Why King Charles III is delivering a rare speech in Canada
TORONTO — King Charles III is coming to Canada to deliver a message: Canada is a sovereign nation distinct from the United States.
U.S. President Donald Trump's repeated suggestion that the U.S. annex its northern neighbor prompted new Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney to invite Charles to give the speech from the throne on Tuesday where he will lay out the Canadian government's agenda when Parliament reopens.
The monarch is the head of state in Canada, which is a member of the British Commonwealth of former colonies.
'Canada has a steadfast defender in our sovereign,' Carney said when he announced the visit earlier this month.
It is extraordinarily rare for the monarch to deliver what's called the speech from the throne in Canada. Charles' mother, Queen Elizabeth II, only did it twice in her 70-year reign. The last time was in 1977.
Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, but Carney has been eager to show the differences between Canada and the U.S. and he said that the king's visit clearly underscores the sovereignty of Canada.
The Americans had a revolution to gain independence from Britain. Canada remained a colony until 1867 and continued thereafter as a constitutional monarchy with a British-style parliamentary system.
'We're different,' former Quebec Premier Jean Charest said. 'We are not the United States. It sounds simple, but that's what the visit says.
'We don't have the same institutions. We don't have the same history,' Charest said. 'We are a different country with a different choice in terms of how how we built ourselves, and King Charles tells that story.'
This will be Charles' first visit as monarch. He visited Canada 19 times as prince. The king has been showing his support for Canada in recent months, including displaying Canadian military medals on his chest during a visit to a Royal Navy aircraft carrier.
Historian Robert Bothwell said that the king's speech in Parliament 'is a gesture of solidarity and identity that can be construed to be a gesture of support.'
The speech sets the legislative agenda for a new session of Parliament. It's not written by the king or his advisers in the U.K., as the king serves as a nonpartisan head of state.
The king will read what is put before him by Canada's prime minister and his team. The speech is usually read by Canada's governor general, the monarch's representative in Canada. The governor general holds a constitutional but mostly ceremonial and symbolic position.
'King Charles is unlikely to comment directly on the 51st state issue. Yet, his introductory remarks could feature broad statements about Canada's integrity and sovereignty. At least this is what many Canadians would like him to do,' said Daniel Béland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal.
Former Canadian prime ministers and governor generals will attend the speech. The king will then pay his respects at the National War Memorial before a Royal Canadian Air Force flyby.
Béland said the monarchy has long been unpopular among Quebec's French-speaking majority, and some nationalist voices in the province have been critical of the Carney government's decision to invite the king to deliver the throne speech.
'Whether the separatists work themselves into a lather over this frankly, I don't care. I don't think Quebecers will care a lot,' said Charest, the former premier of Quebec. 'The may not like the monarchy or whatever they'd like to read into it, but British institutions have served us very well.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
Supreme Court Sides With Catholic Group In Tax Exemption Dispute Over Non-Religious Activities
The Catholic Charities Bureau provides services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a Catholic organization qualifies for a tax exemption even though its operations were not primarily religious. The decision overturned a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Under Wisconsin law, certain religious organizations may be exempt from paying taxes, including unemployment compensation taxes. This is similar to laws in other states that provide exemptions based on specific criteria. In other words, tax-exempt status for federal income tax purposes doesn't always translate to state income or other tax exemptions. In this case, Wisconsin law exempts any 'church or convention or association of churches' an services provided '[b]y a duly ordained, commissioned or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his or her ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order.' The exemption also covers nonprofit organizations 'operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches,' but only if they are 'operated primarily for religious purposes.' Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. (CCB) and four related organizations sought an exemption because they are separately incorporated from the Diocese, but claim federal tax-exempt status under the Roman Catholic Church's group tax exemption (this 'umbrella' treatment is common in the tax-exempt world). The Wisconsin Supreme Court denied the exemption, finding that CCB and the related organizations were not 'operated primarily for religious purposes because the charitable services went beyond theology. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, finding that drawing those lines violated the First Amendment. The Catholic Charities Bureau has, it says on its website, provided 'services to the poor, the disadvantaged, the disabled, the elderly and children with special needs as an expression of the social ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior' for more than 100 years. Today, CCB boasts more than 50 programs serving more than 10,500 people—services are not limited by race, color, national origin, or religion. That apparently innocuous distinction was one of the arguments used by the state against CCB. The organization's activities did not qualify as 'typical' religious activities because they serve and employ non-Catholics. The state also found that CCB does not 'attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith,' and its services to the poor and needy could also be provided by secular (non-religious) organizations. Congress