King Charles' throne speech was a constitutional triumph
National Post, 1 June 2025
Not a few had tears in their eyes as they heard the King of Canada declare: 'The True North is indeed strong and free!'
The speech from the throne was a spectacular constitutional triumph, which approaches the oxymoronic, in that constitutional matters in the Westminster tradition are designed not to be spectacular. The sovereign imposes upon himself the custom of reading the speech impassively, the flat tone indicating neither approval nor disapproval of the government’s program. There is the prohibition, indicated in the instructions to all present in the chamber, to “refrain from expressions of support or dissent.”
King Charles III began by noting that “every time I come to Canada … a little more of Canada seeps into my bloodstream — and from there straight to my heart.” The desire to applaud was palpable in all present. But restraint was the order of the day, and order is part of our non-revolutionary constitutional history, along with peace and good government.
Standing ovations, which plague question period with Americanesque barking and barracking, cheapen the coin of the realm. To be applauded in the Commons matters not at all. It is the norm of restraint which renders exceptional moments momentous.
Thus when restraint could restrain no longer, and sustained applause broke out, that singularity signalled that a great wave of patriotic passion had surged through all present — and across the vast dominion. It was a moment of high historic import, and of deep emotion. The King, properly, was unmoved, but permitted himself a pleased pause. Even the Queen joined in the applause. Not a few had tears in their eyes as they heard the King of Canada declare: “The True North is indeed strong and free!”
It was a moment both sober and stunning at the same time. Should King Charles III reign many years, it will remain the supreme discharge of his Canadian constitutional duty, that in a moment of distress, he came and, without melodrama, but dramatically enough, said simply that.
That is constitutional spectacle. It has many parts.
The RCMP musical ride is surely not part of the constitution — but it is, is it not? They led Her Late Majesty’s funeral procession in London, and they led the King to the Senate.
The Senate’s Usher of the Black Rod — in whose name invitations to the speech from the throne were issued — is not part of the constitution, but he is. Without his charge from the King to summon the Commons, and without him driving up Wellington Street to do so, Parliament does not begin. It took some time to attend to all that, and thus the King and Queen did an unusual walkabout in the Senate chamber to pass the time; Westminster conventions are meant to be adaptable things.
The background for King Charles in Ottawa was what President Donald Trump is doing in Washington. This week pointed out the contrast. Trump’s trade policy is essentially lawless, and two courts so ruled this week. The desire of the president, solely upon his whim, to levy tariffs, ignore trade agreements he himself has signed, to seize emergency powers — all this is rebuked by the very constitutional conventions that govern the King. He precisely does not deploy his powers, except in strict conformity with the norms that tradition have established. The governing ethos is restraint, which is why the King is not a tyrant. Trump’s manifold desire for monarchial power is the opposite.
Continue reading at the National Post.