Strengthening Canada’s Sovereignty: An Allegiance Pledge for Public Officials, Military, Public Safe

Video: “India? No, This is Canada” https://youtu.be/Cl6KqaomLwY?feature=shared

Team SGT: That’s right, Clyde. This is Canada. Guardian Clyde, standing watch. Thank you for the work you’re doing to fix Canada and keep it strong.”

Summary

Introducing an enforceable allegiance pledge across Canada’s public, military, and safety sectors would establish a consistent standard for prioritizing Canada’s national interests over external affiliations.

This pledge, rooted in Canadian identity and the values historically embodied by the RCMP and Canadian Forces

— freedom, vigilance, sacrifice, valour, courage, resilience, justice, and ethics —

…would move beyond symbolism to reinforce Canada’s sovereignty and unity.

Unlike current oaths, which are largely symbolic, this commitment would create a stronger basis for accountability and loyalty in the face of modern threats, including fifth-generation warfare, economic interference, and ideological subversion.

Such a pledge could directly address the challenges posed by the un-elected administrative state, or “bureaucracy,” or “deep state,” where departmental codes of conduct currently prioritize DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) and general workplace ethics rather than allegiance to Canadian interests of “national unity”and“professional strength”.

By implementing a mandate that clearly emphasizes Canada’s sovereignty and welfare, Canadians could have greater assurance that officials act consistently in the country’s best interest.

1. Legal Implications of the “Oath of Citizenship”

1.1. Symbolic vs. Enforceable Commitment:

The “Oath of Citizenship” in Canada is largely symbolic and does not impose binding legal obligations. While new citizens pledge allegiance to Canada, this does not extend to specific, enforceable duties in their daily actions or decisions. This lack of formal obligation means that public service employees or those in public-related sectors (millions of people), or another way to say “insider un-elected bureaucratic establishment,” or “deep state,” are not legally required to prioritize Canada’s interests over other considerations. This creates the potential for corruption, and a potential gap in accountability, particularly in decision-making roles where Canada’s interests might conflict with other allegiances or goals.

1.2. Ambiguity for Members of Parliament (MPs) and certain high-ranking officials:

Members of Parliament (MPs) and certain high-ranking officials take an “oath of office” that requires them to serve the interests of Canada and uphold its laws. Members of Parliament (MPs) in Canada, including the Prime Minister, take an “oath of office” that ostensibly requires them to act in Canada’s interests and uphold its laws. However, the degree to which they are held accountable to this oath is limited, as follows:

1.2.1. Lack of Direct Accountability Mechanisms:

While MPs take an “oath of office”, there is no specific, enforceable mechanism tied to the oath that holds them accountable to it. This means that while they are expected to act in the public interest, breaches of ethical standards or perceived conflicts with Canadian interests are often addressed through parliamentary debate, public scrutiny, or media coverage rather than formal legal consequences.

1.2.2. Role of the Ethics Commissioner:

Canada’s Ethics Commissioner is responsible for investigating and reporting on ethical breaches by MPs and high-ranking officials, but this office operates with limitations. The Ethics Commissioner is appointed by the Prime Minister, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest, especially in high-profile cases involving the Prime Minister or government officials. Moreover, the office has been vacant at times, delaying oversight and investigations.

1.2.3. Ethics Violations and Political Consequences:

From 2015 to 2024, multiple ethics scandals and corruption allegations were debated in the “House of Commons”, reflecting lapses in adherence to ethical standards. While these breaches may affect public perception and have political consequences, they do not typically result in direct penalties, such as removal from office. Consequences are often reputational or political rather than enforceable by law.

1.2.4. Summary:

Therefore, while MPs and high-ranking officials take an “oath of office”, the lack of robust enforcement and reliance on an “Ethics Commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister” weakens accountability to this oath. Future MPs, in light of these issues, could advocate for a stronger, third-party ethics oversight mechanism to ensure that the “oath of office” is upheld more rigorously, transparently and on a professional basis or professional standard.

2. Ambiguity for Public Officials:

A large administrative state, often referred to as the “bureaucracy” or “deep state,” includes millions of “un-elected” public sector employees or employees in sectors related and/or funded by the public sector, who operate without these binding oaths. This large administrative apparatus generally lacks a universal, enforceable requirement to prioritize Canada’s national interests over personal, corporate, global corporate or international affiliations and/or corporate initiatives.

For example: Public sector policies and programs and corporate programs, often reflect broad corporate or international values, like those associated with DEI initiatives (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives), climate policies, or symbolic campaigns (e.g., PRIDE or other corporate-aligned promotions). These initiatives may influence department culture or policy priorities but are not directly enforceable requirements for prioritizing Canadian national interests.

Instead, employees typically adhere to departmental “codes of conduct”, which primarily govern workplace behaviour, ethical, and DEI standards (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives) rather than ensuring a commitment to national sovereignty, national unity and professional systems development and professional growth.

While certain roles, particularly in technical or financial fields, may require professional designations (such as CPA, PEng, PTech, AScT, I.S.P.), most administrative staff do not hold such credentials due to the “non-merit focused hiring policies”, or another way to say, the administrative framework is prioritized, focused and expected to with DEI standards mindset (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives).

These department codes and standards may promote general ethical practices or DEI expectations, but do not necessarily enforce a duty to prioritize Canada’s interests of “national unity” and “professional strength”, choosing instead to favour potential consultation, information and influences from external entities such as BRICS, the CCP, WHO, UN or the WEF, or another way to say, global level information and priorities.

“In short, the mindset of the public sector worker and citizens in general has been shifted away from a focus on the key requirement to protect the unity of the nation, the professional strength of the nation (industry, technology, professional development), and merit based productivity of the nation.”

