I was hoping it meant that we'd be picking up some good people and scientific opportunities from the American research wasteland Trump is creating. It may be magical thinking, as there's going to be a lot of competition for those people.
There's mention in the platform of some kind of fund to attract disillusioned US researchers. It's short-sighted. Anyone who moved to Canada would need research budgets past the first year; they're used to *really generous* research budgets, which is why they're disillusioned; and the cost that implies will far outweigh whatever bonus is waved under their nose in the first place. That doesn't mean such a solid, long-term strategy is inconceivable, but I've seen no evidence this new government is working hard to conceive it.
Munk School at UofT has picked up some prominent social scientists, and the UofT medical school is doing ambitious fundraising to raise a budget to poach US researchers. Somewhere around here I have a recent column by McGill's provost explaining why it's hard to apply these practices more widely
The PM’s point on spelling was pretty clear. We are not Americans. Stop using American spelling in government documents. On this issue he has my absolute support.
Now is the time to start funding companies like General Fusion (Cdn) which could provide cheap if not free fusion electricity to the whole country by the 2030's. This company has been hard hit by the Trump tariffs and could be swamped by its competitors in the U.S. Am I the only one who sees the potential here? Why is our government always a day late and a dollar short? Let's just for once plan for the future.
Under the category of "unleashing titanic forces":
If we can figure out how to stop regulating new housing like a nuclear power plant, and (in Ontario and BC) taxing it like it's a gold mine, that would unlock much more new housing (a significant form of long-term investment) in places like the GTA and Metro Vancouver. This would really help to accelerate economic growth. Right now, housing being so scarce and expensive is a major constraint for businesses in both metro areas, because it results in low real wages and thus labour shortages.
"Economists use estimates of these lost labor market gains—that is, the higher wages people would earn in more productive regions—to estimate the cost of land-use restrictions. In a blockbuster study, economists Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti found that land-use restrictions [in places like California and New York City] lowered aggregate U.S. growth by more than 50% from 1964 to 2009." David Schleicher, 2017. morehousing.ca/stuck
A modest change - allowing apartment buildings in Metro Vancouver to be 20% taller - would reduce prices and rents by about 3.7% over five years, with savings to renters of half a billion dollars a year. morehousing.ca/sydney
A concrete idea: I live in the federal riding of Vancouver Kingsway. There's three SkyTrain stations: Nanaimo, 29th Avenue, and Joyce. Joyce has a lot of high-rises, but Nanaimo and 29th Avenue still look like they did in the 1980s. Why? Apparently the city hasn't upgraded the sewer capacity near the stations. But as Deny Sullivan has observed, because building housing is so expensive in relation to water and sewer upgrades, this is a small tail wagging a very big dog. Federal funding to upgrade the sewer capacity near these stations more rapidly, combined with municipal upzoning of the land, would unlock a tremendous amount of new housing investment.
Yes! The federal government should leave no stone unturned looking for ways to boost housing (and shame/cajole the provinces especially Ontario to do the same).
It is as close to a silver bullet as we have that would both juice economic growth and strengthen the social fabric at once.
I agree, Paul. What Carney promised in the campaign, more than anything, was to get things back to normal - and "normal" includes journalists scrutinizing politicians. It'd be hypocritical of his supporters to ask journalists to treat him like a god.
Last I checked there is a clear distinction between journalism (reporting of facts) and opinion pieces that interject (generally cynical) personal views. Like most readers, I appreciate the PM’s ambition and wish him every success in making the changes necessary to “catalyze” private sector investment in our country’s future. It’s easy to be cynical, mocking and skeptical given the sclerotic nature of Canada’s Byzantine regulatory processes and provincial parochialism. Let’s hope that leadership matters and that the PM has the right stuff to rally support.
Well, then, Andrew, we’re hooped, because I’ve been doing journalism my way for 35 years and I’ve won almost every journalism prize on offer, all of them bestowed by colleagues who theoretically know what the definition is.
