Bill C-347

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office)

This enactment amends section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that every member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada may, before taking their seat, choose to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance, an oath of office or both.

The House resumed from April 9 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #685

Constitution Act, 1867

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank all those who spoke to my bill.

The purpose of Bill C‑347 is to amend the constitutional requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch following the election of a federal member or the appointment of a senator. As we know, this requirement appears in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

My bill proposes to make this oath of allegiance to the monarch optional while allowing, for the first time in the history of our country, an oath of office by which we swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution.

A person can choose to swear both oaths. What could be more inclusive? The current option of a single oath of allegiance to the British monarch no longer really reflects the modern Canada of today.

In this regard, I would like to reassure my colleagues and Canadians who are listening that my bill is neither monarchist, anti-monarchist nor republican. This bill is inclusive and 100% Canadian.

As I said, and as my colleague from Prince Edward Island noted, the constitutional amendment I am proposing affects only members who are elected to this Parliament or members who are appointed to our Senate, period.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows us to make the constitutional amendments I am proposing. It states that “Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons”. These words are legally robust, significant and unambiguous.

In its 2014 reference on Senate reform, the Supreme Court supports my claims. We are all lawmakers here, so I invite all my colleagues to read this decision and get to know it.

My bill in no way affects the roles and functions of the cornerstones of our country's constitutional architecture, such as our two levels of government with their own areas of jurisdiction and our Parliament, which is made up of an elected House and a Senate. Any changes to this constitutional architecture would have required the unanimous consent of the provinces, Parliament and the Senate.

Similarly, my bill in no way affects the interests of Canada's provinces or their areas of jurisdiction. If that had been the case, the government would have had to open up the Constitution, as some like to say, and ask seven out of 10 provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, for their consent.

To the contrary, Bill C-347 is much simpler. It is specifically designed to limit the effect of its constitutional amendment to Parliament Hill. It has no ambition to interfere with the constitutional architecture of our country or even the interests of the provinces.

At the risk of repeating myself, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make the constitutional amendment that I am suggesting in my bill.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to amend our Constitution to make this bill a modern, inclusive and one hundred per cent Canadian law.

I therefore invite my colleagues to support my all-Canadian, all-inclusive bill, Bill C‑347. May never again one of our own, for historical, ethnic or religious reasons, have to feel less than fully Canadian before sitting in the seat he or she has earned in this quintessential place of democracy called the Parliament of Canada.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, oath of office, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I want to thank the hon. member for the work he has put into this piece of legislation. Like any experienced lawyer, he has left no stone unturned. He has anticipated every argument and every detail.

It is a simple enough change that would have no impact outside of Parliament Hill, but it has the potential to revitalize the institution itself, arguably helping Parliament evolve and usher in a new era. This bill would see future parliamentarians have the choice to swear allegiance to the monarch, as is presently the case, or take an oath of office swearing to act in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution before taking their seat in Parliament. Some may choose to both swear allegiance and take the oath of office. This is the important principle on which the bill rests, and that is the principle of choice.

It is my belief that all parliamentarians, both in the House and in the other place, and yes, including Conservatives, work day in and day out for the betterment of this great nation. Whether it be in our respective ridings, in committee or in this chamber, we strive to act in the best interest of Canadians. We might not always agree on what that looks like, but we have a shared goal of supporting Canadians now and setting the stage for a positive future.

The oath of office proposed in Bill C-347 would remind us of this shared goal and would set the stage from the get-go that we are here for Canada. This would not in any way diminish the role of the monarchy in our Constitution, but it would allow for future members to celebrate their purpose in Parliament and remember that they are accountable to Canadians in everything they do. Having sworn the oath of allegiance on four instances now, I know that an oath of office, in addition to or instead of the oath of allegiance, would serve as a powerful motivator for new parliamentarians as they take their seats.

Then there is the matter of inclusivity. The oath of allegiance itself emerged in the 16th century due to political and religious conflicts in Great Britain. The Act of Supremacy established the Crown as the head of the Protestant Church and members of Parliament had to swear allegiance to the sovereign in their capacities as both the head of state and the head of the church. The goal at that time was to exclude based on religious belief as Roman Catholics and Jewish people would not recognize the Crown as supreme in all matters and thus would not have access to public office.

In Canada, we have shaped things since then in a uniquely Canadian way, with the oath not only reflecting allegiance to not only the Crown but also the institutions it represents in our country. The aim here is to ensure that members remember that they are acting in the best interests of Canada and to impress upon them the serious responsibilities they are assuming. These same goals can be achieved by an oath of office.

In an increasingly diverse Parliament, we must reflect on the necessity of asking first nations, Métis and Inuit members to swear allegiance to a system of monarchy that has long disadvantaged them. Understanding that the Government of Canada has long affirmed that its most important relationship is the one with indigenous peoples, we must work toward reconciliation and allow indigenous self-governance to exist on Parliament Hill as it does elsewhere across the country. This also rings true for other potential members who, for historical or ethnic reasons, might hesitate to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This hesitancy does not make anyone less Canadian, nor does it make them less suited for public office. In fact, some of these perspectives are essential and may serve as lessons to us as we debate legislation, undertake studies and make important decisions that affect Canadians. We must find ways to allow members to take their seats without compromising their identities.

I know that talk of amending the Constitution is justifiably met with skepticism, but this is where the simplicity of the bill makes it effective. It proposes that the Constitution Act, 1867, be amended to give every federal parliamentarian the option to take and subscribe the oath of office contained in the act instead of, or in addition to, the oath of allegiance. If the bill had included provincial legislative bodies in the proposed amendment, we would indeed have to go through the general procedure, as outlined in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the amendment specifically refers to the House of Commons or Senate, thereby having no impact on provincial or territorial affairs.

