Canada's Trade War and Monarchy Debate

A trade relationship between Canada and the U.S., two of the closest

economic partners in the world, has deteriorated into a

trade war. Negotiations appeared to be moving toward

an

agreement. Then Canada walked away.

I don't know why the relationship deteriorated this badly, but I do

have some questions. Mark Carney is Canada's prime minister.

He makes decisions as a representative of the citizens of Canada,

an independent country.

So why does Mark Carney and every other elected member of Canada's

parliament have to pledge allegiance to a king before taking

their seat?

Not allegiance to the Canadian people, not allegiance to Canada,

but to King Charles III.

Canada's head of state is still the king.

King Charles is king of the United Kingdom

and king of Canada.

Executive authority is formally vested in the crown.

Canada's parliament consists of the House of Commons, the Senate,

and the King.

And legislation passed by Canada's elected representatives still

requires royal assent before becoming law.

We're told much of this is ceremonial. Okay.

Then why is it required?

If Canada is completely independent, why must its elected

representatives pledge allegiance to a hereditary monarch?

Why does the crown remain embedded in the constitutional structure of the

country? Why does the king remain Canada's head of

state?

Why does royal assent remain part of making Canadian law?

Canada became independent from Britain on paper,

but it never separated itself from the crown.

So perhaps, especially now, there's a question worth asking.

Is it time Canada stopped kissing the ring?

My friends, we are all anonymous.

I, Mark Carney, do swear that I will be faithful and bear

true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, King

of Canada, his heirs and successors.