Don’t get me wrong Paul. I enjoy reading your opinions and hearing them on CBC and elsewhere. I am happy that you have received plaudits for your work and it is clear that many Canadians appreciate your informed perspectives. Indeed, that’s why I’m a paid subscriber! My point was that contemporary journalism increasingly blurs any distinction between opinions and facts. As I understand it, journalism aims to report facts and events objectively, while opinion writing expresses personal beliefs, interpretations and judgments. Both are often informative but the latter is certainly more entertaining.
I thought the trumpeter at the Unknown Soldier ceremony was incredible playing the Last Post - so sad! I was also amazed by the (what seemed like) genuine friendliness of the King in relating to the public and working people along the various routes.
The speech itself was full of promises that will be hard to keep - we'll see.
For too long, too many people in Ottawa ignored the truths that you and others (including Andrew Coyne, in his recent book) have identified as problems for Canada to resolve.
I hope that the rhetoric which you assessed with some justified cynicism proves to be matched with actions.
One thing is certain: Mr Carney will likely annoy a good proportion of his elected MP's as he seeks to repudiate the fiscal profligacy of Justin Trudeau's government, even as we (necessarily) move to greatly increase defence and intelligence community spending.
Your oblique reference to the fiscal trouble we are in was a reminder that our budgetary problems won't be reduced by "nibbling around the edges" of the federal budget. Major (reductive) surgery (and rethinking of priorities) is necessary.
Policy Options online published an article early this year that laid out, in abbreviated form, the dire fiscal legacy left by the Trudeau government:
QUOTE
When the Liberals took power in 2015, federal spending as a proportion of GDP was 14.1 per cent. By 2023-2024, the latest year for which data are official, this had risen to 17.8 per cent. Ottawa’s tax revenue has also increased, but it lagged spending. It rose from 14.0 per cent to 15.7 per cent of GDP over the same period.
...
Measured as a proportion of the size of the economy, the structural deficit never exceeded one per cent between 2014-2015 and 2018-2019. By 2023-2024, however, it had risen to 2.2 per cent. This represents the federal government’s largest structural deficit since 1995-1996, when Finance Minister Paul Martin sought to eliminate it.
The GST holiday appear[ed] to be the worst tax policy of recent decades. Political jockeying and populism prevailed over economic logic.
First, it was the wrong policy to achieve the objective of helping low-income households with the cost of living since untaxing certain products generates much greater savings in absolute terms for high-income households.
...
Secondly, it [was] inequitable from province to province.
...
Thirdly, the selection of temporarily untaxed products was questionable.
...
Fourthly, the GST [holiday] entail[ed] significant costs for retailers...
So, there is great promise and hope in the Carney ministry, from my personal perspective. I have liked how he has spoken about his intent as PM, and even found it inspiring - a rare impact in the current political era.
But, the proof will be in the pudding. And I it is rather early for me to say express worry and disappointment - and patience is important, especially with big complex projects, which I feel like he is promising.
Nevertheless, I am concerned about the lack of specificity from Carney and his Government since being elected and even during the election. I want to see an announcement that a comprehensive and detailed plan is being developed and will be released on a timeline that is not too distant. And I really want to see that plan.
And, yes, I am growing a bit concerned by the generalities and lack of detail and communications to this point.
The Carney Libs need to be mindful that we just spent a decade - not a lost decade, but a decade - with the Trudeau Libs, who did a lot more talking than action. Election campaigns always had 100 promises - policies they were excited about! - and they accomplished about 5 of them in each term. In government, they talked a lot about what they believed in and what they wanted to do, and they tended to - to use a criticism of Martin - dither on almost every decision and accomplish little. Overall, i supported the government’s general thrust and overall accomplishments, but i was also very frustrated and disappointed by their general paralysis.
I like that the Carney Libs are speaking in more decisive terms, but i wish it was far more specific and I guess I am impatient to see those specifics and the action.
And this is a very verbose way of me saying that, I know.