By limiting the scope of the bill to Parliament, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered, which reads:

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

Hence, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over decisions that impact only its affairs. Thus, by a simple act of Parliament, we can modernize both chambers without going through the general procedure for amending the Constitution. This amendment does not in any way change the Constitution's architecture or spirit, nor does it jeopardize the democratic institutions of Canada. In fact, it improves them.

This is also not the first time in history that our democracy has been modernized in Parliament. As was stated earlier in debate, from 1905 onward, members have been able to make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead of an oath, acknowledging the religious diversity of our country. Let us reflect on that for a minute. In 1905, we made it optional to make any reference to God in our oath. Here we are in 2024, debating whether we should make it mandatory to include the monarch in the oath.

This 1905 development is in line with the living tree doctrine in Canadian law that the Constitution must be read in a progressive manner, allowing it to adapt to changing times. It must reflect the realities of Canadian society and evolve with it. This, once again, is a simple, meaningful change.

I thank the member for introducing the bill, which brings a modern, inclusive and uniquely Canadian perspective to our institutions, and I will be proud to stand with him in support of it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-347 seeks to give members of Parliament and senators a choice regarding the oath they take. They can choose to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch, take the new oath of office or both. I want to commend the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for this bill. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, of which I am one of the co-chairs.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois opposes any expression of this system of monarchism and its underlying philosophy. When a people does not know its history, it is a bit like when an individual has amnesia. It is important to remember the actions and decisions of the British monarchy, the deportation of the Acadians, and the horrors of the siege of Quebec and the Seven Years' War, which resulted in the death of 15% of the population of New France. It is also important to remember the military suppression of the Patriotes rebellion of 1837-38.

In the wake of the Durham report, England declared the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to assimilate the francophones and keep them in the minority. In the 19th century, in the name of the Queen of England, for the supremacy of the English race, the Anglo-Protestants pushed the provinces outside Quebec to ban all Catholic schools and any form of French teaching in the schools. In April 1982, Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa to give royal assent to the 1982 Constitution, which was an anti-Quebec and anti-Bill 101 constitutional power grab that has never been signed by any government of Quebec.

If we do not remember, as my colleague said, and if we do not learn from history, it will repeat itself. We see again today the Canadian government interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions to constantly impose and promote English. Some 94% of official languages funding goes to English-language institutions and interest groups in Quebec. The decline of French continues in Quebec and Canada.

The change established by Bill C-347 is also a significant democratic improvement, because in a democracy the collective will of the people is the source of political power. In a democracy, as the Patriotes used to say, elected officials serve the people and the laws. The people are the true source of sovereign power. It is only fitting that elected officials pledge their loyalty to their true sovereign, the people.

For the Bloc Québécois, the reference to the Crown expresses a profoundly anti-democratic idea, namely that the Crown is the guarantor of democratic institutions and that the power of these institutions exists only by virtue of that of the Crown. The Bloc Québécois rejects both royalism—that is, loyalty to the individual person of the monarch—and modern monarchism. Our political goal is to create a democratic Quebec republic.

Historically, Canada's institutions have retained characteristics specific to former monarchist regimes. This continues to have a major influence on the development of democracy in Quebec and Canada. Our head of state is the king of another country. We have an unelected Senate that exercises some of the legislative power. The recognition of peoples’ right to self-determination has not been enshrined in our institutions. The Crown has repeatedly used executive powers. The prerogatives of the Crown are still present, written down in black and white. The tradition of the Crown not exercising its prerogatives can be broken, as it was in 2007. In Canada, the monarchy is the institution entrusted with the sovereignty and continuity of the state. Canada is an unfinished democracy, in large part because of its undemocratic institutions, the Crown and the Senate.

In a democratic republic, the people have sovereignty over their institutions and laws, including the foundational law, the Constitution. All legislators are elected and can be removed.

Fundamental freedoms are guaranteed, including freedom of religion and its corollary, the separation of church and state. As long as the suggested oath of office contains a reference to the Constitution and the Constitution enshrines the power of the Crown, this new oath is not completely free of monarchical references. Still, the absence of explicit reference is considered to be at least an improvement over previous versions.

That being said, the oath of office suggested by Bill C‑347 may appear to be at odds with the founding principles of the Bloc Québécois and our political vision, namely Quebec's independence. Indeed, the oath commits the oath-taker to perform their duties in the best interests of Canada, a country we wish to leave, and in accordance with its Constitution, which was forcibly imposed on the people of Quebec and to which the state of Quebec has never subscribed. Nevertheless, it is easy to show that these two aspects, the best interests and the Constitution, are not contradictory to the political action of the Bloc Québécois, because the new formula is an improvement. For the Bloc Québécois, it is in Canada's best interest that Quebec become an independent country.

The Bloc Québécois is a democratic political party that respects the rule of law. Its political agenda is already carried out in compliance with the law and the Constitution. We believe that the current Canadian system fails to accurately reflect Canada's sociological reality. Canadian society is made up of nations: the English Canadian nation, the Quebec nation and all indigenous nations. Canadian multiculturalism defines the Canadian people as an aggregate of individual identities and cultural communities, with no regard for their national identity. Acadians, we must remember, are also a nation and a people.

Naturally, Quebec and the people of Quebec do not subscribe to this multicultural view, and the federalist camp has repeatedly failed to offer the people of Quebec an acceptable solution that would lead them to participate voluntarily in the Canadian federation. All attempts to bring the Quebec nation into the fold with honour and enthusiasm, as it was once said, have fallen by the wayside.