enacted the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) in 1935 to provide benefits to unemployed workers. The FUTA tax rate is 6% on the first $7,000 paid to employees during the year and is paid by all employers unless they qualify for an exemption. Notably, FUTA exempts church-controlled religious organizations 'operated primarily for religious purposes' from paying unemployment tax, the result of an exemption granted by Congress in 1970. Since then, 47 states have adopted language that is identical to, or nearly identical to FUTA's language. FUTA tax may be offset by credits of up to 90% for state unemployment taxes paid—all states have complementary statutes that impose, at a minimum, the coverage mandated by federal law. This tax is only paid by employers, not employees. The tax funds unemployment programs. (CCB noted in its petition that employees have separate unemployment coverage. Wisconsin bishops previously created the Church Unemployment Pay Program (CUPP) 'to assist parishes, schools, and other church employers in meeting their social justice responsibilities by providing church funded unemployment coverage.') CCB applied for an exemption under state law. The Department of Workforce Development determined that CCB and its sub-entities were not primarily operated for religious purposes and denied the exemption. CCB appealed, and after a hearing, the administrative law judge reversed the decision. However, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the reversal (stay with me), finding that the exemption turns on an organization's 'activities, not the religious motivation behind them or the organization's founding principles.' Since CCB provided secular (non-religious) services, the Commission concluded that they do not qualify for an exemption The matter went to court (outside of the administrative channels) and ended up in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which held on March 14, 2024, that CCB's 'activities are primarily charitable and secular' and not religious, which means it would not qualify for the exemption. CCB filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court in May of 2024. Parties do that when seeking a review of the case—typically, it's in response to another court decision. In that petition, CCB noted that in the 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in two cases (St. Martin Evangelical Lutheran Church v. South Dakota and California v. Grace Brethren Church) to determine whether the imposition of state unemployment taxes on certain religious organizations under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and related state statutes violated the First Amendment. But, CCB argued, while those cases were resolved, the Court expressly declined to answer the First Amendment questions, resulting in a split among courts. If the Supreme Court decides to hear a matter, it's called a grant of certiorari—by practice, at least four justices must vote to hear the case to be granted cert. Usually, cert is granted in a case of considerable importance or one involving a split. A split happens when courts disagree on a matter of federal law, reaching different conclusions about its application—that's what CCB argued happened here. In its petition, the questions presented by CCB were: The state argued that no split of authority existed on the constitutional question and further contended that the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision does not directly conflict with the decisions of any federal circuit or state high court. The Supreme Court disagreed with the state, granting certiorari in December of 2024. The scope of the case was, however, limited to Question 1. (Does a state violate the First Amendment's Religion Clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state's criteria for religious behavior?) Dozens of amici curiae briefs were filed before the decision. When it comes to legal issues before the Supreme Court, those with an interest or expertise in the subject but who aren't a party to the litigation may also file briefs to explain their point of view. These briefs are called amicus briefs and are filed by a party known as an amicus curiae, which translates to "friend of the court.' The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute violated the First Amendment by discriminating against religious organizations based on their methods of religious expression. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court, 'A law that differentiates between religions along theological lines is textbook denominational discrimination.' She went on to write that CCB would, under the state's interpretation, qualify for the exemption 'if they engaged in proselytization or limited their services to fellow Catholics.' However, CCB's Catholic faith, however, bars them from doing exactly that. That means, she explained, that eligibility for the exemption 'ultimately turns on inherently religious choices.' While the state argued that the exemption was intended to draw stark theological lines, Sotomayor went on to write that the exemption 'functions at an organizational level, covering both the janitor and the priest in equal measure.' The Court acknowledged the importance of the government maintaining 'neutrality between religion and religion.' But, Sotomayor wrote pointedly, 'There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.' With that, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case was overturned. The news was welcome by the Diocese. 'At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception,' said Bishop James Powers, Bishop of the Diocese of Superior. 'We're grateful the Court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond.' 'Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place,' said Eric Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, who represented CCB. 'It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.' The Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Justice Sotomayor delivered the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justices Jackson and Thomas filed concurring opinions. The case is Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc., v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (No. 24–154).
Bloomberg
24 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Steel Deal Seen Closing by Merger Deadline After Trump Pivot
Nippon Steel Corp. and United States Steel Corp. are on pace to finalize their $14.1 billion combination with US President Donald Trump's administration ahead of a deal deadline later this month, capping an 18-month saga to combine the steelmakers into the world's second-largest producer. Talks on the deal between the companies and the US government are ongoing and expected to reach a conclusion before a June 18 merger agreement deadline, according to people familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity given that talks are confidential. US Steel and Nippon Steel declined to comment. A Treasury Department spokesperson declined to comment.
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Controversial airport watchlist program terminated by DHS amid weaponization concerns
EXCLUSIVE: The Department of Homeland Security is ending the Quiet Skies program, which left some Americans subject to additional screenings at airport security. The department says the agency was overly politicized to either benefit or hurt specific people and ran a bill of roughly $200 million annually. According to DHS, the program kept a watchlist as well as a list of people exempted. The department says Quiet Skies has not prevented any terrorist attacks but will continue to use other methods to assure safe air travel. "It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden Administration—weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends. I am calling for a Congressional investigation to unearth further corruption at the expense of the American people and the undermining of US national security," DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. DHS says that the list of exemptions of people who avoid "security policies" included "foreign royal families, political elites, professional athletes, and favored journalists." The program that started in 2010 was seen as a terror prevention method, and it faced escalating scrutiny from the left and right, including groups like the American Civil Liberties Union. "TSA's critical aviation and security vetting functions will be maintained, and the Trump Administration will return TSA to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of traveling public. This includes restoring the integrity, privacy, and equal application of the law for all Americans," Noem continued. In 2018, the ACLU asked the Transportation Security Administration for more information about the program. "The TSA is engaging in covert surveillance of travelers and raising a host of disturbing questions in the process. While the program's existence is now public, the TSA has kept nearly everything else about the program secret," Hugh Handeyside, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a 2018 news release. "Travelers deserve to know how this surveillance is being implemented, what its consequences are for Americans, and for how long the TSA is retaining the information it gathers. What we've seen so far is troubling, which is why we're demanding that the TSA hand over records it's been hiding from the public. This is a much needed step towards transparency and accountability for an agency with a track record of using unreliable and unscientific techniques, such as 'behavior detection,' to screen and monitor travelers who have done nothing wrong," he added. DHS pointed out a specific situation in which William Shaheen, the husband of New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, was removed from the list after reaching out to the former head of TSA during the Biden administration in 2023, according to CBS News. DHS said that he "traveled with a known or suspected terrorist" three times. The senator's office confirmed to CBS News she had reached out to TSA after her husband dealt with intense security obstacles while flying, but was unaware of any specific lists her husband was or was not on. The outlet reported that he was flying with an attorney was subject of the terrorism flag. The department also cited Tulsi Gabbard's past placement on the Silent Partner Quiet Skies list. Fox News Digital reached out to Shaheen's office for comment.
