolution' – as I called it in my 2000 Massey Lectures – have brought the country together, or separated us into warring tribes of disputing rights claimants, each more insistent on what the country owes us than what we owe to the common enterprise. Indigenous inclusion and reconciliation may one day strengthen our common bonds, but for now, we are locked in a painful impasse, at loggerheads over contending versions of our historical past. When Justin Trudeau celebrated Canada's new 'post-national' identity in 2015, he inadvertently laid bare the weakness of our rituals, symbols and institutions of common national purpose. Like his father, the younger Trudeau had sought to give Canadians a postmodern identity, but left untouched the fundamental issue that Grant had placed at the centre of his polemic: our subordination to the American empire. It was left to the Conservative branch of the Canadian elite, represented by Brian Mulroney, to address this question. He jettisoned Diefenbaker's Prairie radical resistance to American integration and came out for continental free trade in the election of 1988. It was John Turner, another charter member of the old liberal elite, who turned himself into the avatar of Canadian nationalism, denouncing a trade deal that he believed would 'fundamentally alter our way of life, our way of doing things, the way we make choices as Canadians,' while trying to nail Mr. Mulroney as the prime minister 'who signed over the sovereignty and independence of our nation.' When Canadians handed Mr. Mulroney a majority government in 1988, they anchored into our country's politics the settled conviction – whether reluctant, fatalistic or welcoming – that Canadian prosperity required greater integration with the American economy. When broadcaster Peter Gzowski famously asked Canadians to complete the sentence 'as Canadian as,' and the winning entry was 'as possible in the circumstances,' this revealed our grudging acceptance that we have only as much political sovereignty as the circumstances of our dependence on the Americans allow. Grant may have been the first to warn us that this was how continental integration would end, but he could not have predicted how our story has played out under Mr. Trump. For we are in a new world, and the tables have turned. From John A. Macdonald's time until the Second World War, we were wary of free trade. Now, we are the ones pleading to restore it as the Americans seek to shut us out of their economy. We are the ones pleading for the Americans to stay in the NATO alliance and the G7, to maintain the multilateral order they once led, and it is the Americans whose bored President abandons the G7 meeting after a day and returns home, telling us he has better things to do. Even in the fury of Lament for a Nation, America was seen as a benign hegemon – at least to us – who respected the fiction of our sovereignty. Today's President disdains his allies and can't stop telling Canada he wishes we didn't exist. Opinion: In Kananaskis, the G7 was a perfect miniature of where the world is now Grant's Lament remains worth reading again today, for he addressed a fear that runs even deeper than the Trump challenge. Grant wondered aloud whether the wellsprings of our identity had run dry, whether we still had what it takes to maintain a distinctive national culture and politics north of the 49th parallel. He believed these wellsprings could be found in Canada's French and British founding strands. The Loyalists who came north to flee the American Revolution in 1776 did so to build a northern sovereign under the British crown; Quebeckers aligned with this nation-building project because it promised to protect their distinct language, culture and religion against the Americans. This mutual understanding of a Canadian nation under the British Crown, ratified in Confederation in 1867, was the lynchpin of national unity. Remaining true to British Parliamentary traditions, the Crown, the Loyalist tradition and, above all, its conservative inflection of 'peace, order and good government' would have been the antidote to the foundational American conceit of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' Carney accelerates talks with Trump to reach economic-security deal within 30 days With the Pearson Liberals' surrender to the Americans in 1963, Grant argued, the lynchpin had snapped. Canadian independence was a mere memory. Quebec would seek its survival in independence, Grant predicted, while English Canada would settle into a dependent afterlife in the branch plant economy. What else could Canada have done? Grant's answer was to embrace radical left-wing populism. Only a populist government with the guts to cut its tie to the Americans and launch a frankly socialist nationalization of the economy, he argued, could have preserved Canada's sovereignty. Only then could Canada have remained master in its own house. His paradoxical belief in a socialist state made Grant, a religious conservative who was profoundly opposed to abortion, an unlikely darling of the Canadian left. Grant's politics may no longer make sense, but his diagnosis of our dilemmas remains as acute as ever. The French and British sources of our distinctive identity remain our lynchpin, but they remain in permanent tension even to this day. The day after King Charles opened Parliament in May, the members of Quebec's provincial legislature unanimously voted to disavow the connection to the Crown. Even so, judging by the province's support for Mr. Carney's Liberals in the last federal election, Quebec has discovered, yet again, that Canada, even with its British institutions, remains the best guarantor of its independence as a nation. Albertans and Saskatchewanians are less sure: Their hostility to the federal government and the centralizing pretensions of the liberal elite may sound like whining to Easterners, but it is a visceral feeling out west. Today, we meet the Trump challenge at a moment of regional division and internal questioning, still struggling to answer the questions Grant raised more than a half-century ago. But a plan beats no plan, as the Prime Minister has said. A nationalist economic agenda that slowly and steadily rebuilds the ties that bind, helps us to rediscover what we gain from being together, and reduces our dependence on our neighbour to the south may be our best shot at regaining national cohesion and control over our economic destiny. George Grant, that gloomy but prescient sage, predicted that we no longer had what it takes to remain a free and sovereign people. He was my uncle, and I loved him, but I hope we seize this chance to prove him wrong.