This absence of a formal allegiance requirement among the “un-elected bureaucracy” can create the potential for divided loyalties, particularly when external pressures from corporate or foreign entities influence decision-making. Public sector employees are expected to act in Canada’s best interest as part of their professional responsibilities, yet without an explicit mandate, there remains the risk that some may prioritize other allegiances, possibly global level corporate allegiances, as the worlds best and most influential corporations operate at global level. In specific cases, this could impact Canada’s economic stability, technological development, national security, or public welfare.

The influence of this “un-elected administrative state,” which operates with considerable autonomy, raises ongoing questions about accountability and transparency. Elected officials, accountable directly to the public, are subject to greater scrutiny, with their work often visible through public postings, televised committee meetings, and “House of Commons” debates. Un-elected officials, on the other hand, answer primarily to “departmental codes of conduct” and “may not face the same level of oversight or feel the same obligation to act strictly in the nation’s best interest or in support of national unity and national professional strength”.

The values that define Canadian identity…

— freedom, vigilance, sacrifice, courage, commitment, discipline, logic, diplomacy, etiquette, civility, valour, resilience, justice, and ethics, deeply rooted in the legacy of the RCMP and Canadian Forces —

...may not be prioritized within this structure.

This discrepancy can, at times, open the door to indirect influences from foreign or corporate interests, subtly shaping policy outcomes and potentially impacting Canadian priorities. Introducing a clear allegiance requirement for this administrative state could serve as an additional safeguard, theoretically reinforcing the expectation that public administration members prioritize Canada’s sovereignty, security, and prosperity. The practical effectiveness of such a requirement would depend on how it is implemented and enforced, as well as on the specific roles and contexts within the public sector.

By improving accountability within this influential and permanent “establishment” or “insider bureaucratic layer”, Canadians could potentially gain greater confidence that those making critical decisions in public offices act with national interests in mind, provided these measures are carefully structured and applied.

3. Military Implications of an Allegiance Pledge

3.1. Strengthening National Defense for Fifth-Generation Warfare:

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) take an “oath of allegiance” to the monarch, symbolizing their loyalty to Canada.

While this oath represents a broad commitment to the nation’s defense, it does not specify the level of readiness needed to counter fifth-generation warfare (5GW) threats —

…such as cyber attacks, ultra-processed food toxins creating disability in millions of people via metabolic disease/obesity/diabetes, disinformation, political strategies that drive up national debt, or scaled up 4x administrative size to slow business activity, undermine professional fields, or impede essential industries like stopping electrical generation for decades to stop national ship building.

In reality, CAF’s ability to tackle these modern threats relies not only on the pledge itself but on continuous training, evolving doctrine, and strategic operational policies. An updated or expanded pledge could go beyond symbolic loyalty to become a meaningful commitment to counter these emerging threats, when real world consequences, accountability and enforcement is attached to it, reinforcing CAF’s proactive stance. While the pledge alone cannot replace the essential preparedness provided by comprehensive training and robust policies, it could embody a renewed dedication and additional safeguard as part of a newfound and re-born vigilance, resilience, and adaptability that is demanded in today’s complex security landscape.

3.2. Clear Standards for Defense Personnel in Complex Alliances:

CAF personnel operate within alliances like NATO, where Canada’s commitments may intersect with allied interests. While Canada’s defense policies prioritize sovereignty, complex situations can arise when allied obligations overlap with national defense needs. Operational protocols, not the oath, govern these interactions, ensuring personnel prioritize Canadian interests even amid alliance obligations. A clarified pledge, one that is also enforced, could reinforce this commitment, and would compliment the guidance from Canada’s defense protocols, which are designed to uphold sovereignty within complex alliances.

4. Public Safety and National Security

4.1. Protection Against Subversive Influences:

In a time of increased geopolitical tension, an explicit allegiance requirement for officials could act as a safeguard against subversive influences from adversarial nations or international entities. Requiring public officials to prioritize Canadian interests might help reduce risks from undue corporate lobbying, globalist agendas, or adversarial alliances, political or military in nature, contributing to a stronger stance against foreign influence or any type of subversive attacks.

4.2. Accountability for Public Officials:

A formalized allegiance to Canada’s security and sovereignty could enhance accountability by establishing a framework where public officials are responsible for actions that could undermine national security or favour foreign interests. This framework could improve transparency, reduce susceptibility to corruption, and decrease the impact of ideological subversion or influence from powerful international organizations.

4.3. Clarity for Citizens on Leadership Priorities:

A clear allegiance requirement would help reassure citizens that public leaders and officials are explicitly committed to Canada’s welfare, and that they hold paramount the interest and safety of the public as the number one priority, over any global commitments. Such transparency could enhance public trust by confirming that national interests take precedence in leadership decisions, creating a more transparent relationship between officials and the people they serve.

Conclusion

Implementing a clear and enforceable allegiance pledge across legal citizen, public sector, military, public safety and for newcomers would establish a more transparent and accountable standard for prioritizing Canadian sovereignty.

This requirement could bridge current accountability gaps, reduce ethical breaches in governance, reduce corruption, increase administrative state and budget quality/efficiency in it’s application, re-align decision-making towards national security checks and balances, and strengthen defenses against adversarial influence that are engaged not only in time of war, but take into consideration the entire timeline that domestic problems in peace time also occur as a result of poor allegiance pledge and national security approaches.

Rooted in Canada’s identity and the legacy of the RCMP and Canadian Forces, this commitment would reinforce the principles of national unity, professional strength and Canadian values.

By setting this standard, public leaders and officials would be expected — and held accountable — to make decisions that consistently align with Canada’s sovereignty, public safety, and core values.