A legal expert is challenging a recent Quebec law that eliminated the compulsory Oath of Allegiance to the King for members of the province’s National Assembly, contending that the provincial government exceeded its constitutional authority. The petition was submitted in Quebec Superior Court in Montreal by the Public Interest Litigation Institute and Lawrence David, a faculty member at the University of Ottawa’s law school. The lawsuit names the Quebec Attorney General as the defendant and the Canadian Attorney General as an interested party.
The legal action targets Quebec’s Bill 4, which was unanimously passed in December 2022, amending the Constitution Act of 1867 to state that Quebec legislators are no longer required to swear allegiance to the monarch. The legislation was introduced by the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) government in response to pressure from the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ) after several PQ members declined to pledge allegiance to King Charles III and were consequently barred from their seats.
The lawsuit contends that Quebec needed consent from the House of Commons, the Senate, and all provincial legislatures to eliminate the mandatory oath. It also asserts that the law violates Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to effective representation, as individuals who refuse the oath are deemed ineligible to serve as an MNA. With the upcoming provincial election set for October 5, the lawsuit argues that any laws passed by a legislative body comprised of members who haven’t pledged allegiance could be invalidated.
Lawrence David, explaining his motivation for the lawsuit, emphasized the importance of adherence to constitutional principles for democratic institutions. Quebec’s Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette’s office stated that it will defend the province’s prerogative to modify its own regulations, citing strong public opposition to the monarchy among Quebecers. The office of the Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General declined to comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada announced its decision to review a case questioning the constitutionality of requiring aspiring lawyers to swear allegiance to the reigning monarch. A court in Alberta ruled in December that such a requirement violates the Constitution and impinges on religious liberties.