For all these reasons, the oath of office would enable Bloc Québécois members to solemnly undertake to carry out their duties in the best interest of Canada.

We believe that as soon as Quebec becomes independent, it will give the other nations and peoples of Canada an opportunity to begin a new dialogue on the nature and components of their political ties. With that in mind, this bill is a small step in the right direction and constitutes a significant democratic improvement that would enable us to swear an oath more in line with our freedom of conscience.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to speak to this bill today. The oath of allegiance is one everybody in the House is familiar with because they have taken it. Everybody sitting here has taken it at least once. Some of us have been lucky enough to take it more than once.

The moment a member of this place takes the oath for the first time has a powerful impact. It is a moment filled equally with excitement and solemnity: excitement because it is the start of something, a bit of an adventure, something that the member had been working on for months; and solemnity because of the task ahead. Serving our constituents and Canadians more generally is a serious task and one that is an honour to undertake.

The oath of allegiance is currently required by section 128 of the Constitution Act. The courts have interpreted it as a symbolic oath to Canada's system of government, a constitutional monarchy. The oath of allegiance has been described as an affirmation of Canada's societal values and constitutional architecture and a symbolic commitment to our form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy.

I do not begrudge the honourable member for wanting to update our oath. He is my friend and he is my colleague. Swearing an oath of allegiance in the 21st century may seem to be a relic of a bygone colonial era. I understand that sentiment. I appreciate where he is coming from. I just do not believe this is the appropriate time to have this debate.

The oath of allegiance is a bond that links members of this place and members of the other place in many ways. Even prior to Confederation, section 35 of the Union Act of 1840 required members of the legislative council and the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada to take an oath of allegiance prior to taking their seats and voting. The oath of allegiance also connects us with our colleagues in the provincial legislative assemblies who are also required by section 128 of the Constitution Act to take the same oath.

The Crown remains an ever-present feature of our system of government and symbolizes the state. The Crown in Parliament participates in the legislative process, most critically in its culmination by granting royal assent. In this sense, the Crown is a unifying symbolic feature of our system of government and of our constitutional order. As the courts have recognized, viewed in this way, the oath to the King of Canada is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the King as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of a democratic constitutional monarchy.

The oath of office proposed by the hon. member in Bill C-347 would invite us to swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution. I cannot dispute this sentiment. As the courts have held, however, the oath of allegiance, properly construed, is quite similar in meaning. The reference to the King in the oath of allegiance is really a reference to the state and the source of all sovereign authority.

However, this proposed oath of office, well intended though it may be, does not reflect our system of government. Changing shared rituals like the oath of allegiance involves changing the Constitution. This is not something that should be done lightly or without careful reflection. Having expressed my own reservations about the hon. member's proposal, I and the government would oppose this measure and vote against the bill.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I lost my flower that acknowledges Cancer Awareness Month, so I do not have it on right now, but I do want to acknowledge that it is Cancer Awareness Month. I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to acknowledge all those who are impacted by cancer.

I recently lost a friend of mine, Cindra, who leaves behind her three children. She also lost her husband just over a year ago, so they have left behind their children as a result of cancer. I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society and all those who do all the work to do research and provide supports to help all those who are impacted.

With that, I am here today to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act. This is my very first speech as the new NDP critic of democratic reform, so I am very proud and pleased to speak to this issue.

I want to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing forward this bill. As we know, this bill brings forward the ability for a member of the House of Commons or Senate, before they take their seat, to choose to take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance, an oath of office, or both. We all subscribe to the oath of allegiance, so this would be an alternative for people.

Members would have a choice to swear an allegiance to the monarch, as has always been done in Canada, or to take an oath of office, therefore committing to work in the best interest of our country and in accordance with the Constitution. Members cannot currently legally assume their seat in Parliament until they have taken the oath to the sovereign.

When speaking with constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have heard a mix of responses. Some are very much in favour of such changes, some are very much against and there are others who are quite frankly apathetic to the issue. It is for these reasons my New Democrat colleagues and I will decide individually whether to support this legislation or not.

I respect the member for his creativity in this bill. Whether intended or not, I believe this could be a small, positive step in addressing potential barriers for Canadians in putting their names forward to serve and represent constituents as members of Parliament. I believe this to be a small change but worth discussing, as such decisions can have an impact on the composition of who is elected into the House of Commons.

However, as we all know, this is not an issue I am finding is front of mind for Canadians. This is understandable as Canadians and people in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling to make ends meet. People are unable to afford housing and are unable to keep food on the table. Canadians are feeling the real impacts of the climate crisis.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, for example, “forest fire season” is now a term being used by locals. Forest fire season is now a part of our summer, where the smoke fills the air, kids are unable to go outside to play and people struggle just to breathe.

There are serious problems facing Canadians across the country. Front of mind for most, rightfully so, is not this issue, but we do need to be talking about how to adapt to meet the needs of Canadians to ensure our democracy is strong and representative.

However, I do believe, and I am willing to be proven wrong, but if the Liberals who are currently forming government were serious about wanting to make this change, it would not have come forward today as a private member's bill. They would have instead made it happen. This is a pattern of Liberal behaviour picking off low-lying fruit instead of implementing legislation that would bring forward real democratic reform and the real changes Canadians so desperately need.

Now, more than ever, we need to be seriously evaluating the ways in which our electoral systems and parliamentary processes create barriers to full participation of Canadians. This is why I brought forward my previous bill calling on the government to implement a national citizens assembly on electoral reform. This would have provided Canadians with the tools needed to develop and form the recommendations to the federal government as to how to best strengthen our democracy.

