Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2016

[Nicola Di Iorio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, my comment was in no way directed at Her Majesty the Queen. It is simply that legal requirements and considerations around prosecution come into play when an oath is broken. The current wording seems to me to be the most appropriate, given the serious legal ramifications associated with breaking the oath. I would therefore keep it as is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Watts, go ahead.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

When we were sworn in as parliamentarians, we all took an oath that had the language around the Queen, and we took an oath to be parliamentarians for the House of Commons. Perhaps we should look at the language embedded in there. I am not sure what the exact language would be, but we all took the oath, so it might be....

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I would like to add a commentary to Mr. Di Iorio's commentary and say that I know of no legal consequences that are deleterious to the intent of this bill to which he refers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Okay, I have a question, if I may, as the chair.

Would the oath that the parliamentarians take when they are sworn into Parliament, either the House of Commons or the Senate, still stand as an oath that would apply? This would be a further oath to the original oath.

“Her Majesty” would have already been in that oath. Am I correct on that?

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes, here is the oath of allegiance right here. I'll pass it along, because it's too long to read, but it is reflective of the Queen, the sovereign.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

To your point, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

It was really a question.

I will read it for the record, if you'd like: “The Act states: 'Every Member of the...House of Commons'”—and I assume the Senate would have something similar —“'shall before taking his [or her] Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him [or her]...the Oath of Allegiance'”, which is “I...do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second”, or a similar oath.

They would have taken that oath.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Yes.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

My point is that, since they have taken that oath, if that oath is all that is needed, then there is no need for this oath. If there is a need for this oath, then it should be in the same form and style as our oath as parliamentarians, and in the normal course.... I swore the same oath as a cabinet minister, and I am still bound by that, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would actually disagree with that. There is a need for this oath, because it relates specifically to the mandate of the committee, as well as the confidentiality of the information obtained by the members thereof.

I will be opposing the motion, with all due respect to Her Majesty, simply because I feel that it is redundant. We have sworn one oath, and this is complementary to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I agree with Mr. Dubé.

We have sworn an oath to Her Majesty, and this is supplemental to that. I am hesitant to start playing with oaths that have been drafted as part of this bill. We have sworn an oath to Her Majesty, and I am confident that we will continue to be loyal to Her Majesty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Mr. Clement, go ahead.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I disagree with the honourable member on a couple of points.

First of all, this deference to the drafters.... We are drafters. We are lawmakers; that's what we do. Drafters can advise us, but we are the lawmakers, so it's our say and there is no reason why we have to defer to them on our adherence to the monarch of Canada.

Second, I would say to you that if that is the logic, that we have already sworn an oath to the monarch.... We have already sworn an oath to Canada, too, and yet the oath to Canada is there. I think that, in order to be consistent, we should swear an oath both to Canada and its people, and to the monarch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Seeing no more discussion, I am going to call the question on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived)

Shall the schedule carry, as is?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Now we move to the short title, which is clause 1: “This Act may be cited as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act.”

Shall the short title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote on this, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You'd like a recorded vote? Absolutely.

(Bill C-22 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?