Bill C-210 amends section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to allow members of the Senate and House of Commons to choose a newly prescribed Oath of Office as an alternative to the current Oath of Allegiance; members may also take both oaths. The bill inserts the exact text of the Oath of Office into the Fifth Schedule and adds an interpretive provision folding this amendment into the collection of Constitution Acts.
The change is narrowly drafted — it does not repeal the Oath of Allegiance, nor does it impose a new substantive loyalty test — but it shifts ceremonial practice and parliamentary paperwork. For clerks, oath administrators and constitutional counsel the amendment raises immediate implementation questions; for members it provides a formally recognized, bindable option for swearing in without removing the historic allegiance wording from the statute book.
At a Glance
What It Does
Renumbers existing subsection 128(1) and adds a new subsection (2) that allows a member to opt for the Oath of Office set out in the Fifth Schedule instead of the existing oath to the sovereign, or to take both. The bill also inserts the precise language of the new oath into the Fifth Schedule.
Who It Affects
All persons who will be sworn as members of the Senate or House of Commons, plus House and Senate clerks responsible for administering oaths, revising swearing-in forms, and maintaining official records. Parliamentary counsel and constitutional litigators will face new interpretive questions.
Why It Matters
The amendment formally creates a statutorily authorized alternative to the Oath of Allegiance, changing the choices available at swearing-in and potentially reducing conflicts for members with objections to allegiance phrasing while leaving the underlying constitutional framework intact.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes one line of the Constitution Act, 1867 to give every incoming senator and member of the House of Commons a legally recognized option: they may swear the newly drafted Oath of Office in place of the traditional pledge to the monarch, or they may swear both. The statutory insertion supplies a short, plain-language promise to 'truly and faithfully' perform the duties of a parliamentarian; the Oath of Allegiance remains on the books for anyone who prefers it.
Procedurally, the requirement that the oath be taken "before taking their seat" remains; the bill does not alter the timing or the formal step of swearing in. Instead it alters what can be said at that step and what clerks must record.
Because the text of the new oath is placed in the Fifth Schedule, it becomes the standard, authoritative wording used across British and French versions when preparing forms and transcripts.The bill also adds a short interpretive clause that treats this amendment as part of the consolidated volume of the Constitution Acts, 1867–1982. That clause is administrative but deliberate: it ensures the new wording is treated as part of the constitutional statute collection for printing and citation purposes.
The enactment is limited in scope — it does not create new enforcement mechanisms, new penalties, or additional substantive duties beyond the wording of the oath itself — but it creates immediate administrative tasks and possible litigation points about whether an Oath of Office alone satisfies other constitutional or statutory oath-related requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1 renumbers existing s.128 as s.128(1) and adds a new s.128(2) to authorize the alternative oath option.
The Oath of Office text is inserted into the Fifth Schedule and reads: 'I, A.B.
do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will truly and faithfully and to the best of my skill and knowledge execute the powers and trusts reposed in me as a member of the Senate [or House of Commons (as the case may be)] of Canada.', The bill preserves the Oath of Allegiance — it does not repeal or amend that wording; members simply gain the statutory right to choose the alternative or to take both.
The timing language — that the oath be taken 'before taking their seat' — is unchanged, so the procedural moment of swearing-in remains, but officials must accept the alternative wording at that moment.
An interpretive provision declares this amendment part of the consolidated Constitution Acts, 1867–1982, ensuring the change is incorporated in authoritative compilations and citations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates a statutory option to take an Oath of Office
This provision renumbers the existing provision as subsection 128(1) and adds a new subsection (2) that permits members to take and subscribe the newly drafted Oath of Office in place of the Oath of Allegiance, or to take both. Practically, the addition makes the Oath of Office a constitutional-level, statutory option rather than a convention or internal practice; parliamentary officers will need to accept either text as valid for swearing-in and to update their oath forms and records accordingly.
Provides the exact wording of the new Oath of Office
This section inserts a one-sentence Oath of Office into the Fifth Schedule that binds the member to faithfully execute the powers and trusts of their office. Because it is placed in the schedule, the text becomes the authoritative wording used for both English and French versions and for official documentation. Clerks must therefore reproduce the wording exactly when administering oaths and storing signed copies.
Integrates the amendment into the printed Constitution Acts
The interpretive clause directs that references to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 be read to include this Act. That is primarily a housekeeping move to ensure the amendment appears in consolidated statutory collections and citations; it does not itself change substantive law but does affect how the amendment is incorporated into official publications and legal references.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Members of Parliament and Senators who object to swearing loyalty to the monarch: they gain a formal, constitutional alternative that lets them be sworn in without using the traditional allegiance wording.
- Clerks of the House and Senate and procedural staff: while the change imposes short-term work, it clarifies the permissible oath texts and removes uncertainty about whether an alternative pledge will be accepted at swearing-in.
- Parliamentary counsel and constitutional lawyers: the amendment creates clear text to analyze and argue from, opening new advisory and litigation work on interpretive questions about the sufficiency of the Oath of Office in other contexts.
Who Bears the Cost
- House and Senate administrations: they must update forms, procedures, bilingual texts, website content and record-keeping systems to reflect an additional, constitutionally authorized oath.
- Departments and offices that rely on oath-driven validations (e.g., security clearances, certain registry filings): they will need to decide how to treat the alternative oath operationally and may need to update internal policies.
- Courts and litigants (potentially): ambiguous downstream questions about whether the Oath of Office alone meets other legal requirements could generate litigation and associated public costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances individual members' conscience and representational choices against the Constitution's longstanding symbolic tie to the Crown: it solves the immediate problem of offering a non-allegiance option, but it raises the unresolved question of whether symbolic change in oath wording is purely ceremonial or has legal consequences for the validity of acts, offices and duties tied to allegiance.
The amendment is narrowly framed but leaves several practical and legal questions unresolved. It does not say whether a member may change which oath they have taken after being sworn in, nor does it address ministerial oaths or other statutory oaths that reference allegiance; implementing guidance will be needed to clarify whether the Oath of Office satisfies related requirements outside section 128.
The bill also supplies only an English wording in the text inserted into the Fifth Schedule; parliamentary practice will require an authoritative French version, and differences in translation could create interpretive issues.
Another implementation knot is administrative: the law requires clerks to accept the alternative wording at swearing-in, but it does not set out the documentary mechanics for signing, storing or certifying which oath a member took. That gap invites inconsistency across chambers and over time and creates a possible evidentiary issue if a future dispute turns on which oath a member actually swore.
Finally, while the Oath of Allegiance remains unchanged, the new statutory option changes the symbolic landscape of parliamentary legitimacy; courts will eventually have to decide whether certain statutory or constitutional functions implicitly require the traditional allegiance wording, or whether the Oath of Office suffices for all legal purposes.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.