Geoff Russ: Mark Carney commits to Trudeau’s empty postnationalism

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks at the 2026 Liberal National Convention in Montreal Saturday, April 11, 2026. (John Kenney / MONTREAL GAZETTE)

Article content

Like Justin Trudeau before him, Prime Minister Mark Carney is embracing “postnationalism.”

Article content

During his speech at the Liberal party’s convention in Montreal on Saturday, Carney praised multiculturalism and “inclusivity.” He declared that Canada was a nation “forged through accommodation, not assimilation”.

Article content

Article content

The prime minister proceeded to misrepresent Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Carney praised Laurier because he “governed a country that had once conquered his people.” He certainly got the first half of that sentence right, as he did govern a country. As for the second party, Canada never conquered Laurier’s people, for his own people helped to build Canada itself.

Article content

Article content

Regarding Canada’s tradition of accommodation, Carney was not entirely wrong. Confederation in 1867 was the maturation of the old colonial pact struck by the British and French-speaking Canadiens after the Seven Years War. Once the British conquered New France in 1760, they realized that governing the King’s new French-speaking subjects would require concessions.

Article content

Article content

In exchange for the loyalty of les Canadiens, the Crown guaranteed their French civil code, their French language, and the place of their Roman Catholic faith. Confederation merely confirmed this bargain as the basis for a new country in North America.

Article content

If history truly mattered in Ottawa, Carney would not enlist Laurier’s memory in such a sloppy fashion, for Canada’s seventh prime minister was no proponent of squishy multiculturalism or “inclusivity.” At a speech in Edmonton in 1905, Laurier spoke of welcoming newcomers, but not without clear obligations to the Canadian nation which they sought to join.

Article content

In order to share in “our lands, our laws, our civilization”, they were to become unambiguous British subjects, to take part in public life, and “become Canadians.” It was nothing short of a call to assimilate, not to become part of a “mosaic” or a “hotel” state.

Article content

Article content

Citing Laurier to argue against assimilation is like citing René Lévesque to argue against Quebec independence. What happened to Carney’s praise for the monarchy, bilingualism, and Canada’s “proud British heritage” as part the “bedrock” of Canada’s founding peoples?

Article content

Bedrock is not decorative gravel, but praise of it can apparently be a hollow public relations exercise. If not given primacy, Canada’s “bedrock” peoples will not be bedrock for long.

Article content

Why is that progressive “inclusion” so often grows by subtraction? The symbols of British and French heritage are the first to be pulled down and replaced with something bland, inoffensive, or unfamiliar.

Article content

Is there really so little value to the cultures that built Canadian democracy, industry, literature and the norms we take for granted?

Article content

Those who insist that “culture war” issues are not worth wasting time on are often the ones who are most eager to rename and replace streetnames, monuments, and buildings. Who and what we choose to remember or uphold as inspiration greatly matters. Choosing abstract ideals as the best representation of Canada, rather than our history and national cultures is a deliberate choice.