I'd agree with Mr. Cooper on his summary here.
It goes back to the principles around how we protect classified information in this country and this “need to know” principle. As I highlighted in my opening remarks, there are really two tests. The first one is you need to be in a position to have access or a need to know. That's where, as a former member of the Canadian Armed Forces, I was required to apply for a secret security clearance. Once I moved into positions where I required top secret security clearance, I applied and was successful. However, to get to my point, it doesn't mean you have access to stuff; it's by virtue of your position.
In Parliament, cabinet members, privy councillors, parliamentary secretaries and, now, NSICOP members have security clearances, and that's really it. There may be some rare exceptions where a member has successfully made the requirement to the government, but I'm not aware of any. The point is that the government could just deny it at any point by saying, “Guess what? You don't have a need to know.”
The purpose of this bill is to allow that need to know to occur. Again, I can just go back to the two historical examples I highlighted of the Afghan detainee files and the Winnipeg labs. The reason the government wouldn't hand stuff over to the relevant committees that were studying it at the time was the first response: You don't have a security clearance.