Latest news with #ThroneSpeech
Toronto Sun
03-06-2025
- Business
- Toronto Sun
Tories win speech amendment, spelling Liberals' first loss in House
Construction on Parliament Hill in Ottawa June 2, 2025. Photo by TONY CALDWELL / Postmedia A push by the Conservatives to add an amendment to the Liberals' response to the Throne Speech narrowly passed Monday, marking the first defeat in the new House of Commons session. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account The amendment, a largely non-binding call for the government to issue an economic update before the summer break, passed 166 to 164, enjoying full support of all opposition parties. All Liberal MPs voted against the amendment, but thanks to several no-shows it wasn't enough to defeat the motion. The amendment stemmed from the Mark Carney Liberals' assertion that they would not table a budget this year — a move they promptly walked back on amid outcry, promising one in the fall. That isn't good enough, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said last week, promising to pressure the government to open their books before the House rises for summer break later this month. Monday's vote was not a confidence motion, so the minority Carney Liberals are in no danger of toppling so early in their mandate. But the throne speech vote is a make-or-break vote, expected to happen once debate on the throne speech response wraps later this week. bpassifiume@ Columnists Sunshine Girls Olympics Technology Sunshine Girls
National Observer
02-06-2025
- Business
- National Observer
Carney won't reveal spending plans, enraging critics — but some call it savvy
The West Block of Parliament is a great place to hide. A labyrinth of hallways and alcoves, committee rooms and stairways, it's the architectural expression of Ottawa's sprawling bureaucracy. At the heart of the maze is the House of Commons, a cavernous room where parliament sits while the years-long renovation of their original seat in Centre Block, next door, is completed. Until then, West Block is where Question Period takes place – but even here, perhaps especially here, answers are hard to find. Canadians were reminded of that as Question Period resumed on Wednesday, with Prime Minister Carney in the hot seat for his debut performance. The viewing gallery was packed; prominent journalists, the mayor of Toronto, PEI's premier, senators and family members of parliamentarians all came to watch the show. The day's Big Question was why Mr. Carney won't release a federal budget before fall. By then it will have been over a year since the government released one, an unprecedented gap (outside of 2020, when Covid derailed the process). Interim Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and others in his party asked the budget question repeatedly. In lieu of an answer, Carney – perfectly at ease as he lobbed jokes and jabs across the aisle – pointed out that Pierre Polievre's 100-day plan announced during the election hadn't included a budget either. From there on, he and his finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, took turns repeating the great news that they were delivering a tax cut and breaking down provincial trade barriers. Disappointing for those hoping for answers, but not surprising. Question Period is for sound bites and sick burns, not genuine replies. For those, you have to go outside. In this case, all the way to Rome – it was there, during his visit to greet the new Pope, that Mr. Carney gave reporters the closest thing he's given to an explanation for skipping the spring budget. 'There's not much value in trying to rush through a budget in a very narrow window — three weeks — with a new cabinet [and] effectively a new finance minister," he said. "We will have a much more comprehensive, effective, ambitious, prudent budget in the fall." He elaborated briefly this week, in an interview with Power and Politics on the afternoon of the Throne Speech. 'I'm not a fan of picking an arbitrary number and then figuring out how to spend up to it,' he told host David Cochrane, after describing a host of uncertainties looming over Canada's defence budget. 'That's one of the reasons we will have a fall budget, not a budget tomorrow.' These excuses rang hollow to NDP MP Heather McPherson. In light of the intense furor caused by the budget's delay, it's baffling why Carney invited such a storm. It didn't just dominate the first week of Question Period, it unleashed a predictable slew of withering news articles and op-eds. 'For him to constantly say that everyone is new — nobody's buying that,' McPherson told Canada's National Observer over the phone this week. 'This is literally [the Liberals'] fourth mandate, with many of the same caucus members, with almost the entirety of the financial department staff being the same.' The day after Carney's first Question Period, finance minister Champagne told Politico that the reason Liberals are waiting until fall is they want to have 'more clarity around defense, around the trade war that is happening now in the world,' referring to tariffs and the upcoming NATO meeting where Canada's defence budget is almost certain to rise dramatically. Champagne said the government is also waiting to get 'initial feedback from our initiatives on government efficiency.' McPherson didn't buy that either. 