Bill C-347

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

Sponsor

René Arseneault Liberal

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Defeated, as of April 10, 2024

Subscribe to a feed (what's a feed?) of speeches and votes in the House related to Bill C-347.

Summary

This is from the published bill.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-347s:

C-347 (2017) Canadian Search and Rescue Voluntary Service Medal Act

C-347 (2013) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for gifts)

C-347 (2011) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for gifts)

C-347 (2010) Fish Labelling Act

Votes

April 10, 2024 Failed 2nd reading of Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office)

Debate Summary

This is a computer-generated summary of the speeches below. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Bill C-347 proposes an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867, allowing Members of Parliament and Senators to choose between swearing allegiance to the monarch, taking an oath to carry out their duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution, or both. This bill aims to modernize the oath of office and provide a more inclusive option for parliamentarians, respecting diverse beliefs and backgrounds while maintaining the existing oath. The amendment is proposed under Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, asserting Parliament's exclusive authority over matters related to the Senate and House of Commons.

Liberal

Supports optional oath: The Liberals support Bill C-347, which would add an optional oath of office for parliamentarians to swear to carry out their duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution, in addition to or instead of the current oath of allegiance to the monarch.
Promotes inclusivity: The Liberals believe that allowing members to choose whether or not to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch would be more inclusive, respecting the sensibilities of every individual while honouring the historic reality. This addresses concerns related to historical, ethnic, or religious reasons that may make some individuals hesitant to swear allegiance to the Crown.
Constitutional authority: The Liberals argue that the bill is constitutionally sound, as it falls under Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which grants Parliament exclusive authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons. The bill does not affect the roles of the Queen, Governor General, or provincial legislative bodies.
Modernizing Parliament: The Liberals see the bill as a way to modernize Parliament and reflect the evolving values of Canadian society. They emphasize that oaths have evolved over time and that this change aligns with the living tree doctrine, allowing the Constitution to adapt to changing times.

Conservative

Technical constitutional concerns: The Conservatives raise concerns about whether the bill properly follows constitutional amendment rules. They suggest that expert testimony and a reference question to the Supreme Court are needed to determine if the bill can be enacted by a simple act of Parliament.
Symbolic shift problematic: Conservatives believe adding an option to swear allegiance to the Constitution instead of the Crown represents a problematic symbolic shift away from Canada's history and the monarchy. They want a more comprehensive national discussion rather than a change through a private member's bill.
Circumventing real discussion: The Conservatives view the bill as a way to avoid serious conversations about the role of the monarchy in Canada. They also suggest that the bill introduces a U.S.-style element into Canada's Westminster system.

NDP

Individual choice on oath: The NDP caucus has decided to allow its members to vote freely on this bill, according to their individual beliefs and conscience. This reflects a commitment to frank and healthy discussions, even when differing opinions exist.
Monarchy is undemocratic: Alexandre Boulerice states his personal opposition to the monarchy, viewing the swearing of an oath to a sovereign as an outdated practice at odds with democratic values. He believes that individuals should swear an oath to the people, constituents, or the Constitution instead.
Bill is a small step: Lisa Marie Barron believes the bill could be a small, positive step in addressing potential barriers for Canadians to serve as members of Parliament. She notes that this issue is not at the forefront for Canadians, who are more concerned with affordability and the climate crisis.
Need electoral reform: The current electoral systems and parliamentary processes create barriers to full participation of Canadians. A national citizens assembly on electoral reform would provide Canadians with the tools needed to develop and form the recommendations to the federal government as to how to best strengthen our democracy.

Bloc

Supports bill C-347: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-347, which offers the option to swear an oath to Canada and its Constitution rather than to the King of England. While they would have preferred an oath of allegiance to the people, they view this bill as a step in the right direction.
Against the monarchy: The Bloc Québécois opposes the monarchy as an archaic and anti-democratic system. They advocate for a system where elected officials serve the people, not a foreign monarch.
Quebec republic ideal: The Bloc Québécois ultimately aims for Quebec to become an independent republic where officials swear allegiance to the people of Quebec. They view this as the truest expression of democracy and sovereignty.
Historical grievances: The Bloc Québécois expresses historical grievances with the British Crown, citing events such as the war of conquest, the deportation of the Acadians, germ warfare against indigenous peoples, and the hanging of French-Canadian patriots. These historical injustices inform their opposition to swearing allegiance to the monarchy.

Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Constitution Act, 1867Private Members' Business

April 9th, 2024 / 7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

Constitution Act, 1867Private Members' Business

April 9th, 2024 / 7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

Constitution Act, 1867Private Members' Business

April 9th, 2024 / 7:25 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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, 1867Private Members' Business

April 10th, 2024 / 4:25 p.m.