What you are saying here Paul, is what you/others/myself had said during the campaign, and is largely on the money. I waited to comment until I heard the PM’s interview with CBC’s David Cochrane. But because a SFT (Speech from the Throne) is mostly about intention, even though it is a confidence vote (all eyes on June 4th), I was listening to pick up on how the Speech would deliver on the moment of the King’s presence - his tone, his input, his defence of our realm. I liked how he morphed “elbows up” into “bloodstream and heart”. There were indeed some moments when the SFT gave me a catch in my patriotic throat. But back to policy and politics: I was surprised at the specific mention of ReArm Europe and the promise of delivery by Canada Day on new defence spending/investment results. Next, like you, I am exasperated at all the hand-waving on science and research, with no specifics on how that might translate into improving our dismal productivity record. In fact, was productivity even mentioned? Interesting that the OECD released its report on Canada today, and productivity is (yet again) the leading worry. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/05/oecd-economic-surveys-canada-2025.html It did seem rather small potatoes when the King mentioned $850 reduction in taxes per family, or far from the lofty purpose of the SFT. Finally, I have been deeply concerned that this government does not have a well-thought or actionable talent policy designed to “meet the moment”. It continues to trot out some feel good language about science and research on the one hand; on trades on the other; while at the same time adding more distortions to immigration policy for highly qualified skilled workers, and international students. The blatant contradiction is right in front of us: cut international student visas but attract world-class talent - nothing mentioned about modernizing apprenticeship in Canada, nor re-skilling existing talent, nor addressing persistent youth underemployment. What about credential recognition and a national credit transfer system? Yet, this issue about Canada’s human capital is not found in the ONE mandate letter with its 7 priorities. All to say that I was surprised at how many times I flinched when hearing the SFT when the election sound bites and vague offers kept coming at me.
... but isn't it all always merely "just a rhetorical flourish"? I've never heard a throne speech that wasn't just "blah blah blah"... grandiose, rhetorical overreach. It's part of the parliamentary theatre.
What will be way more significant is the fall budget, where we'll see what they have baked all Summer, and are prepared to actually fund.
I was disappointed in the throne speech as it lacked originality in delivery and was the Carney mandate letter in longer form. The King and Queens visit was symbolic but symbols do not unite a divided Canada and expedite bills through the HofC.
The Conservatives should be able to get behind Carney's legislative agenda without too much hesitation since it plagiarizes pretty much the policy platform they ran on in the recent election.
The throne speech triggered the two narcissists that haunt our national life: Trudeau and Trump. Trudeau drew attention to himself by wearing gaudy bright green running shoes with bright orange trim. And Agent Orange just had to garner a headline by reiterating his 51st state nonsense.
For those with much more time than I have, feel free to parse through the full texts of our previous 44 Canadian Throne Speeches to see how much of what they said they would accomplish actually happened. I'm sure there must be a few things, but I would be willing to bet for the majority of the content, reach (or political bs) exceeded grasp pretty consistently.
I was hoping it meant that we'd be picking up some good people and scientific opportunities from the American research wasteland Trump is creating. It may be magical thinking, as there's going to be a lot of competition for those people.
There's mention in the platform of some kind of fund to attract disillusioned US researchers. It's short-sighted. Anyone who moved to Canada would need research budgets past the first year; they're used to *really generous* research budgets, which is why they're disillusioned; and the cost that implies will far outweigh whatever bonus is waved under their nose in the first place. That doesn't mean such a solid, long-term strategy is inconceivable, but I've seen no evidence this new government is working hard to conceive it.
Damn.
Munk School at UofT has picked up some prominent social scientists, and the UofT medical school is doing ambitious fundraising to raise a budget to poach US researchers. Somewhere around here I have a recent column by McGill's provost explaining why it's hard to apply these practices more widely
The PM’s point on spelling was pretty clear. We are not Americans. Stop using American spelling in government documents. On this issue he has my absolute support.
Canadian spelling is a distinct mixture of British and American, e.g., organized labour.
Exactly. Absolutely supporting a ban on "American spelling" makes it essentially impossible to write Canadian English.
And Oxford commas. Is it possible to insist on Oxford commas?
I wholeheartedly, fervently, and enthusiastically agree with you.
What is an Oxford comma?
It's the last in a series of three or more. But that'll make more sense if you google it.
If Canada wants to lead the G7, it could start by removing the “those that opt to use nuclear” caveat. Germany has stopped actively opposing nuclear power, now is the moment to build a cohesive G7 energy vision https://substack.com/@portcityhorgan/note/p-163925803?r=kozwd&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Now is the time to start funding companies like General Fusion (Cdn) which could provide cheap if not free fusion electricity to the whole country by the 2030's. This company has been hard hit by the Trump tariffs and could be swamped by its competitors in the U.S. Am I the only one who sees the potential here? Why is our government always a day late and a dollar short? Let's just for once plan for the future.
I agree with the 'day late' part, but we've rarely been 'a dollar short'. Like all the rest of us, hoping for better
Under the category of "unleashing titanic forces":
If we can figure out how to stop regulating new housing like a nuclear power plant, and (in Ontario and BC) taxing it like it's a gold mine, that would unlock much more new housing (a significant form of long-term investment) in places like the GTA and Metro Vancouver. This would really help to accelerate economic growth. Right now, housing being so scarce and expensive is a major constraint for businesses in both metro areas, because it results in low real wages and thus labour shortages.
"Economists use estimates of these lost labor market gains—that is, the higher wages people would earn in more productive regions—to estimate the cost of land-use restrictions. In a blockbuster study, economists Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti found that land-use restrictions [in places like California and New York City] lowered aggregate U.S. growth by more than 50% from 1964 to 2009." David Schleicher, 2017. morehousing.ca/stuck
A modest change - allowing apartment buildings in Metro Vancouver to be 20% taller - would reduce prices and rents by about 3.7% over five years, with savings to renters of half a billion dollars a year. morehousing.ca/sydney
A concrete idea: I live in the federal riding of Vancouver Kingsway. There's three SkyTrain stations: Nanaimo, 29th Avenue, and Joyce. Joyce has a lot of high-rises, but Nanaimo and 29th Avenue still look like they did in the 1980s. Why? Apparently the city hasn't upgraded the sewer capacity near the stations. But as Deny Sullivan has observed, because building housing is so expensive in relation to water and sewer upgrades, this is a small tail wagging a very big dog. Federal funding to upgrade the sewer capacity near these stations more rapidly, combined with municipal upzoning of the land, would unlock a tremendous amount of new housing investment.
Yes! The federal government should leave no stone unturned looking for ways to boost housing (and shame/cajole the provinces especially Ontario to do the same).
It is as close to a silver bullet as we have that would both juice economic growth and strengthen the social fabric at once.
Paul, could you perhaps just give the process a chance? Of course, we’re all picking through the promises, but can we have just one day of optimism??
I note you didn’t mention our former PM’s shoes…
You can have buckets of optimism for free from governing MPs' Instagram accounts. I flatly refuse to polish anyone's apple. Sorry.
Alternative answer: Journalists reading closely, comparing claims against experience, and warning about potential pitfalls, *is the process.*
I agree, Paul. What Carney promised in the campaign, more than anything, was to get things back to normal - and "normal" includes journalists scrutinizing politicians. It'd be hypocritical of his supporters to ask journalists to treat him like a god.
Last I checked there is a clear distinction between journalism (reporting of facts) and opinion pieces that interject (generally cynical) personal views. Like most readers, I appreciate the PM’s ambition and wish him every success in making the changes necessary to “catalyze” private sector investment in our country’s future. It’s easy to be cynical, mocking and skeptical given the sclerotic nature of Canada’s Byzantine regulatory processes and provincial parochialism. Let’s hope that leadership matters and that the PM has the right stuff to rally support.
Well, then, Andrew, we’re hooped, because I’ve been doing journalism my way for 35 years and I’ve won almost every journalism prize on offer, all of them bestowed by colleagues who theoretically know what the definition is.