We all know the Liberals first promised electoral reform in 2015 and continued to make such promises time and time again. The Conservatives, on the other hand, for the most part have been silent on this issue as, let us be honest, the current system benefits them.

Out of 118 elected Conservative MPs, only 21 are women. This is about 18% of the party. Women account for over 50% of the general Canadian population, and yet the Conservative Party is composed of only 18% women. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to make changes to increase representation; instead, they fight to maintain the existing systems and the status quo.

I will say this: This motion, as well as much of the work still required, is an opportunity for all MPs to come together and implement a positive path forward for Canadians, because we cannot keep doing what we have always done. We know that, currently, only 30% of those elected to the House of Commons overall are women. This is the highest it has ever been. However, the rate at which Canada is increasing representation is too slow, and we are falling shamefully behind on the global scale. Those elected to the House of Commons should be representative of our communities. Instead, we have seen an under-representation of so many, including indigenous people, Black Canadians, those living with low incomes, people who identify as part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and I could go on.

We also know that the current first-past-the-post system encourages divisive and adversarial politics. We are seeing more than our fair share of this in this House, and the current system encourages such poor behaviour. It does not have to be this way.

When we look at countries such as Norway, New Zealand and Scotland that have adopted a system of proportional representation, where voter support means better-represented seats in Parliament, we also see increased collaborations among those elected and political parties. This is because, to get legislation through Parliament, working together is the only choice. The winner-take-all approach that we have in Canada, in contrast, results in what we see all around us: division, misinformation and personal attacks rather than respectful debate about the priority at hand.

Instead of providing Canadians with the tools required to ensure those important discussions and solutions were made a priority, both the Liberals and Conservatives, including the mover of this motion, voted against moving forward.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. Specifically today, I am rising to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically in relation to the oath of office that those of us in this place all take prior to our being able to take our seats.

I know the bill was meant to be up for debate a number of weeks ago. Finally having this opportunity, I cannot help but think about so much of our history and its legacy and what this means to our democratic institutions. In speaking to the privilege motion that was debated yesterday and in talking about what some of the privileges of members of Parliament are, I mentioned the mace and some of the other symbols we have in this place and across our country and how so many of those lend to the history we have in this country we are able to call Canada today.

When it comes to the specifics of this institution, there has been more than 800 years of these green carpets. There was a decision on the fields of Runnymede that, instead of fighting a war, there would be deliberation and debate that would take place and the Crown would willingly give authority to the people. That is represented through the mace that sits on the table that our clerks reside at, where it points toward the government side of the House of Commons as a symbolic message to this day that speaks of that history of democracy and the empowerment of the people.

I enter into the debate on Bill C-347 with that history in mind. Here we have something that may seem small, in terms of adding an option for MPs to use instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown. Members who were sworn in prior to the passing of the late Queen Elizabeth II, as on the two opportunities I have had, swore an oath of allegiance to the late queen, and those who have been elected more recently or will be elected in the future have an opportunity to swear an oath to King Charles III.

What I will attempt to do over the course of my speech is highlight a number of what I find are concerning aspects of the bill

The first is that we have a private member's bill, which has a very limited opportunity for debate in this place. Its provisions are not given the ability to have a fulsome discussion and debate on an issue as important as changing the perspective around the Crown's role in Canada. There is a reason I would say that. Some would say that this would just give another option. Practically, yes, that is what would happen here, but I would urge members of this place to consider this simple giving of a third option to members. Instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown, they would be able to say that they would uphold the Constitution.

I suggest that members reflect carefully on the significance of that change because it shows a very symbolic shift in the way we approach our relationship with so much of our national history, of which the monarchy and the British Crown have been such a significant part. I have some concerns about doing this in the form of a private member's bill. It would be taking constitutional matters, I would suggest, somewhat flippantly and without acknowledging some of the seriousness with which we should approach these important things.

I know there are debates. In fact, I have heard some debates. There is one political party in the House that is no fan of the monarchy, and there are various opinions as to the future role of the monarchy in both the House of Commons and also in the other place, in the Senate. Those are important discussions that we can have as a country, but to simply provide an out without actually engaging in those fulsome discussions is deeply problematic.

One challenge I have with this bill is that it is somewhat contradictory in nature. While it gives a third option, and I have mentioned what that third option would be, I would suggest that it is very typically Liberal. It adds a third option as a workaround to do the exact same thing that the first two options provide.

On swearing an oath to the Crown, in 1905, there was a solemn affirmation and, in my understanding, significant debate around that at the time. What this change would bring about is basically that people would not have to do either of those, but they would swear to uphold the Constitution. However, by doing that, they are basically saying, indirectly, that they are swearing an oath of allegiance to the monarchy.

My suggestion would be, when it comes to the context of the bill we have before us, that we should have the honest conversation as a nation as to the future of that in the context of our national discourse as opposed to the very limited few hours of debate that it has in a PMB slot. I would just note that one of the ironies I find when it comes to this bill is that we have a Liberal member of Parliament bringing this forward. I understand he has a long history of some of his opposition, and I believe it dates back to some controversy in relation to becoming a lawyer. There is obviously some personal history there. I greatly respect one's personal history and advocacy, even if I do not agree with it. One can respect people they do not agree with, which may be a news flash for many in this place.

I find it interesting that a Liberal would bring forward a bill that includes a mechanism with a very U.S. style of politics. If passed, this type of response would be integrated into something that has been very uniquely Westminster, very uniquely Canada. It already acknowledges that, in some cases, whether it is faith or ideology, some people do not feel they can swear an oath, so they simply affirm their allegiance to the Crown. I understand that.

However, it is ironic, I would suggest, that it is bringing forward some of that American style, because if one was to look at the oath that members of Congress, the U.S. President or members of the U.S. military swear, there is certainly a similarity. Nevertheless, it would not accomplish the same thing, because it is a workaround that still swears allegiance to the Crown; this is upheld through the constitutional values.

What is unique is that, as we undertake some of these significant discussions, it is okay to have disagreements. I am proud to be part of a party that provides a tremendous amount of latitude to be able to discuss and, in many cases, agree. I know that, for my Conservative colleagues and I, the reason we are Conservatives is very clear and straightforward. That is something we often talk about. However, that does not mean that one universally agrees on everything. It is that ability to disagree that is so fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

I would simply say this: Earlier today, I met with an organization that talks about media literacy. One fundamental takeaway is that it is okay to disagree in our society. It is okay to have dialogue and debate, to have different opinions on matters. Simply because someone has a different opinion does not necessarily make that person a bad person.

I fear that we have moved down that line, where we simply demonize those whom we disagree with. I would suggest that this is fundamentally incorrect.

To conclude, we may debate what responsibility is particular to the oath of office, which I certainly take very seriously. There may be a debate to have around the role of that responsibility to uphold the more than a century and a half of democratic tradition here in Canada, and prior to Canada becoming a country in 1867, the advent of responsible government with Robert Baldwin and Louis LaFontaine. There is some significant history there. Let us have those serious conversations and not adopt a bill that, I would suggest, is something of a cop-out from having those serious conversations that we should be able to have in this place.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I also want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for this very simple, well designed and precise bill, which addresses a rather important concern. It is important because symbols are important, even though I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie that there are likely other issues that are of greater concern. There is the monetary system that puts wealth into the hands of a few, for instance, or inflation, which is affecting our constituents across the country.

We know, perhaps better than anyone, that here in politics symbols are very important. I think that oaths are important, that they should not be taken lightly and should not be taken grudgingly. I truly believe that no person duly elected by their constituents to represent them in the House should be reluctant to swear an oath to take their seat, reluctant to do it for various reasons. There may be various reasons to be reluctant to swear an oath to a foreign monarch, as one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues said. For various reasons, namely historic ones, there are some people here who will have a hard time swearing an oath to an institution that may leave a bad taste in their mouth. There are many different identities represented here in the House of Commons, much like the people we represent. I think that if we can find a way to take our seat by swearing an oath that respects the sensibilities of every individual while honouring the historic reality that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche described so well by giving the option, that would be a good thing.

That is exactly the purpose of Bill C‑347. As I said, it offers a very elegant solution, the option to swear an oath of office that I will read as written in my colleague's bill, an oath that would be added to the one we swear now. It says that we will carry out our duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution”. That, to me, is a much more inclusive oath.

There have been several attempts to change the oath of allegiance that members of Parliament must swear. As I was reading in Marc Bosc's green book, such attempts occurred in 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002 and 2003. I think that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche's Bill C‑347 offers a very simple and effective way to do this. That is what I want to focus on in my speech.

If we were to look into the origins of this obligation to take an oath to assume office and take our seat in Parliament, we would see that it dates to the 16th century. This oath was originally intended to exclude Roman Catholics, among others. Initially, the aim was to bar them from Parliament. It evolved over time to include more people or exclude others, but it is clear that, today, section 128 of the Constitution sets out the obligation for members and senators to take an oath. That oath can be found in the fifth schedule and reads as follows: “I, A.B., do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His Majesty King Charles III].”

Bill C-347 simply adds to section 128 another section that would allow elected members to take another oath, a solemn declaration. This other section states, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada may take and subscribe the Oath of Office contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act instead of the Oath of Allegiance or may take and subscribe both.” That oath I just read would be added to the fifth schedule.

I was listening to my Conservative Party colleague talk about constitutionality, and I think that is the crux of the problem for those who may oppose this bill. We are not preventing anyone from swearing an oath to the monarchy. We are just offering another option for those who, like me, as a member from Quebec, are uncomfortable or have reservations about swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. However, when it comes to amending the Constitution, we must refer to section 44, among others, which states, “Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” That is exactly what this is about.

Now we have to check sections 41 and 42 to see if there is something there that could prevent this. I will spare my colleagues a reading of that long list. Bill C‑347 has no impact on section 42. There may be something in section 41.

According to section 41 of the Constitution, anything affecting “the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province” would require the unanimous consent of the legislative assemblies of each province, the House of Commons and the Senate. Is the office of the Queen or the Governor General affected by Bill C‑347? In my opinion, no. Nothing about the office of the Governor General will change. She must listen to an oath, and it is up to parliamentarians to decide which oath to swear. Oaths have certainly evolved over time to reflect society's values; that is key to our democracy. I think that Bill C‑347 adapts the oath to reflect Canada's values.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is the point of the monarchy? Qu'ossa donne?

I want to apologize to the interpreters. I doubt it is easy to translate those words from Yvon Deschamps, but, in all honesty, that pretty much sums up my thoughts.

In 2024, Canada's head of state is a king. In 2024, Canada's King is represented by the Governor General. In 2024, Canada has lieutenant governors. In 2024, new Canadian citizens must swear allegiance to His Majesty. In 2024, Canada has colonial institutions. Elected officials must swear allegiance to the King, except in Quebec.

Thanks to the stubbornness, determination and insubordination of Parti Québécois MNAs, the members of Quebec's National Assembly, elected by the people, no longer have to swear an oath to the King of England in order to take their seats. It was about time. It has been a year already.

The Canadian monarchy has existed since France took possession of the St. Lawrence lowlands in the name of King Francis 1 in 1534. It is now 2024. That was 490 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is that, instead of swearing allegiance to the King of France, we now have to swear allegiance to the King of England. We are still talking about the same archaic system based on unequal, hereditary privileges.

