Madam Speaker, I thank all those who spoke to my bill.
The purpose of Bill C‑347 is to amend the constitutional requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch following the election of a federal member or the appointment of a senator. As we know, this requirement appears in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
My bill proposes to make this oath of allegiance to the monarch optional while allowing, for the first time in the history of our country, an oath of office by which we swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution.
A person can choose to swear both oaths. What could be more inclusive? The current option of a single oath of allegiance to the British monarch no longer really reflects the modern Canada of today.
In this regard, I would like to reassure my colleagues and Canadians who are listening that my bill is neither monarchist, anti-monarchist nor republican. This bill is inclusive and 100% Canadian.
As I said, and as my colleague from Prince Edward Island noted, the constitutional amendment I am proposing affects only members who are elected to this Parliament or members who are appointed to our Senate, period.
Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows us to make the constitutional amendments I am proposing. It states that “Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons”. These words are legally robust, significant and unambiguous.
In its 2014 reference on Senate reform, the Supreme Court supports my claims. We are all lawmakers here, so I invite all my colleagues to read this decision and get to know it.
My bill in no way affects the roles and functions of the cornerstones of our country's constitutional architecture, such as our two levels of government with their own areas of jurisdiction and our Parliament, which is made up of an elected House and a Senate. Any changes to this constitutional architecture would have required the unanimous consent of the provinces, Parliament and the Senate.
Similarly, my bill in no way affects the interests of Canada's provinces or their areas of jurisdiction. If that had been the case, the government would have had to open up the Constitution, as some like to say, and ask seven out of 10 provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, for their consent.
To the contrary, Bill C-347 is much simpler. It is specifically designed to limit the effect of its constitutional amendment to Parliament Hill. It has no ambition to interfere with the constitutional architecture of our country or even the interests of the provinces.
At the risk of repeating myself, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make the constitutional amendment that I am suggesting in my bill.
There is no doubt in my mind that this Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to amend our Constitution to make this bill a modern, inclusive and one hundred per cent Canadian law.
I therefore invite my colleagues to support my all-Canadian, all-inclusive bill, Bill C‑347. May never again one of our own, for historical, ethnic or religious reasons, have to feel less than fully Canadian before sitting in the seat he or she has earned in this quintessential place of democracy called the Parliament of Canada.
