Lessons from Queen’s speech.

Last week in the House of Lords, Elizabeth II delivered, not the speech from the throne — that’s our usage — but the Queen’s Speech, opening with admirable despatch the parliament Britons had elected just seven days before. (Actually, gov. uk, the official government website, refers to it as “Her Majesty’s most gracious speech to both Houses of Parliament.”)

The Queen’s speech ran to 1,001 words, just a couple of paragraphs longer than this column. Yet by one estimate she mentioned no fewer than 29 forthcoming bills. She achieved this impressive productivity with economy of language abetted by political neutrality.

The speech was not entirely apolitical. A passage such as “The integrity and prosperity of the United Kingdom is (sic) of the utmost importance to my Government” is probably mainly descriptive — the government likely is obsessed with the U.K.’S integrity and prosperity (though they are separate, albeit interrelated things, thereby surely requiring a plural verb). But there’s implicit approval in the statement.

More typical is: “New measures will be brought forward to protect tenants and to improve building safety. My Government will take steps to support home ownership, including by making homes available at a discount for local first-time buyers. My Ministers will develop legislation to improve internet safety for all.” Forty-seven words, at least three separate initiatives, maybe more if you take account of “measures” and “steps.” Not even an implicit editorial comment. Bravo, Your Majesty!

Compare that with our own speech from the throne, delivered by the Governor General fully 45 days after our election. The official version is 18 pages. It has its own ( banal) title: Moving Forward Together, which echoes the Liberals’ (banal) campaign slogan, “Forward.” It has a cover picture: a lovely

if something goes without

saying, don’t say it.

(but banal) aerial shot of a highway heading off — forward, I suppose — with a lake on the left and mountains on the right — even though 81 per cent of Canadians live in cities. (I hope some internet sleuth doesn’t discover it’s actually a road in Switzerland or Sweden.)

As for the speech itself, it was 3,299 words, more than three times the length of the Queen’s speech. And it was much more exhortatory: “Parliamentarians: Canadians are counting on you to fight climate change, strengthen the middle class, walk the road of reconciliation, keep Canadians safe and healthy, and position Canada for success in an uncertain world.”

We learn in the speech of the GG’S activist bias: “Some believe that minority governments are incapable of getting things done. But Canada’s history tells us otherwise.” Parliament’s job is not to “get things done” but to provide good government, which in some cases may well involve quite deliberately not doing things. We also learn she favours free dental care: “Ideas like universal dental care are worth exploring, and I encourage Parliament to look into this.” Making parental benefits tax- free, she tells us, is another good idea. Not if you hold to the “a buck is a buck is a buck” theory of taxation, it isn’t.

The larger point is: who is she to say? She should follow the model of Her Majesty and stick to a recital of the facts. Instead she tells us “it is time to show courage, and strengthen gun control.” No, just tell us: my Government intends to strengthen control if that’s what the government tells her it plans to do.

A good rule is that if something goes without saying, don’t say it. The GG tells us: “Wherever they live” — insert customary parenthetic recital of Canada’s geographic diversity — “Canadians want to make Canada a better place for themselves, their children, and their communities.” Gee, ya think so?

Or this: “I am certain that by working together, no challenges are too big. I am convinced that anyone can rise to any occasion if they are willing to work with others, to reach a higher goal and to do what is right for the common good.” Actually, at the moment the challenge of building a simple pipeline to the Pacific seems too big for us by far. But perhaps the GG’S business- book can- do- ism will get us over the tipping point.

The only part of the throne speech that won’t be forgotten — that hasn’t already been forgotten — is the GG’S telling us we “are inextricably bound to the same space-time continuum.” A careful reading implies there may be other such continua. (Mackenzie King, holder of seances, would have been sympathetic.) It is her scientist- engineer’s version of JFK’S “Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

All these things are true. But the speech from the throne is no place for such musings. Economy of language: economy of thought. Just tell us what the government plans to do, in as neutral a way as possible, befitting a neutral arbiter among our contending political factions.

Until we began to think it threatened our identity we used to imitate all things British in this country. Our identity is now secure enough we should be able to follow Her Majesty’s lead without fear of being thought colonial.