Quebec Lawmakers Skipping Oath of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

• A constitutional challenge has been filed against Quebec's Bill 4, which allows provincial legislators to skip the oath of allegiance to the king.
• The lawsuit argues that Quebec's Minister Responsible for Democratic Institutions relied on an incorrect interpretation of s. 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to justify the province's right to enact Bill 4.
• If the court upholds the challenge, it could have significant implications for Quebec's general election and the representation of its voters.

The lawsuit argues that s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides a clear framework for amendments to Canada's constitution, which must be made via proclamation by the governor general with the agreement of the Senate, the House of Commons, and each provincial legislature.

A constitutional challenge has been filed against Quebec's Bill 4, which allows provincial legislators to skip the oath of allegiance to the king. This move is seen as a unilateral amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, without the necessary unanimous approval from Parliament and the provinces. The lawsuit argues that this action undermines the rule of law and potentially disenfranchises voters. The Public Interest Litigation Institute, led by University of Ottawa law professor Lawrence David, claims that Quebec's Minister Responsible for Democratic Institutions relied on an incorrect interpretation of s. 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982 to justify the province's right to enact Bill 4.

The requirement to take an oath of allegiance is outlined in s. 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, and applies to members of Parliament and Canada's provincial legislatures. This provision has been a cornerstone of Canadian democracy for over a century. However, Quebec's Bill 4 seeks to amend this requirement, sparking concerns about the province's authority to unilaterally change the Constitution Act, 1867. The lawsuit argues that s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides a clear framework for amendments to Canada's constitution, which must be made via proclamation by the governor general with the agreement of the Senate, the House of Commons, and each provincial legislature.

The lawsuit claims that Bill 4 infringes on Quebecers' right to vote and effective representation, as it results in voters electing politicians who cannot serve in the National Assembly if they refuse to take the oath of allegiance. This situation raises concerns about the legitimacy of the electoral process and the ability of elected officials to represent their constituents. The Public Interest Litigation Institute argues that this issue is not about monarchy or republicanism, but rather about following the rules for constitutional amendment. If the court upholds the challenge, it could have significant implications for Quebec's general election and the representation of its voters.

Lawyers advising clients running in the Quebec general election should be aware that refusing to take the oath of allegiance may render their elected representatives unable to serve, potentially disenfranchising voters and undermining representation.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer