Daily BrewValue of Canada’s citizenship oath to the Queen: monarchists and republicans disagree
Every new Canadian is required to pledge an oath of citizenship in which they swear allegiance to the Queen, and through her, Canada. But, in a debate that seems to flare every couple of years, one MP says it is time to cut out the middle man, er, middle woman.
The Ottawa Citizen reports that NDP MP Pat Martin introduced a motion on Wednesday that would amend the citizenship ceremony so that new Canadians swear their oath to the country, rather than the 86-year-old head of the British monarchy.
“It’s just so fundamentally wrong. These people are from all over the world — Paraguay and the Congo and the Philippines and Vietnam. Why are they swearing loyalty to some colonial vestigial appendage from the House of Windsor? It’s bizarre really,” Martin said, according to Postmedia News.
“I honestly do believe that the time has come to thank her majesty for her 60 years of services and use the transition between monarchs… to revisit the issue.”
Here is the oath taken during the citizenship ceremony:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Seems straightforward enough, gets all the good stuff in there and ensures everyone is cool with joining a country that answers to the Queen. But where in the oath does the person swear allegiance directly to Canada? That is Martin’s complaint, anyway.
[ Related: Harper slams Trudeau for comments on Boston bombings ]
The Monarchist League of Canada, a group that champions our ties to the Queen, said Martin has a habit of flying off on ill-conceived tangents. He has made overtures to abolish the monarchy in the past.
Keith Roy, vice-chair of Western Canada, told Yahoo! Canada News:
Pat Martin is a well known emotional republican who often speaks before thinking. He obviously misunderstands the role of the Queen. She embodies our unique Canadian sovereignty and represents a form of government that has given Canada the greatest freedoms and highest quality of life in the world. An oath to the Queen, is an oath to Canada.
For clarity, Martin’s bill is only seeking to have the Queen removed from the oath, not end Canada’s ties to the monarchy entirely. But he is certainly open to that. The topic was discussed at the NDP’s national convention last weekend and has his support.
[ More Brew: New 'Welcome to Canada' guide emphasizes monarchy ]
Marin’s stance runs in line with those of the Citizens for a Canadian Republic, an organization which believes it is time to separate Canada from the monarchy. Specifically, they say it is time for a democratically-elected head of state.
“The oath is a remnant of feudal times when one group of people would force a conquered group to recognize and bow to their new master. That is how it made its way to Canada as well,” Edmonton representative Pierre Vincent told Yahoo! News.
“Continuing to impose this oath violates constitutionally protected freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion.”
So the pro-Queen-reference side says the oath represents a history that has made Canada great, and the anti-Queen-reference side says it honours a flawed feudal system we can do without.
Marin, meantime, told Postmedia News, he was just happy NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair didn’t stand in the way of his motion – a dig at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s penchant for keeping Conservative party members in line.
That penchant means Martin’s motion is likely to fail. The Conservatives have taken a pro-Monarchist stance lately. One doubts Tory MPs will buck that when the motion makes it to the House of Commons.