Should we be proud of that? Should we be proud of an aristocratic system based on privilege, a system that classes citizens based on their birth? That does not make me proud. It does not make sense that this is still how the head of state is chosen in 2024. I cannot understand why this country celebrates and wants to continue with a system from the Middle Ages.

What we want—what we are fighting for—is greater equality, greater justice and an opportunity for people to rid themselves of the shackles of the past. Meanwhile, we still have a foreign head of state who holds office not because of merit, effort, competence or democratic choice. No, Canada's head of state is a man who was born lucky. That is the only reason we still give him special treatment. He will be on our stamps and our currency. Places and buildings will be named in his honour, even though, at the end of the day, what has he done besides being born?

As I said off the top, “qu'ossa donne?” What is the point of the monarchy? There is not much point at all, to be honest. It is fun when they come to Ottawa with the horses, the army, the carriages and all that jazz, but that is really just for show and a total waste of money, as I saw for myself last year. I was part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association mission, and His Majesty Charles III received us at Westminster Abbey. What the heck was a Bloc member doing there? It might have been good fodder for online platforms, but that is all.

Last year, I surveyed people in my riding about being part of a monarchy. My constituency office was flooded with responses from people in Laurentides—Labelle. It was incredible. People are dead set against it. I was really surprised, not to see that people are against it, but to see that this topic mobilized so many people in my riding. People no longer want it. As I see it, the monarchy serves very little purpose, except to mobilize people against it, as we are seeing tonight.

In a democracy, the power of elected representatives comes from the people, the citizens who vote for their representatives. Therefore, as elected officials, it is from these citizens that we derive our legitimacy.

In a democracy, elected officials serve the people, not His Majesty and not a colonialist, paternalistic and downright anti-democratic system.

In Bill C‑347, the new oath would read as follows:

I, A. B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.

This makes far more sense than swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. Members of Parliament and senators could swear an oath to Canada and its Constitution. We also have to keep in mind that Quebec has still not signed the Constitution. A change like this would be a significant democratic improvement. We in the Bloc Québécois oppose all expressions of such an archaic system of government as monarchism and its underlying philosophy.

I mentioned earlier that I belong to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is a genuine forum for nation-to-nation dialogue. Do my colleagues know how many Commonwealth countries are now republics that left the archaic monarchy behind? That would be 37 countries that are now republics and members of the Commonwealth. In other words, 66% of member states deliberately and democratically decided to sever ties with the British monarchy.

Madam Speaker, there is a loud noise, but I will try to focus and continue with my speech.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding the oath of office. The bill would, as its proposer said a moment ago, if enacted, amend section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to allow individuals who have been elected to the House of Commons or appointed to the Senate to select between three different oaths of office.

The first option would be, “I ... do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution”; the second option would be the oath of office that has been required since Confederation, which is, as the member noted, “I ... do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His Majesty King Charles III]”; and the third option would be to take both oaths.

I have personal views on this subject, but I am going to put them on hold, because I think it is important to address the constitutional technicality of how the bill is being proposed.

Let me start by observing that a version of the current oath is contained in the fifth schedule to the Constitution Act, 1867, where it is written as follows: “I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.” The following wording is also contained in the fifth schedule: “The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.”

The fifth schedule is referenced in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which declares, “Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him ... the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act”.

The next legal technicality to remember is that the Constitution Act, 1867 is a part of the Constitution of Canada, and therefore any change to the act, including a change to section 128, to the fifth schedule or to both can only be made if it conforms to the amending formulae that govern how such constitutional amendments can be made. These amending formulae are contained in sections 38 to 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982. There are five different amending formulae.

The most restrictive amending formula applies to a narrow list of subjects that can be amended only by means of identical resolutions adopted in Parliament and in the legislatures of all the provinces. A second formula provides that in other cases the Constitution can be amended by means of identical resolutions adopted in Parliament and in the legislatures of at least seven provinces with at least, together, half the population of the country. A third formula provides that in the case of amendments that affect some provinces but not others, the Constitution may be amended by means of identical resolutions in Parliament and in the legislatures of the affected provinces, but not in the rest of the provinces.

A fourth formula is of particular interest. Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 states, “Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” Finally, section 45 provides for the legislatures of each province to have the ability to “exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.”

Although the assertion is nowhere made in Bill C-347, it is clear that a claim is implicitly being made that this amendment to the Constitution would be made under the authority of the section 44 amending formula, as the oath of office is, in essence, asserted to be an aspect of the Constitution in relation to the House of Commons and Senate of Canada, which, as we will recall, was specifically referenced in section 44. Thus, the claim is being made that the oath can be altered by means of a simple act of Parliament.

I can certainly understand why this is being asserted, but I am not certain that this assertion is accurate. I note that a similar claim was made only a little over a year ago, when on December 9, 2022, the National Assembly of Quebec enacted a bill that abolished the traditional oath of allegiance to the monarch, the wording of which was identical to the oath for MPs and senators. As with the federal oath, the oath for provincial legislatures is mandated in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and is spelled out in the fifth schedule to the act. The Quebec law replaced this with something very similar to the federal oath proposed in Bill C-347: “I, (name of the Member), declare under oath that I will be loyal to the people of Québec and that I will perform the duties of Member honestly and justly in conformity with the constitution of Québec.”

This was not an uncontroversial bill. Constitutional experts lined up on either side of a dispute as to whether or not the Quebec legislature could, under authority of section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, unilaterally amend the oath of office. Some experts said yes, some said “no, you cannot actually do that without resorting to one of the other amending formula” that require broader consent.