Don’t get me wrong Paul. I enjoy reading your opinions and hearing them on CBC and elsewhere. I am happy that you have received plaudits for your work and it is clear that many Canadians appreciate your informed perspectives. Indeed, that’s why I’m a paid subscriber! My point was that contemporary journalism increasingly blurs any distinction between opinions and facts. As I understand it, journalism aims to report facts and events objectively, while opinion writing expresses personal beliefs, interpretations and judgments. Both are often informative but the latter is certainly more entertaining.
I thought the trumpeter at the Unknown Soldier ceremony was incredible playing the Last Post - so sad! I was also amazed by the (what seemed like) genuine friendliness of the King in relating to the public and working people along the various routes.
The speech itself was full of promises that will be hard to keep - we'll see.
Your last paragraph made me giggle. Thanks Paul.
Thanks for this.
For too long, too many people in Ottawa ignored the truths that you and others (including Andrew Coyne, in his recent book) have identified as problems for Canada to resolve.
I hope that the rhetoric which you assessed with some justified cynicism proves to be matched with actions.
One thing is certain: Mr Carney will likely annoy a good proportion of his elected MP's as he seeks to repudiate the fiscal profligacy of Justin Trudeau's government, even as we (necessarily) move to greatly increase defence and intelligence community spending.
Your oblique reference to the fiscal trouble we are in was a reminder that our budgetary problems won't be reduced by "nibbling around the edges" of the federal budget. Major (reductive) surgery (and rethinking of priorities) is necessary.
Policy Options online published an article early this year that laid out, in abbreviated form, the dire fiscal legacy left by the Trudeau government:
QUOTE
When the Liberals took power in 2015, federal spending as a proportion of GDP was 14.1 per cent. By 2023-2024, the latest year for which data are official, this had risen to 17.8 per cent. Ottawa’s tax revenue has also increased, but it lagged spending. It rose from 14.0 per cent to 15.7 per cent of GDP over the same period.
...
Measured as a proportion of the size of the economy, the structural deficit never exceeded one per cent between 2014-2015 and 2018-2019. By 2023-2024, however, it had risen to 2.2 per cent. This represents the federal government’s largest structural deficit since 1995-1996, when Finance Minister Paul Martin sought to eliminate it.
END QUOTE
C.f.: Luc Godbout, Justin Trudeau’s fiscal legacy, Policy Options Politique, 10 January 2025, https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/january-2025/justin-trudeau-fiscal-legacy/
PS: From the same assessment in Policy Options:
QUOTE
The GST holiday appear[ed] to be the worst tax policy of recent decades. Political jockeying and populism prevailed over economic logic.
First, it was the wrong policy to achieve the objective of helping low-income households with the cost of living since untaxing certain products generates much greater savings in absolute terms for high-income households.
...
Secondly, it [was] inequitable from province to province.
...
Thirdly, the selection of temporarily untaxed products was questionable.
...
Fourthly, the GST [holiday] entail[ed] significant costs for retailers...
END QUOTE
Thanks for giving us this.
So, there is great promise and hope in the Carney ministry, from my personal perspective. I have liked how he has spoken about his intent as PM, and even found it inspiring - a rare impact in the current political era.
But, the proof will be in the pudding. And I it is rather early for me to say express worry and disappointment - and patience is important, especially with big complex projects, which I feel like he is promising.
Nevertheless, I am concerned about the lack of specificity from Carney and his Government since being elected and even during the election. I want to see an announcement that a comprehensive and detailed plan is being developed and will be released on a timeline that is not too distant. And I really want to see that plan.
And, yes, I am growing a bit concerned by the generalities and lack of detail and communications to this point.