'For Mark Carney to say, 'we don't know what's going to happen with military spending' – well, you ran on a military spending plan. Is that not the military spending plan that you are now going to take to NATO?' Uncertainty is baked into the whole budgeting process, she said; it's why spring budgets are followed and adjusted by fall economic forecasts. 'There'll be changes in a lot of things. There's going to be changes next year. Do we not get a budget next year because there might be changes? That's not how budgets work, and he knows that.' Indeed, he does. A central irony to all this is that the most famous banker in Canadian history seems indifferent to the value of a timely budget. This begs a question no one asked in Question Period: Why do we need a budget now? Big, beautiful budgets According to Michael Wernick, the former Clerk of the Privy Council, deputy minister under three prime ministers, and one of the most experienced former bureaucrats in Canada, we don't. 'In practical or operational terms, the four-month delay really doesn't matter,' Wernick told Canada's National Observer in a phone interview. 'In days gone by, the budget was mostly a statement of tax measures,' he said. 'The practice of having a big, beautiful budget, chock full of just about everything the government wants to do in the coming year and hundreds of pages of implementation legislation covering everything from A to Z, is a fairly recent practice.' The day-to-day business of a government doesn't depend on a budget. Payments to civil servants, transfers to provinces, funding the various ministries and departments — all these costs go out more or less automatically. It's the new spending measures that require parliamentary approval. One example is the 1 per cent tax cut Carney has promised to Canadians in the lowest income bracket; that can only come into effect once parliament has voted for it. The same goes for increasing the defence budget, or deploying billions for new housing, and so on. Over the past two decades, Wernick explained, governments of both parties have tended to jam their entire year's goals into a single budget. 'So you've got these huge omnibus bills and a fight with parliament,' he said. 'But they're too big and they cover too many things and they're cramping parliament's ability to properly review them. The Conservatives criticize the Liberals for doing it. The Liberals criticized the Conservatives for doing it.' Those giant omnibus budget bills force parliament to either approve or reject everything at once. On top of that, rejecting a budget automatically brings down the government, forcing a brand new election – something no party, or Canadian, wants right now, regardless of how they feel about the budget. For that reason 'Breaking [the budget] up into pieces might actually lead to better scrutiny by parliament,' Wernick says. Rather than an all-or-nothing vote with the sword of a new election hanging over their decision, MPs of all parties can (for now) approve, reject or amend each spending measure on its own merits, one at a time. Not everyone agrees, of course. 'The history of accountability and democracy is really coterminous with control of the budgets over the executive branch,' says Ian Lee, an associate professor in the Spratt School of Business at Carleton University (and a onetime candidate for MP under Kim Campbell's Progressive Conservative banner). 'It's not the end of the world if a national government doesn't table its budget, but it reduces transparency; it reduces, to a small degree, confidence in the government and in the stability of that country.' 'It's about legitimacy,' agrees Christopher Ragan, founding director of the Max Bell School of Public Policy who currently teaches economics at McGill. 'I mean, if you really want a well-informed debate about spending, especially in the world of a minority government, we should probably know what the books look like. And we don't know what the books look like. The last time we saw a fiscal update was in December, and that was like a whole lifetime ago.' Uncertain times on the barbecue circuit December was before Trump's inauguration and the ensuing trade war; before Justin Trudeau stepped down; before it became clear that Canada's economic future would bear little resemblance to its recent past. That's another crucial aspect of a budget – by spelling out the state of a nation's finances, it forms the material basis for debate about how the government will spend taxpayer's dollars. But here, too, Michael Wernick feels a budget's importance is overstated. 'The Department of Finance puts out something called the fiscal monitor every month,' he points out. 'Nobody ever pays attention to it and writes articles about it, but they're obliged to put out quarterly financial statements. So every three months the department will put a snapshot out of where it is.' But what if MPs want more recent or granular information, especially given the tremendous rate of change? 'If parliament wants to hear from the minister of finance, it's a minority parliament; they just call him in front of the finance committee,' Wernick said. Still, in light of the intense furor caused by the budget's delay, it's baffling why Carney invited such a storm. It didn't just dominate the first week of Question Period, it unleashed a slew of withering news articles and op-eds that articulated valid concerns about Carney's lack of transparency, all of it entirely predictable. The work of crafting a budget is contained within the finance department — completing one doesn't hamper the rest of the government's ability to pursue Carney's ambitious agenda — so why not just release one before summer and avoid the bad press? 'The charitable interpretation is they say, 'Hey, we're busy, life is uncertain, it's too hard to do, so we're gonna do it later,'' says Christopher Ragan. 'But the thing that I fear is that what's going on in their heads is: 'We can just do this more easily without a budget. The budget is complicated, the budget is very visible, the budget invites all kinds of analysis and criticism, and why don't we just proceed as much as we can and we'll just pass these appropriations bills, which get way less scrutiny.' And that is a view that is fairly disrespectful of the whole concept of parliament.' Heather McPherson says she expects the budget to contain bad news — news the Liberals would rather avoid delivering before they fan out across the country to gladhand their constituents. 'I think the advantage for them is they don't want to have a bad budget that they have to go out on the barbecue scene with,' was Heather McPherson's take. 'They don't want to have to go to Canadians with a budget that's going to be a hard pill to swallow, and stand at the [Calgary] Stampede and have to go to Canadians across the country all summer long with a bad budget. So they're going to hide and they're going to pretend everything is still sunny ways.' 'I think his intent, his strategic objective, is to buy himself a little bit of time,' says Ian Lee. 'There's going to be a logjam this September, October, November in parliament because there's going to be so many bills tabled in Parliament to implement his agenda. And so this will buy them four or five months to figure out, you know, which gets priority?' Of all the people Canada's National Observer spoke to, Lee was among the most critical of Carney's decision to delay the budget; Lee has worked in several developing nations around the world over the course of his career, and he pointed out that one hallmark of those governments is a slipshod approach to crafting budgets. But even he acknowledged that 'if [Carney] comes up with a really good, transparent budget this fall, I don't think everyone's even going to remember that they kicked the problem down the road.' Michael Wernick, for his part, takes what Carney said in Rome, and what Champagne told Politico, at face value. 'They must have just calculated that with all of the chaos around Trump's tariffs, and the NATO summit coming in June, which could just blow a big hole in sorts of all future forecasting, then, the shelf life of a June budget would be days or weeks.' My query to the PMO also directed me to Carney's Rome statement. 'I think that would be your best bet for a concise quote from him,' a press secretary told me. In the absence of more elaborate communication from the PMO on all this, Canadians must rely on the speculation of outside experts. And for voters and government alike, that lack of transparency may prove to be a bigger problem than the lack of a budget – especially if it becomes the new story by fall.
Toronto Star
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Star
Why Donald Trump's response to the King's speech should focus Canadian minds
Think of it as the real response to King Charles' Throne Speech, the one that really counts—for the moment, at least. Or call it Donald Trump's bluff to Prime Minister Mark Carney: I'll see your king and raise you…a missile defence shield. In veiled terms, that was the message the U.S. president sent to his northern neighbour, bringing the pomp-and-circumstance of Tuesday's historic Royal visit back to the harsh-and-crude basics of modern-day geopolitics. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'I told Canada, which wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation,' Trump wrote on social media, 'but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our the cherished 51 st State.' Federal Politics Mark Carney confirms Canada in talks to join Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome' missile defence system Alex Ballingall The plans for an American missile defence system were unveiled earlier this month. The purpose is to better protect against the advanced and aggressive capabilities developed by adversarial countries like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran that could be launched from the ground, sea or space. In a very real way, the longstanding question of continental defence from such a hypothetical attack neatly explains part of America's uncomfortable interest in taking on, or taking over, Canada. In the Cold War with the Soviet Union, a system of radars was established across the Canadian Arctic, known as the Distant Early Warning Line. It was a geographic reality that this country would have been the front or the no-man's land in a dreaded nuclear war between Washington and Moscow that never came to pass. That nature of the threat is in constant flux, but the reality that the Canadian and American fates are intertwined when it comes to the defence of the continent hasn't fundamentally changed. Canada rejected the overtures of then-president George W. Bush to join the Ballistic Missile Defence system in 2005, with then-prime minister Paul Martin ultimately deciding it was better to bend to the will of opposition parties in a minority Parliament than to an American leader burnishing his credentials as a war monger and pariah. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW 'We respect the right of the United States to defend itself and its people,' Martin said at the time. 'However, BMD is not where we will concentrate our efforts.' Classic Canadian good manners won't count for much this time around. With Trump in his second presidential term keen to exert greater influence in the region—from Panama's canal in the south to Greenland's shores and resources in the north—opting out of a common defence project only bolsters the view of Canada as a weak link in North America. Pulling out or refusing to pay a part of the estimated US$175-billiion bill (CAD$242 billion) would leave Canada to be viewed in Washington as a risk for the U.S. in a much more concrete way than the exaggerated earlier claims that this country is a conduit for U.S.-bound fentanyl and migrants. Trump ended Wednesday's online intervention, saying of Canada: 'They are considering the offer.' Federal Politics Opinion Susan Delacourt: It might have been the King's speech, but the message to Donald Trump was all Mark Carney Susan Delacourt This is no doubt true. The prime minister has already confirmed that talks are underway about Canada joining the Golden Dome project. It's one piece in a wider discussion about Ottawa upping its security and defence game. One of his first acts upon taking over the Liberal leadership and becoming Prime Minister was to travel to Nunavut and announce the purchase of a $6 billion radar system from Australia. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Against the menace of U.S. trade tariffs, the announcement was seen as rebuke to our neighbours—a message that you can't target Canada and expect Canadian tax dollars to continue being spent on military equipment that enriches American defence companies. But reversing decades of Canadian defence policy and joining Trump's Golden Dome project could be just as difficult to pull off, James Fergusson, a University of Manitoba associate professor of politics, wrote in an April analysis of Canada's ballistic missile 'dilemma' for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. 'To reverse Canadian policy, likely interpreted as caving into Trump, will require bold leadership which is not necessarily the hallmark of Canadian governments,' he noted. Be it sovereignty, statehood or something else along that spectrum, the stakes are high if Canada blinks in the missile-defence gamble. Those fed up with Trump's threats may bristle at yet another instance of American interference. But for those who hope that the Carney government follows through on its solemn vow to make Canada more strong, more sovereign, less dependent on our neighbours to the south in every respect, Trump's message—essentially, pay up or give up—could be a a motivator and welcome reminder. Throne speeches, which mark the opening of a new session of Parliament, are too-often filled with platitudes and vague promises to be forgotten or to go unfulfilled. How many pledges have been abandoned to the realities of parliamentary politics? ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW This is particularly true for a minority government that must seek issue-by-issue support from opposition parties to implement its agenda. The Carney Liberals form such a minority government. But with the NDP reduced to a leaderless 7-MP rump, Pierre Poilievre leading the Conservative Party from outside the House of Commons, and the Bloc Quebecois offering to collaborate—at least in the short term—it has a fair bit of breathing room. Room that will be needed to pass enhance border security, negotiate new trade and defence partnerships, hire more police officers, strengthen gun controls and adopt stiffer penalties for law-breakers. King Charles uses throne speech to bolster Canada's autonomy against Donald Trump's threats All of these were promised in a Throne Speech that appears to be focused, laser-like, on building Canada stronger in response to the weaknesses exposed with Trump's return to power. Whatever one thinks about the merits or effectiveness of the president's bully approach to, well, everything, it has sharpened Canadian minds on a national project, the likes of which the country hasn't had in some time. Every Canada-focused intervention, every all-caps message about the 51 st state, every tariff taunt is a reminder that Washington is watching with an unforgiving eye that will not be lifted, even if the president's megaphone mouth goes temporarily quiet. Correction - May 28, 2025 This article was updated to note that US $175 billion is $242 billion Canadian. The Canadian conversion was misstated in millions.
Malaysian Reserve
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak Responds to Speech from the Throne
OTTAWA, ON, May 28, 2025 /CNW/ – Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak (LFMO)—the national voice for Métis women, girls, and gender-diverse people across the Métis Motherland—welcomes the affirming and unifying vision shared in the recent Speech from the Throne, delivered by King Charles III during the Throne Speech on Tuesday. As a national organization with a clear mandate to advocate for the rights, safety, and wellbeing of Métis women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, LFMO supports the vision for a stronger and more unified Canada as outlined in the Speech. We recognize that a more prosperous Canada translates into improved opportunities for Métis women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. Building an inclusive and equitable Canada means expanding protections for Métis women and gender-diverse people. The need to work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples to shape culturally-relevant, trauma-informed, and Indigenous-led policies and solutions is clearer than ever. The full implementation of the 231 Calls to Justice and the 62 Métis-specific Calls to Miskotaha is a matter of urgent and immediate action. The crisis of MMIWG2S+ is ongoing, and these frameworks offer a clear path forward. LFMO has built respectful and collaborative relationships with past federal cabinets, and we are eager to engage with this government to meaningfully address gender-based violence and the MMIWG2S+ crisis. Ensuring that Métis women and gender-diverse people not only have a seat at the table, but a hand in building it, must be a foundational priority across all policy areas. 'As we look to the future, our resolve is strong and our vision has never been more clear,' said Melanie Omeniho, President of LFMO. 'We welcome the support and allyship of Prime Minister Carney's cabinet as we forge a path to self-determination and safety for all Métis women and gender-diverse individuals.' LFMO remains committed to working with the federal government to advance reconciliation, gender equity, and culturally grounded solutions. LFMO will continue working to build a Canada where Métis women, girls, and gender-diverse people are safe, empowered, and heard. About LFMO: LFMO speaks as the national and international voice for the Women of the Métis Nation across the Métis Motherland, spanning Ontario westward to British Columbia. Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak aims to consult, promote, and represent the personal, spiritual, social, cultural, political, and economic interests and aspirations of women and gender diverse people.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak Responds to Speech from the Throne
OTTAWA, ON, May 28, 2025 /CNW/ - Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak (LFMO)—the national voice for Métis women, girls, and gender-diverse people across the Métis Motherland—welcomes the affirming and unifying vision shared in the recent Speech from the Throne, delivered by King Charles III during the Throne Speech on Tuesday. As a national organization with a clear mandate to advocate for the rights, safety, and wellbeing of Métis women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, LFMO supports the vision for a stronger and more unified Canada as outlined in the Speech. We recognize that a more prosperous Canada translates into improved opportunities for Métis women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. Building an inclusive and equitable Canada means expanding protections for Métis women and gender-diverse people. The need to work collaboratively with Indigenous peoples to shape culturally-relevant, trauma-informed, and Indigenous-led policies and solutions is clearer than ever. The full implementation of the 231 Calls to Justice and the 62 Métis-specific Calls to Miskotaha is a matter of urgent and immediate action. The crisis of MMIWG2S+ is ongoing, and these frameworks offer a clear path forward. LFMO has built respectful and collaborative relationships with past federal cabinets, and we are eager to engage with this government to meaningfully address gender-based violence and the MMIWG2S+ crisis. Ensuring that Métis women and gender-diverse people not only have a seat at the table, but a hand in building it, must be a foundational priority across all policy areas. "As we look to the future, our resolve is strong and our vision has never been more clear," said Melanie Omeniho, President of LFMO. "We welcome the support and allyship of Prime Minister Carney's cabinet as we forge a path to self-determination and safety for all Métis women and gender-diverse individuals." LFMO remains committed to working with the federal government to advance reconciliation, gender equity, and culturally grounded solutions. LFMO will continue working to build a Canada where Métis women, girls, and gender-diverse people are safe, empowered, and heard. About LFMO: LFMO speaks as the national and international voice for the Women of the Métis Nation across the Métis Motherland, spanning Ontario westward to British Columbia. Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak aims to consult, promote, and represent the personal, spiritual, social, cultural, political, and economic interests and aspirations of women and gender diverse people. SOURCE Les Femmes Michif Otipemisiwak View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