Globe and Mail
28-05-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
A royal visit steeped in symbolism
This visit by King Charles III and Queen Camilla, which culminated in him opening the 45th Parliament and delivering the government's Throne Speech, was put together at the last minute, fit into a busy section of the royal calendar, and was over 24 hours after it began. It may have come as a response to serious political and economic threats from the United States, but the King's first visit as Canada's monarch displays notable symmetry with a more long-planned visit 68 years ago, when Queen Elizabeth II's first visit to Canada as monarch was also a brief stop in Ottawa to open Parliament. King Charles delivers Throne Speech asserting Canada's sovereignty, pledging major transformation in economy 'Nothing happens by coincidence': Royal couple's style choices make a statement In 1957, the U.S. was such a cultural and economic behemoth that the Canadian government wanted to ensure that the young Queen travelled to her northern realm before going to the United States. The solution was a four-day trip to Ottawa to do something never done before: have a monarch of Canada open Parliament. Like now, the world watched every moment. The focus on the Canadian Crown was such that when Elizabeth made her broadcast to the nation on the eve of leaving Ottawa for the U.S., she emphasized that she was going in her role as the Queen of Canada, along with her Canadian prime minister, John Diefenbaker. In that national broadcast, the Queen made clear the importance with which she held her Canadian title: 'I shall be going in other capacities, as well, but when you hear or read about events in Washington, I want you to reflect that it is the Queen of Canada and her husband who are concerned in them.' Then as now, one pressing issue in the Throne Speeches of both monarchs was the need for 'reliable trading partners and allies around the world,' as King Charles said. He continued: 'When my dear late mother addressed your predecessors seven decades ago, she said that in that age, and against the backdrop of international affairs, no nation could live unto itself.' That both visits were also focused on one of the Crown's most important duties helps reinforce the message that the monarchs see Canada as part of their home. 'Every time I come to Canada … a little more of Canada seeps into my bloodstream – and from there straight to my heart,' the King said in the Throne Speech. Both openings of Parliament by a monarch — 1957 and 2025 — used visual cues such as the state landau, Mounties on horseback and royal salutes to reinforce the concept of the Canadian Crown. In particular for this occasion, everything seemed to be chosen to highlight Canada's heritage, including the red wool uniforms and pith helmets of the 3rd Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment, which the King inspected before going into the Senate. On Monday, the King had his Order of Canada pinned to his suit. On Tuesday, he donned the full insignia of the Order around his neck while the medals on his chest included his Canadian Forces' Decoration with three additional service bars. The Canadian nature of both visits extends into the realm of style. For her arrival to Canada on Monday, Camilla wore the diamond-and-platinum maple leaf brooch that has been a fixture on the lapels of royal outfits since Queen Elizabeth (later the Queen Mother) wore it on her first visit in 1939, on the eve of the last truly existential crisis faced by Canada: the Second World War. For the opening of Parliament, Camilla donned another maple leaf brooch, that of her regiment, the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada. That maple leaf motif was also omnipresent in 1957. Not only were there maple leaves embroidered on the coronation gown that Elizabeth II wore to Parliament, but she emphasized her role as Queen of Canada at a state dinner by wearing a Norman Hartnell evening gown adorned with green maple leaves, which is now part of the collection of the Canadian Museum of History. While royal styling was similar, other things were subtly different. The thrones used by King Charles III and Queen Camilla were commissioned for Canada's 150th birthday in 2017 and designed to fit the Beaux Art setting of the temporary Senate. Their walnut frames include a piece from a tree felled outside Windsor Castle, and are adorned with sprays of maple leaves and the cypher of Elizabeth II, who was monarch when they entered use. Her son and daughter-in-law were the first to sit on them. This 24-hour blitz also reset a regal visit clock that had stalled during the later years of Elizabeth's reign. Her last visit to Canada was in 2010, when she was 84. Now, 15 years later, her son has completed his first trip as monarch. Already 76 and undergoing weekly cancer treatment, his reign will not reach the epic length of his mother's, yet the King seems determined to do as much as he can, as fast as possible. This year, he alone accounts for nearly one-quarter of all official royal engagements even though he's one of 10 working members of the family. King Charles III will likely undertake his first visit to the United States in 2026, to mark the 250th anniversary of its independence from his great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, George III. Already, the British press is saying that such a visit will only come after a major tour of Canada, tentatively pencilled in for next year after being delayed twice because of the King's cancer and then Canada's election cycle. Visiting Canada before venturing to the United States — as Queen Elizabeth II did in 1957 — makes sense if for no other reason than loyalty. Canada kept true to its oath to the Crown while the Americans rebelled. That loyalty also flows from the monarch to Canada. As a constitutional monarch, the King has vowed to serve the interests of the people of Canada for the rest of his life. He did in Ottawa, when he came to the defence of 'the country that Canadians and I love so much.' He didn't stop there, exhorting us to 'seize this opportunity by recognizing that all Canadians can give themselves far more than any foreign power on any continent can ever take away.'
