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

Summary#

Bill C-210, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. Its stated goal is to let members of the Senate and House of Commons choose an oath of office instead of the oath of allegiance, or take both. This is a proposal, not a change shown as in force in the supplied material.

• Senators and members of the House of Commons could choose the new oath of office instead of the oath of allegiance, or take both.
• The new oath would be a promise to faithfully carry out the powers and responsibilities of the member’s office.
• The bill would add the oath’s wording to the Act’s Fifth Schedule.
• It would not remove the oath of allegiance; it would make the oath of office an alternative.
• The bill also says references to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 would include this amending Act.

What it means for you#

• Senators and members of the House of Commons: If enacted, you could take the oath of office instead of the oath of allegiance, or take both. The bill’s summary says this choice would be made before taking your seat.
• Other people: The supplied text does not directly change the rights or duties of the public, or create a new service, tax, fee or fine.
• Current law: The bill describes the existing oath of allegiance, but the current Constitution Act, 1867 was not supplied, so I could not verify the full current wording or requirements against it.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The supplied text does not state a spending amount, create a funding program, or require staffing.

What is unclear#

• The supplied text gives no start date or commencement rule.
• It does not explain how the oath of office would relate to other constitutional duties of members.
• The parent Act was not supplied, so the full current oath requirements and any related rules could not be checked.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it would let members make a direct promise to carry out their parliamentary responsibilities faithfully.
• Members could choose the oath of office alone or take both oaths, rather than having only the oath of allegiance as the choice described in the bill.

Case against#

• One concern is that the bill does not explain why the oath of office is an adequate substitute for the oath of allegiance or how the two pledges relate to each other.
• The bill does not explain whether any other laws or procedures would need to change to reflect the new choice.