Public Safety Committee on Dec. 6th, 2016

Evidence of meeting #48 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Bill C-22

MPs speaking

Nathaniel Erskine-Smith

Nicola Di Iorio

Also speaking

Nancy Miles Senior Legal Counsel, Privy Council Office

Allen Sutherland Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

Heather Sheehy Director of Operations, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office

John Davies Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Ms. Watts, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

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....

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

December 6th, 2016 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

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?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

To your point, Chair—

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Yes.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Dubé, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

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.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Ms. Damoff, go ahead.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

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.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Mr. Clement, go ahead.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

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.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

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?

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

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?

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant

Shall the title carry?

4:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

4:50 p.m.