New York Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
What to Know About King Charles's Visit to Canada. (Hint: Trump Is a Factor.)
After Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the British throne seven decades ago, a newly elected Canadian prime minister invited her to make her first visit as monarch to perform a formality — delivering the speech that officially opens Canada's Parliament. The prime minister, John Diefenbaker, hoped the symbolism of her 1957 trip would help revive the monarchy's profile, which had begun fading after World War II. (When Canada was formed in 1867, it retained many ties to Britain, including adopting that country's monarch as its own sovereign and head of state.) Now, another newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, has asked King Charles III to follow his mother's lead by traveling to Canada, his first visit to the country since he ascended to the throne in 2022, to open its Parliament. Mr. Carney's invitation is also driven by symbolism. But this time, the royal visit is a symbol of Canadian sovereignty and the country's distinct heritage from the United States, at a time when President Trump has repeatedly called for Canada to become the 51st U.S. state. 'Canada has a steadfast defender in our sovereign,' Mr. Carney said this month when he announced the king's visit. The trip was hurriedly arranged when Mr. Carney visited Britain days after leading the Liberal Party to victory in a federal election. Despite the brevity of the king's trip — he will spend two days in Ottawa, arriving Monday and departing Tuesday — there will be no shortage of pageantry and pomp. Why is Charles coming? Charles is Canada's official head of state. But in 1947 the monarch's duties were largely delegated to a governor-general, a role currently held by Mary Simon, the first Indigenous person to be appointed to the position. One of the governor-general's responsibilities is to open new sessions of Parliament with the reading of 'the speech from the throne.' Its presentation is more ceremonial and solemn than the more raucous mood that surrounds the State of the Union addresses given by American presidents to Congress. While King Charles will deliver the speech as if it were his own words, it will actually be written by the prime minister's office. It will broadly lay out the government's legislative plans and likely mirror Mr. Carney's campaign speeches. It is expected to contain, in careful diplomatic language, an assertion of Canada's sovereignty. This will be the third time a monarch has opened a session of Canada's Parliament. Queen Elizabeth did it a second time in 1977. Why has this king been playing diplomat? For King Charles, the trip to Canada, where he will be accompanied by Queen Camilla, is his latest foray into the realm of diplomatic symbolism. In February, Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain harnessed the king's star power by delivering an embossed letter from Charles to Mr. Trump, inviting the American president to make a rare second state visit to Britain. Less than a week later, Charles hosted President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, after Mr. Zelensky's bitter exchange with Mr. Trump in the Oval Office. While the king, by custom, stays out of politics, his warm welcome of Mr. Zelensky reinforced Europe's embrace of the Ukrainian leader after his falling-out with the American president. Charles has also had an unusual amount of face time with Canadian leaders recently. A day after meeting Mr. Zelensky, the king welcomed Justin Trudeau, the former Canadian prime minister, to his country estate. Mr. Trudeau said in a social media post that they had discussed 'matters of importance to Canadians — including, above all, Canada's sovereign and independent future.' What are some rituals during the king's visit? Because parliamentary tradition bars the monarch from the House of Commons, the speech will be read in the chamber of the appointed Senate, Canada's version of the House of Lords. On Tuesday, Charles and Camilla will arrive at a former railway station that houses the temporary Senate chamber in a ceremonial carriage drawn by horses from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It will be escorted by other horses from an equestrian performance group that is also part of the national police force. The royal couple will be met by a 100-person honor guard and a military band, and they will be given a 21-gun salute as the Canadian flag on the Senate building is replaced with a banner that indicates the king's presence. What do Canadians think of Charles? While polls have long showed strong support and respect for Queen Elizabeth in Canada, Charles was deeply unpopular while he was the next in line to the throne. But the near impossibility of amending Canada's Constitution meant there was also no movement to end the monarchy in Canada following the queen's death. After Charles's divorce from Princess Diana, crowds were often sparse during his visits to Canada. Many recent immigrants to Canada come from areas like South Asia, where the British Crown is widely seen as a symbol of colonial oppression. The monarchy has long been deeply unpopular among many French-speaking residents of Quebec. In fact, while May 19 is a holiday in many parts of Canada, commemorating Queen Victoria's birth, in Quebec, the holiday marks something different. There, it is called National Patriots' Day and commemorates an armed rebellion in 1837 against the British colonial government in part of what became Quebec. A Quebec nationalist group called the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal cast this year's holiday as a protest over King Charles's visit. 'Mark Carney is taking us backward by imposing the image of an all-powerful king,' Marie-Anne Alepin, the group's president, said in a statement. 'This shows an unacceptable disregard for the desire of Quebecers to free themselves from this harmful old institution.' What does the king have to do with street hockey? After arriving in Ottawa on Monday afternoon, the king and queen will travel to a former fairgrounds in the city's center that is now a sports and shopping complex to tour a farmer's market and take in musical performances. Charles will also do a ceremonial ball drop for a street hockey game.