I note that in favour of Quebec having acted constitutionally, we see that, in the literature I was able to consult, Leonid Sirota, Patrick Taillon and Frédéric Bérard all think this was constitutionally warranted. Ian Peach, Emmett Mcfarlane, André Binette, Yan Campagnolo, Errol Mendes, Steve Chaplin and James Bowden feel differently. They think this was not, in fact, constitutionally done.

I recognize that the issues in the Quebec bill and Bill C-347 are not identical. They refer to similar but not identical sections of the Constitution Act, 1982. Nonetheless, they are obviously very similar, and it would be reasonable, in advance of approving this bill at third reading, for some of the experts who weighed in on Quebec's legislation, both for and against, to be invited to testify in committee on Bill C-347.

In the event that the resulting expert testimony does not produce a consensus that it is permissible to make such a change under authority of the unilateral section 44 amending formula, it might make sense to take the additional precaution of submitting a reference question to the Supreme Court of Canada. A reference question is a seeking out of an advisory opinion from the court as to whether a proposed law is in fact constitutionally permissible.

This would not be the first time that a government of the day has sought an advisory opinion from the court as to which amending formula is appropriate to use in this or that circumstance. For example, in 2014, when the government of the day was considering changing the Constitution with regard to how senators are selected, the Supreme Court ruled that in respect of some of the changes that were being proposed, the unilateral section 44 formula would work and in other cases, the formula that requires the consent of seven provinces would be required.

At that time, to be honest, I did not agree with all of the opinions offered by the court in its ruling, but that is not the point. The value of having a Supreme Court is not that the court is always right, it is that the court's opinion is always final. Having rules that are of indisputable authority is the key attribute of the rule of law.

To be sure, it may well be the case that all of this is only of technical importance. One could point out, quite accurately, the fact that some members of Quebec's National Assembly, right now, have been sworn in on the basis of an oath that may have been unconstitutionally adopted but that this does not keep them from carrying out their duties as MNAs and that nobody doubts they are legitimate officeholders. This would, presumably, also be true of MPs swearing the oath that is described in Bill C-347. That these MPs would be legitimate officeholders would remain true even if, at some future date after they are sworn in, the Supreme Court were to rule that Bill C-347 had been enacted by means of the wrong amending formula and therefore their oaths of office had been invalid all along.

How do I know this? Well, I know it because a version of this exact problem actually arose, once upon a time. In 1875, an embarrassed House of Commons discovered that George Turner Orton had been sitting for some time as the member for Wellington Centre, despite having never sworn the oath of office. According to the relevant footnote in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice manual, Mr. Orton explained “that, because he had already sworn the oath, he did not realize that he had to be sworn in again upon his re-election.”

The matter was submitted to a committee, and on March 8, 1875, the committee noted:

that, since neither the Constitution Act, 1867,...nor any other statute provided a penalty in the event a Member omitted to take and subscribe the oath, the Member’s seat was not affected by the oversight. However, the Committee recommended that the votes taken by the Member before he took the oath be struck from the records.

I think life would probably go on as before, even if Bill C-347 were enacted and subsequently found to be invalid because it had been enacted in the wrong manner, and even if the oaths of some sitting MPs were thereby found be likewise invalid.

Canadians are sensible people and we are good at finding ways out of absurd legal conundrums, as we did in 1984 when the Supreme Court found that all laws passed in the Manitoba legislature in English only, for a full century, were invalid and that therefore it was necessary to re-enact them all in a bilingual format. Rather than simply saying there are no laws here, the proposal was made to allow for a staged reformulation of those laws and re-enactment of those laws.

There is a way out of this, but it would be best to actually find out what the law requires of us, what the Constitution requires, and for that reason, I will be urging all of us, if this gets through second reading, to make sure we get a clear indication of the legal authorities prior to going to third reading as to whether this is valid.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

moved that Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce my bill, Bill C-347. This bill proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding the oath to the monarch.

For Canadians who are listening, this bill is simply and more specifically intended to add an option for members elected to the House of Commons and all senators appointed to the Senate when they take their oath.

Let me reassure my colleagues here that Bill C-347 is not about whether or not someone is a monarchist or a republican; it is not about eliminating the monarchy in Canada. Even before I introduced this bill at first reading this past June, I made sure that we did not have to create a constitutional storm in this country in order to make this small but meaningful change.

It is simply about adding a second option to the oath of office that parliamentarians and senators are obliged to take before they take their seat and exercise their functions. That is all.

To those who think this is too complicated, I intend to demonstrate that the oath has never been static in Canada and has evolved over time.

Allow me to delve into the origins of the oath, which comes to us directly from the English Parliament. For transparency's sake, the historical overview I am about to share comes straight out of our very own manual, our bible, as it were, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, 2017, by Bosc and Gagnon.

For starters, such an oath did not exist in England until the 16th century. The oath arose as a result of the political and religious conflicts in England, in particular the separation of the Church of England and the struggle between Protestants and Catholics for power. That is the actual origin of the oath to the monarch. In response to these religious conflicts, England adopted the Act of Supremacy in 1563.

That was during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. Her Act of Supremacy required elected members to swear an oath to the sovereign attesting that she held supreme power in the realm in both ecclesiastical and temporal matters. The oath was primarily directed at preventing Roman Catholics from holding public office.

In 1678, England added to this oath a declaration against transubstantiation to prevent Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament. In 1701, the Jacobites tried to restore Catholicism in England. By all accounts, this did not please the Protestants at the time since they immediately brought in three oaths. I am talking about the Jacobites here because I am referring to James II, who I will talk about later.

