Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2024

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

A document with a secret classification.

To Mr. Jorgensen's point, and going back to other procedures in place for other parliamentary committees, if there is a requirement for a parliamentarian to see a specific piece of information, and if the need to know has been established, a conversation would ensue about how the documents will be provided and the best mechanism to provide them.

One of the things we're also very concerned about is how the information is protected once it's received.

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

I do not have a lot of time, but I want to be certain. Take the example of David Johnston's report. If it had been very useful to get access to that report, I could have requested the security clearance needed for getting access given that my position required it.

Is this what it means?

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

We certainly would not want to be involved in how parliamentary committees request information and how that information is provided. We work in collaboration with Parliament and the Privy Council.

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

In fact, what I am seeing right now is that there is a major obstacle. Sometimes there is a Liberal government and sometimes there is a Conservative government. The important thing, however, is for us to get disclosure of the information we need in order to do our job properly.

Bill C‑377, which we are currently considering, is one way of circumventing that obstacle, or finding another way to get access to information that may be declassified when a committee requests it in order to avoid having to raise questions of privilege in Parliament week after week.

So I want to know whether this bill has enough teeth and whether it is going to enable us to move forward. Ultimately, if the right to know is within the purview of Parliament rather than the government of the day, we are talking about something completely different.

Do you agree with me?

[Sean Jorgensen]

You've heard a lot about the need to know today, so I won't go through that again.

I think the issue you're getting at is this: If a member of Parliament has a clearance, does it allow the government to provide the information being requested more quickly? The answer to that would be yes, it would.

The determination of the need to know, though, still rests with the government of the day, but that's not what the bill says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Ms. Gaudreau. Unfortunately, your time is up.

Do you need a clarification?

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

That will work. I have enough information to interpret it all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Okay.

Next we have Ms. Mathyssen for two and a half minutes.

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

I'll carry things forward in terms of the checks and balances that are there, or not there, in this bill, and where we're left.

When someone gets a security clearance, there must be some sort of training or education they undergo. That isn't necessarily provided within this legislation. Is it possible to ensure that members of Parliament understand their obligations, and the difference between evidence and intelligence? How would you prescribe that for members of Parliament, specifically within our rules? I know it depends on the actual information that may come later, but I mean in general.

[Sean Jorgensen]

That's a great question.

If this is going to be the way we currently use it under the TBS guidelines, you'll get your secret clearance, and then you'll get a briefing on how to handle that information.

The other thing I would point out to you is this: There's an obligation, thereafter, for the CSO—the person who gave you that clearance—to monitor your compliance with the obligations you have under the SOIA, for example. Those are things this committee will want to think about, because that is part and parcel of it. When we give a clearance, we want to make sure people who have it are abiding by their obligations. It can be a cause for revocation.

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

Would that happen every year?

[Sean Jorgensen]

It's an ongoing obligation of the individual who has the clearance and of me and other CSOs like me to continue to monitor their compliance with the regulations.

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

That's the only question I had.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thanks, Ms. Mathyssen.

We're going to end with just two and a half minutes each remaining.

Mr. Ruff, that's two and a half minutes for you, and you're followed by Mr. Turnbull.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for coming here today.

I just want to make it crystal clear to everybody here that this bill does only the first step, which allows parliamentarians to apply for a clearance. There's nothing in this bill, the way it's currently written, that would allow access to any information. It just allows the ability to apply.

Is that clear to all the witnesses?

[Sean Jorgensen]

Your comments are clear. As we read it, we have concerns about the ambiguity of parts of the bill.

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

That's great. If we added a line or something to the clause that states, “This bill is only for the application for a secret security clearance that would then follow current Treasury Board guidelines,” would something like that reassure the officials?

[Sean Jorgensen]

The point I would make, again, Mr. Ruff, is that we see in other legislation that has been passed by Parliament the safeguards and the follow-up that would give this table more assurances that Parliament has done this before.

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

Parliament has done this before with the NML situation and the Afghan detainee files. My bill does not address giving anybody any information. It only addresses the application for a secret security clearance. What I'm getting at is that I want to get rid of this ambiguity or get rid of this concern, because I'm only tackling that first step. These are legitimate concerns. I think the government of the day and all of you as officials would then ensure that the appropriate procedures and processes are put in place to protect this information after the fact.

I just want to get to the point for parliamentarians, as Mr. Duncan laid out, that there are so many people who work in certain positions—including, I would argue, parliamentarians, with the threat environment that we face now—that we should be elevating our game when it comes to national security and intelligence and doing better. The only way to do that is actually to see a bit behind the curtain, but the first step is to apply for security clearance. I'm just looking for that assistance to reassure you, because as somebody who has been in this world forever, I do not want to put any of our national security and intelligence assets at risk.

[Dr. Nicole Giles]

I think an observation you've heard from the panel of witnesses is that there may be an opportunity to clarify some of the vocabulary, and separating the concept of applying for the security clearance from the concept of need to know might give an opportunity to clarify some of the language surrounding that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ruff.

Mr. Turnbull, you have two and a half minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Jorgensen, is the ambiguity you just referred to the same as what Ms. Giles just mentioned, which is what is deemed “need to know” in the actual language of this bill? Is that the ambiguity you were referring to, or was there another one?

[Sean Jorgensen]

It is in part, sir. I think we've raised a number of questions of, for example, whether this standard you're talking about is the public service standard, because if it is, then that reduces the ambiguity quite a lot. There's ambiguity about the safeguards and ambiguity about the implementation afterwards.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

You mentioned before that members of Parliament who have been given access to information have had to take an oath, and they've waived their immunity and privilege in other cases. Are you concerned that this bill gives them access to information but does not have them waive their privilege and immunity, which, for example, in my mind, increases that onward exposure risk?

[Sean Jorgensen]

Parliamentary privilege is an important question for this committee to deliberate further on.