A discreet announcement was made last November 2024, when the Court of Quebec issued instruction allowing members of First Nations and Inuit communities to use an eagle feather when making sworn declarations and oaths in said Court proceedings.
In 2019, the sacred eagle feather was officially recognized as a valid form of oath in all courts across Manitoba. Then, in 2020, the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island launched the “Eagle Feather Initiative,” allowing individuals to use the feather in the same way as a Bible when swearing an oath or making an affirmation. Those choosing the eagle feather for their testimony may hold it while affirming to tell the truth, or when providing an affidavit, sworn statement, or statutory declaration. Each courthouse in PEI reportedly has an eagle feather available for courtroom use. In 2022, Justice Michelle O’Bonsawin took her oath of office as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada holding an eagle feather in her hand.
Following this, with this recent announcement by the Chief Judge of the Court of Quebec, their judges, substitute judges, and justices of the peace are now encouraged to accept the use of the eagle feather during oaths and testimonies given by First Nations and Inuit. This recommendation is part of a broader movement toward reconciliation.
Indeed, over the past 50 years, various commissions of inquiry have highlighted the need to begin a genuine process of reconciliation with First Nations and Inuit, particularly following the systemic discrimination revealed by the Viens Commission. In its Calls to Action, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008–2015) recommended measures to ensure Indigenous cultural safety and the Indigenization of public institutions, including the integration of Indigenous objects and practices—especially within the justice system.
In response, the Canadian justice system has increasingly incorporated culturally appropriate practices for Indigenous peoples into its procedures. It is in this context that the eagle feather may be used for sworn declarations or testimonies, serving as a way “to acknowledge and integrate First Nations and Inuit cultures into the conventional judicial system and to promote respect for Indigenous culture.”
In several provinces and territories, Indigenous individuals appearing in criminal court—whether as accused, witnesses, or victims—can already take an oath while holding an eagle feather instead of placing their hand on the Bible. Another example, according to the Society of Advocates, Indigenous Bar Association, and Law Society of Ontario, is the fact that since 2018 Indigenous persons have been able to request that an eagle feather be present in the courtroom to help others show courage and speak truthfully. Similarly, several detachments of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) have become custodians of eagle feathers, providing victims, witnesses, suspects, and police officers with “a spiritually meaningful option on which they can take legal oaths or hold for comfort” (RCMP, 2021).
All these reconciliation initiatives emphasize the respectful and ethical use of the sacred eagle feather. In the case of the Court of Quebec’s announcement, it is specified that it remains the responsibility of the individual wishing to swear an oath on the feather to bring it on the day of the hearing to the Court of Quebec and to request permission from the presiding judge. If the judge refuses, the decision must be justified. The solemn affirmation remains mandatory but may be accompanied by an eagle feather if a First Nations or Inuit person so wishes. The use of this procedure in no way diminishes the obligation to comply with all established rules for a solemn affirmation, as it is an additional element and not a substitute.
Yet, what are the rules for a solemn affirmation, and what are the consequences of non-compliance, as offences against the administration of law and justice?
Testimonies are an important aspect of any court processing, as this is how during a trial the judge must assess the credibility of the parties and of the witnesses, the consistency of their statements, and the relevance of the facts presented. Testimonies are usually decisive in the judge’s final decision. Testimonies will be made under an oath, by swearing or by solemn affirmation. In accordance with the regulation of the Court of Quebec, the administration of the oath or solemn affirmation is carried out by the court clerk in the presence of the judge.
Deponents and witnesses are sworn in before testifying, meaning they must promise to tell the truth. When making statements under oath, whether in a written declaration or testimony before the court, it is essential to stick only to what you personally know to fulfill your responsibility to tell the truth. It is always important to tell the truth, but this principle takes on particular significance within the judicial system. When a person takes an oath or solemn affirmation to tell the truth and fails to uphold that promise, the consequences can be quite serious.
This is referred to and under certain conditions in the Criminal Code as perjury, a serious offense that can have severe repercussions for the individual who commits it. Perjury is a legal term that refers to the act of making false statements, lying, or providing misleading information while under oath (by swearing or by solemnly affirming to tell the truth) or when taking an oath in a judicial or legal context. The maximum sentence for perjury is 14 years of imprisonment. The offence of perjury is considered undermining the integrity of the judicial system and compromising the search for truth in legal proceedings. For example, perjury can distort the outcome of a trial, influence court decisions, and hinder the administration of justice. Courts take this offence seriously to protect the integrity of the judicial system and to deter dishonest behaviour. The length of the sentence for a person found guilty of perjury will vary depending on several factors, including the severity of the perjury and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence. When determining the sentence, the court may consider the harm caused by the perjury, whether to the parties involved in the trial or to the court itself.
In addition to potential criminal penalties, an individual who lies under oath may also be found guilty of contempt of court. This additional charge can lead to other types of penalties, such as fines or an additional prison sentence.
Possible defenses may be available to counter perjury charges —such as a good faith mistake, lack of intent to lie, or lack of materiality. It is essential to consult an experienced criminal law attorney for competent legal advice and representation.
Legal Tips aim at explaining to the Nunavik Inuit clientele in a general and broad manner some elements of the law applicable in Quebec and are not legal opinions nor legal advice which can be obtained by contacting private practitioners (lawyer or notary).