The Carney Libs need to be mindful that we just spent a decade - not a lost decade, but a decade - with the Trudeau Libs, who did a lot more talking than action. Election campaigns always had 100 promises - policies they were excited about! - and they accomplished about 5 of them in each term. In government, they talked a lot about what they believed in and what they wanted to do, and they tended to - to use a criticism of Martin - dither on almost every decision and accomplish little. Overall, i supported the government’s general thrust and overall accomplishments, but i was also very frustrated and disappointed by their general paralysis.
I like that the Carney Libs are speaking in more decisive terms, but i wish it was far more specific and I guess I am impatient to see those specifics and the action.
And this is a very verbose way of me saying that, I know.
I rather liked the conservative ideas Carney poached.
Their budget ennui doesn't bode well.
"...since the new PM is said to prefer British spellings, Charlye Brownne with Lewsey’s Foote Ball"
Come for the political insights, stick around for the comedic stylings....
And Paul threw in a cricket reference too!
But he did miss the chance to write "smart assed" as "smart arsed"
What you are saying here Paul, is what you/others/myself had said during the campaign, and is largely on the money. I waited to comment until I heard the PM’s interview with CBC’s David Cochrane. But because a SFT (Speech from the Throne) is mostly about intention, even though it is a confidence vote (all eyes on June 4th), I was listening to pick up on how the Speech would deliver on the moment of the King’s presence - his tone, his input, his defence of our realm. I liked how he morphed “elbows up” into “bloodstream and heart”. There were indeed some moments when the SFT gave me a catch in my patriotic throat. But back to policy and politics: I was surprised at the specific mention of ReArm Europe and the promise of delivery by Canada Day on new defence spending/investment results. Next, like you, I am exasperated at all the hand-waving on science and research, with no specifics on how that might translate into improving our dismal productivity record. In fact, was productivity even mentioned? Interesting that the OECD released its report on Canada today, and productivity is (yet again) the leading worry. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/05/oecd-economic-surveys-canada-2025.html It did seem rather small potatoes when the King mentioned $850 reduction in taxes per family, or far from the lofty purpose of the SFT. Finally, I have been deeply concerned that this government does not have a well-thought or actionable talent policy designed to “meet the moment”. It continues to trot out some feel good language about science and research on the one hand; on trades on the other; while at the same time adding more distortions to immigration policy for highly qualified skilled workers, and international students. The blatant contradiction is right in front of us: cut international student visas but attract world-class talent - nothing mentioned about modernizing apprenticeship in Canada, nor re-skilling existing talent, nor addressing persistent youth underemployment. What about credential recognition and a national credit transfer system? Yet, this issue about Canada’s human capital is not found in the ONE mandate letter with its 7 priorities. All to say that I was surprised at how many times I flinched when hearing the SFT when the election sound bites and vague offers kept coming at me.
Science is a lot easier than innovation! Let’s see.
... but isn't it all always merely "just a rhetorical flourish"? I've never heard a throne speech that wasn't just "blah blah blah"... grandiose, rhetorical overreach. It's part of the parliamentary theatre.
What will be way more significant is the fall budget, where we'll see what they have baked all Summer, and are prepared to actually fund.
I was disappointed in the throne speech as it lacked originality in delivery and was the Carney mandate letter in longer form. The King and Queens visit was symbolic but symbols do not unite a divided Canada and expedite bills through the HofC.
The Conservatives should be able to get behind Carney's legislative agenda without too much hesitation since it plagiarizes pretty much the policy platform they ran on in the recent election.
The throne speech triggered the two narcissists that haunt our national life: Trudeau and Trump. Trudeau drew attention to himself by wearing gaudy bright green running shoes with bright orange trim. And Agent Orange just had to garner a headline by reiterating his 51st state nonsense.
I expect this Speech From The Throne will end having as much relation to subsequent events as most of what was in the rest of them did:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/ParlInfo/default/en_CA/Parliament/throneSpeech
For those with much more time than I have, feel free to parse through the full texts of our previous 44 Canadian Throne Speeches to see how much of what they said they would accomplish actually happened. I'm sure there must be a few things, but I would be willing to bet for the majority of the content, reach (or political bs) exceeded grasp pretty consistently.