Calgary Herald
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
How many Canadians voted in the federal election? What we know about the turnout
Article content Voter participation in the largely Trump-driven federal election was among the largest since the free-trade election of 1988, when Canada's ties with the U.S. last took centre stage in a campaign. Article content As of 12:16 p.m. ET Tuesday, Elections Canada reported that 19,217,335 registered electors — 67.35 per cent — had cast a ballot, whether in-person on Monday or during the four-day advance polling period on Easter weekend when a record-breaking 7.3 million-plus voted. Article content Article content However, the final figure doesn't yet include those who registered on election day or the results of roughly 560 polls left to tally after Elections Canada paused counting of special ballots early Tuesday morning. Article content Article content Special ballots are cast by mail or in person at any election office if the person cannot or does not want to vote in advance or on election day. Tabulating resumed at 9:30 a.m., and the agency's results page is being regularly updated. Article content This year's sum has already surpassed the 62.6 per cent in 2021. Article content Per Elections Canada, the last time more than 70 per cent of eligible voters took part in an election was in 1988, when 75.3 per cent exercised their right as incumbent prime minister Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives collected a second straight majority government. Article content Article content The largest ever turnout was 79.4 per cent in 1958, the year Tory John Diefenbaker routed the Liberals and Lester B. Pearson. The lowest, 58.8 per cent, was in 2008 as Stephen Harper's Conservatives collected a slightly stronger minority. Article content Article content Provincially, Prince Edward Island had the most eligible voters at 75.9 per cent as of Tuesday morning, and Newfoundland and Labrador had the smallest turnout at 65.5 per cent. Average turnout in the rest of Canada was roughly 68 per cent. Article content
Vancouver Sun
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Vancouver Sun
How many Canadians voted in the federal election? What we know about the turnout
Voter turnout for the 2025 federal election won't break any Canadian records, but it is expected to rank among the biggest in decades when all is said and done. Article content Article content As of 11:56 a.m. ET Tuesday morning, Elections Canada reported that 19,214,851 registered electors — 67.35 per cent — had cast a ballot, whether in-person on Monday or during the four-day advance polling period on Easter weekend when a record-breaking 7.3 million-plus voted. Article content Article content However, the final figure doesn't yet include those who registered on election day or the results of roughly 560 polls left to tally after Elections Canada paused counting of special ballots early Tuesday morning. Article content Article content Special ballots are cast by mail or in person at any election office if the person cannot or does not want to vote in advance or on election day. Tabulating resumed at 9:30 a.m., and the agency's results page is being regularly updated. Article content Per Elections Canada, the last time more than 70 per cent of eligible voters took part in an election was in 1988, when 75.3 per cent exercised their right as incumbent prime minister Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives collected a second straight majority government. Article content Article content The largest ever turnout was 79.4 per cent in 1958, the year Tory John Diefenbaker routed the Liberals and Lester B. Pearson. The lowest, 58.8 per cent, was in 2008 as Stephen Harper's Conservatives collected a slightly stronger minority. Article content Article content Provincially, Prince Edward Island had the most eligible voters at 75.9 per cent as of Tuesday morning, and Newfoundland and Labrador had the smallest turnout at 65.5 per cent. Average turnout in the rest of Canada was roughly 68 per cent. Article content In Northern Canada, Yukon (71.9 per cent) followed P.E.I., the Northwest Territories landed at 53 per cent and only 35.3 per cent voted in Nunavut. Article content
