Senators and members of Parliament will no longer need to swear an oath of allegiance to King Charles III may no longer be a requirement for MPs and senators if a Liberal MP’s private member’s bill passes.
New Brunswick Liberal MP René Arsenault introduced Bill C-347 which, if passed, would end the tradition of swearing allegiance to the reigning monarch and instead would offer the option to swear an “oath to office.”
While Canadian monarchists disagree with the bill, it’s being welcomed by Canada’s republicans, who feel the procedure is outdated.
Under Section 128 of the Constitution, every newly elected or appointed parliamentarian must swear that they will be faithful and bear true allegiance” to the reigning monarch, which includes a line that the actual name will change from “time to time.”
A member cannot legally take his or her seat in Parliament until after they have taken the oath to the sovereign, under Canada’s constitution.
The oath under the new bill would have members state that they will carry out their duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.”
However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has stated repeatedly that the monarchy’s role in Canada is important and that now is not the time to debate this, saying that King Charles III is “deeply aligned” with the values of Canada.
Former federal public servant and member of Citizens for a Canadian Republic, Pierre Vincent, is in support of Arseneault’s bill however. He is Acadian and refused to pledge allegiance to the monarch because of the Crown’s role in the 18th century expulsion of his francophone ancestors from Atlantic Canada.
“They gave me an ultimatum,” Vincent told CBC News, referring to his superiors in public service. “They told me to take the oath or you’re fired and I told them, ‘Nope!'”
Eventually, Vincent won his fight and the oath was quietly removed for bureaucrats. Now he is looking to help parliamentarians do the same.
“Why are we still doing this colonial, medieval stuff that does not coincide with our modern views of diversity and inclusion? I mean, it’s ridiculous. It makes no sense,” said Vincent.
“You know, sacrificing virgins used to be a tradition in Mexico. They’ve dumped that. A tradition itself is not a good reason to be doing things like this, to be violating free speech.”
Critics of the legislation like John Fraser say that republicans are “foolishly” attempting to undo Canada’s Westminster system of government. Fraser is a monarchist and president of the Institute for the Study of the Crown in Canada.
“We live in a constitutional Crown system and trying to break it up piecemeal is not a good way to run a country,” said Fraser.
“If the government of the day feels that it’s time for us to seriously consider becoming a republic, they should draft a referendum and present it to the people. But they also need a backup plan to replace it.”
Fraser said that republicans have not come up with a viable alternative to Canada’s current system.
“Doing away with the oath — it’s all based on emotionalism,” said Fraser. “I don’t think we should marginalize something that is an integral part of our system of government. Look at how republics are faring right now. Look to the south, the U.S. Do we want that here?”
