N.B. MP’s proposal to scrap required oath to King Charles fails

Article content

OTTAWA • New Brunswick Liberal MP René Arseneault’s backbench bid to scrap the requirement for parliamentarians to pledge allegiance to the King, and instead give politicians the choice to swear an oath to Canada, has failed.

The Madawaska-Restigouche MP had successfully lobbied for that change elsewhere.

Before entering politics, he became the first lawyer in New Brunswick not to swear the royal oath after challenging the obligation for the province’s lawyers when joining the bar.

But on Wednesday evening, his push to make it optional for MPs and senators was voted down at second reading by a result of 197-113.

It didn’t get the support of the Liberal cabinet, while the vast majority of Conservative MPs also voted against the move.

That said, 38 Liberal MPs, including Jenica Atwin, Serge Cormier and Wayne Long, voted in favour, alongside New Democrat, Bloc, and Green MPs, as well as 17 Conservatives, although none from New Brunswick.

Members of Parliament and senators, among others, serve at His Majesty’s pleasure and must first take the Canadian Oath of Allegiance.

It includes a pledge to “be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, King of Canada, his heirs and successors according to law.”

The obligation is part of the Constitution Act of 1867.

If MPs don’t take the oath, they’re not allowed to sit or vote in Parliament.

Arseneault’s Bill C-347 aimed to amend the Constitution Act to add a “choice of oath.”

A new option would state “I do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its constitution.”

Arseneault said that he had spoken with constitutional lawyers who said the change was possible without amending the Constitution, a complex process that would need the unanimous consent of all the provinces plus the two Houses of Parliament.

Still, the bill didn’t get the support of his own government.

During the bill’s debate on Tuesday night, Liberal MP James Maloney said the government wouldn’t be supporting the proposal. Quoting the Supreme Court of Canada, Maloney called the oath an “affirmation of Canada’s societal values and constitutional architecture.”

“Swearing an oath of allegiance in the 21st century may seem like a relic of a bygone era,” he said. “I understand (Arseneault’s) sentiment, I appreciate where he’s coming from, I just don’t believe this is the appropriate time to have this debate.”

He later continued: “The Crown remains an ever-present feature of our system of government and symbolizes the state. The Crown and Parliament participates in the legislative process, most critically in its culmination of granting royal assent.

“In this sense, the Crown is a unifying, symbolic feature of our system of government and our constitutional order.”

That said, some Liberal MPs stood to say they would support Arseneault’s pitch.

Liberal Prince Edward Island MP Sean Casey said during debate that he would vote in favour.

“It is a simple enough change that would have no impact outside of Parliament Hill, but has the potential to revitalize the institution itself, arguably helping Parliament evolve and usher in a new era,” Casey said.

Meanwhile, NDP MP Lisa Marie Barron said each New Democrat member would decide individually if they support the change, or not.

Barron herself said the bill could be “a small, positive step in addressing potential barriers for Canadians putting their names forward to serve.

“I believe this to be a small change, but worth discussing as such decisions can have an impact on the composition of who’s elected into the House of Commons,” she said, although noting that constituents she spoke with in her riding were split over the idea, or apathetic to it.

Unsurprisingly, Arseneault had the support of the Bloc Quebecois, a party that has long called for the abolition of the monarchy in its pursuit of Quebec sovereignty.

But federal Conservatives didn’t support the change.

Conservative Alberta MP Damien Kurek raised during the bill’s debate on Tuesday night what he called a “number of concerning aspects” to Arseneault’s proposal.

Kurek said a private member’s bill doesn’t allow for enough debate on what he called “an issue as important as changing the perspective around the Crown’s role in Canada.

“It shows a very symbolic shift in the way that we approach our relationship with so much of our national history,” he said, adding a backbencher’s bill, and not something brought forward by the government, amounts to “taking constitutional matters somewhat flippantly.”

Kurek also took direct aim at Arseneault and his “long history” of opposing the oath.

“There’s obviously some personal history,” he said.

Arseneault himself gave a final pitch to MPs during debate, stating his bill is “neither moncarchist or anti-monarchist,” or Republican, as some MPs suggested.

“This bill is inclusive and 100 per cent Canadian,” he said.

“The current option with only one choice does not look like today’s modern Canada.”

Arseneault, an Acadian, said in an interview when his bill was originally introduced that the country is made up of generations of immigrants who chose to live in Canada, often from countries that faced colonialism from Britain’s imperial past.

“Some of those came from Africa, for example,” he said. “You have Irish and Scottish people, Acadians, those whose homeland is India.

“Of course they would want to pledge allegiance to the country and the institution (and not the King).”