I was saying that following this religious war, three new oaths were devised. There was the oath of allegiance to the monarch of England; the oath of supremacy, denouncing Catholicism and papal authority; and the oath of abjuration, which repudiated all rights of James II, a Catholic, and his descendants to the English throne.

Without going too deeply into historical weeds, Catholics were basically required to swear an oath to the monarch and denounce their own religion and papal authority. Since the oath of abjuration also had to be taken in the name of the Christian faith, it also prevented Jews from taking the oath.

I will spare members the genesis of what would eventually become the Canada of today. Suffice it to say that Nova Scotia was the province that had its first popular assembly elected in 1758. It agreed to adopt the same oath as that of England, thus preventing Catholics and Jews from voting or running for office.

Incidentally, it is through the oath of allegiance to the sovereign that England still bears, and always will bear, the shame of the heinous deportation of the Acadians, ancestors of mine and of many colleagues who sit here in this Parliament. It was a sad chapter in our history. England tried to deport an entire people and exterminate those who wanted to stay in Acadia.

Over the course of our pre-Confederation history, the oath of allegiance to the sovereign evolved in much the same way in each province. The objective was always to prevent Catholics and Jews from voting or entering prestigious occupations as lawyers, judges, mayors, government officials and so on.

However, the way that the oath was administered in each province before Confederation varied. One by one, between 1820 and 1850, the provinces relaxed the terms of the oath to finally allow Catholics to vote and run for election. These changes came later for Jews, between 1832 and 1846.

Then came the Canadian Confederation, on July 1, 1867, the same day that our Constitution Act took effect. Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads as follows:

Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General...the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act;

Section 128 refers us to the fifth schedule, which reads as follows:

I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Obviously, there is a note that tells us that the name of the monarch can change over time.

That is where the requirement for members of Parliament and senators to take the oath originates. I will not get into talking about the legislative amendments that were made to ensure that the name of the monarch changes to reflect the events of the time, but in this year of Canadian Confederation, members and senators still have to swear allegiance to the head of the Protestant Church, which still continues to offend the conscience of Canadians of other faiths, including French-speaking Catholics and Irish Catholics, among others.

If I am telling members about this history of the oath over time, it is to show it has never been static and that, on the contrary, it has adapted to the realities of the time and to the sensitivity of our society to make our country a place where everyone feels at home, notwithstanding his allegiances or profession of faith.

Following the Constitution Act, 1867, Canadian society continued to evolve, and the oath that members of Parliament and senators have been required to take since 1905 is no longer exactly mandatory as set out in our Constitution. I am sure most members are unaware of the fact that we can now make a solemn affirmation instead, without any constitutional amendment required. Instead of taking an oath to the Queen, we can make a solemn affirmation, which is what I did each of the three times I was elected. However, the 1867 Constitution has not yet been amended. How did that happen?

It is thanks to a 1905 law, which did not amend the Constitution and seems to have been unanimously approved, without any objections.

It occurred by royal instruction in the form provided by An Act to amend the law in relation to Promissory Notes, which was passed in England in the 31st and 32nd years of the reign of Queen Victoria.

The takeaway here is that, since 1905, our Parliament has never questioned the fact that, without a constitutional amendment, MPs and senators had the option to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch, as set out in the Constitution, or to make a solemn affirmation. This is the case even though section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and its fifth schedule have never changed and still refer to an oath of allegiance to the monarch.

More recently, in 2022, members of the 43rd legislature of the National Assembly of Quebec unilaterally amended section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to exempt Quebec MNAs from the requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch once elected. This is another sign that our society continues to evolve and become more inclusive for elected members in this country.

It is in this spirit of continuum, inclusiveness and, above all, as a proud Canadian that I propose to officially modify, with the flavour of the 21st century, section 128 of the Constitution Acts, 1867 and its fifth schedule.

My Bill C‑347 would, for the first time in our history, allow MPs and senators to swear an oath of office that would be added to the fifth schedule. The oath would be as follows: “I, A.B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.”

I will repeat it in English. This addition to the fifth schedule of the Constitution Act would read as follows: “I, A.B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.”

Section 128 as we know it would remain unchanged but would become subsection 128(1), and subsection 128(2) would be added. It seems like section 128 has been lonely since 1867, so we are giving it a brother or sister that would say, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada may take and subscribe the Oath of Office contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act instead of the Oath of Allegiance or may take and subscribe both.”

What could be more inclusive for our future MPs or senators than to let them decide, before they fulfill their noble duty, whether or not to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch, based on their choice, their conscience, their religion or their ethnic origin? At the same time, they could subscribe to an oath of office. For the first time in our history, when members arrive here, they would be able to take an oath of office, committing to work in the best interest of our country and in accordance with the Constitution.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, before introducing this bill at first reading, I made sure that we would not cause a constitutional storm in this country or have to seek the approval of every legislature in Canada, of Parliament and the Senate to make this change. We are able to do this through section 44 of our Constitution Act, 1982.

Section 44 states:

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

On that note, I will end my speech and answer any questions.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office).

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce, seconded by the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, Bill C‑347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, with regard to the oath of office. This bill amends section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in order to provide that, before taking their seat, members of the Senate and the House of Commons can choose to take and subscribe the oath of allegiance or an oath of office, or both.

The fifth schedule to the Constitution Act, 1867, would be amended by adding the following after the oath of allegiance: “I A.B. do solemnly affirm that I will perform my duties in the best interest of Canada and in accordance with its Constitution”.

I want to be very clear. The purpose of the bill is not to detract from the monarchy's historic role in Canada but to provide an additional option for members and senators when they are sworn in. I therefore invite all parliamentarians to support this bill when the time comes.