Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2024

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you're talking about the risk of providing that information to members of Parliament, then that's a great question that this committee should be seized with. Again, my bill doesn't tackle that issue, because I knew that it's very difficult to suss out the whole level of detail in a private member's bill. However, let's just use two or three specific examples.

We've had two ad hoc committees on the Afghan detainee file and on the Winnipeg labs. Was there any risk? Did any of those parliamentarians who received the appropriate security clearance leak anything to the public they shouldn't have? We've had NSICOP established now since 2017 with the most sensitive information at a much higher level. Has there been a single leak to the public or whatever?

There are consequences, you know, and that's part of going through the process that I'm trying to make everybody understand. When you go through the security clearance process, just by going through the process and applying, you become better educated and more aware of how important it is to protect information that is sensitive or classified in nature.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The crux of my question is this: how far should we go? What are the potential consequences of having access to top secret information?

Right now, in the House of Commons, we are using a lot of information to achieve our ends. To what extent is the need to know legitimate, favourable and beneficial? I fully appreciate that if I'm being targeted by foreign interference activities, I need to know, but do I need to know what's going on elsewhere? That's my question.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Again, my bill doesn't tackle and solve all of that; it just does the first step that allows any parliamentarian to apply for security clearance. As I said, it doesn't guarantee that you're going to pass it, and quite possibly there might be parliamentarians who would fail to get a secret security clearance. Again, it doesn't guarantee that you would get access.

Again, the advantages and the positives of this, as I highlighted in my opening remarks, are that it takes the politicization out of this. Regardless of what political party is in government, it doesn't put the government under a cloud of suspicion from the general public, because now you have members across all parties representing the people who have the clearance.

Should a committee or Parliament determine that they need access to certain things, that's a lot more powerful than any one of us standing up. That won't sway a government, but, when a committee determines that they need it, when Parliament as a whole votes on something, now you have the measures in place. It's not just going willy-nilly to whomever, who has no understanding of how to protect that information. You have gone through the process itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Ms. Mathyssen, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you for bringing this to us today.

I have a lot of questions around who gets it and who doesn't.

On your example of some of the committees, the ad hoc committees that were provided or created by Parliament, in those cases, if parliamentarians had had those security clearances, they would have had better access to the information they needed, but this doesn't guarantee that all members get that clearance. Membership on committees moves consistently. We have things come up. We need to be in our ridings. We get sick. It happens. All of that occurs.

Say you're in a committee where we're dealing with that sensitive information and everybody on the committee has a security clearance, but you're sick that day. You need someone to come in. They don't have the clearance. It halts all committee business, yes? No?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Not at all, because that's the purpose of this. When I was first thinking up this idea, it was, all right, let's mandate that the defence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the public safety committee all have secret security clearance. All right, and then, how much is an appropriate number and how do you control that?

No, my bill actually allows every parliamentarian.... Ideally, after the next federal election, there will be 343 members elected who all will have a secret security clearance, should they choose to apply, because, again, I'm not going to weigh in on your parliamentary privileges. Should they choose to apply, they'll do that. That will give all the political parties, ultimately, that flexibility, because technically their whole caucus, all members of Parliament and all senators, could have a secret security clearance should they apply and should they pass.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

What if they don't pass?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

If they don't pass? That's another great question. That's where, when I talked to bureaucrats about this, they actually said that this is a great idea. I talked to people in PCO and in national security. They said that this is a great idea, but you'll never get political acceptance of this because your political colleagues will be worried that if somebody fails to pass the application and that becomes news, there are going to be political ramifications, but—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

We are all equal members, though: Doesn't that unbalance that equality amongst members? Even if someone chooses not to take that on, for their own choice.... I mean, your own leader chose to not get security clearance. There's a choice in that. How do you balance that out and ensure we're all equal?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I'll clarify just the last part of it. Mr. Poilievre is a former privy councillor, a former minister. He has been cleared, has top secret security clearance—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

He chose not to—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

—and while he was a minister, and he actually renewed every two years under the previous government.

The current government, in 2019..... According to a response I got back, which was signed off on by Mr. Duguid, it's that they changed it in 2019, and now, ministers of the current government, actually, once they've been cleared, never have to get cleared again. They're not reviewed or vetted ever again, so—

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Fine. He chose not to have access to specific information, but if members choose not to have access to specific information through getting or not getting a security clearance, doesn't that take the balance, the fairness and that equality out of all members supposedly being equal?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

It's a great question, but right now, members don't have access to anything, right? The point is, my bill doesn't actually tackle... It's a great discussion that we should have. My bill doesn't even go that far.

My bill just allows you to apply for a security clearance. That's all it does. Then it allows Parliament and committees, going forward, to make those cases to the government of the day to say, “We think we should get access to further information.”

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

It does go that far, in that if members are not allowed, if they are not granted that access, that creates a division in an open way and, as you said, it could even be political. It could be used against them.

If we're talking about the rule of law here, where people have a decision to make on their representative, nothing should interfere in that decision, yet that additional level of security clearance and having access to information that others don't have in those different ways—or not having it—undermines it, does it not?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

It doesn't, because they're just the rules we have in place. If you get access to classified information, there are consequences, under the current Treasury Board rules, if you fail to protect that information, and that's the point. If you fail it, it means that the security apparatuses—law enforcement, CSIS, everybody who's part of that review process—is telling the government, do not grant this member a security clearance because they can't be trusted.

Really, that's what it comes down to, and that's a valid concern. However, that's a privacy thing that should never see the light of day. There are lots of cases that could be made, but again, that's up to an individual's choice as a member, and that's why you can't make it mandatory. As much as some of us would love to see it mandatory and make it.... To do it, you can't grant it to somebody if they can't be trusted, because that's what our professional government officials.... That's their job: It's to protect this stuff. They're not going to give access to information to anybody if they actually haven't...if they're not, you know, considered secure and they're going to properly safeguard classified information in this country.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

But to some degree, doesn't the executive branch already do that between—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

You have just a few seconds remaining here, Mr. Ruff and Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Instead of CSIS doing that, doesn't the executive branch within government sort of do that already? You're saying that you're maybe moving those decision-making factors away—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

No, not at all.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

—or you're disputing—

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

It's not the executive government, really, that makes those decisions when somebody gets a security clearance. Look at what ended up happening with the two ad hoc committees. Each party had to put names forward. People were then passed before they were given clearance or access to any information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks very much, Ms. Mathyssen.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ruff, approximately how many Canadians have applied for a secret security clearance or otherwise have a secret security clearance at the present time? Do you have any statistics on that?