Evidence of meeting #126 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
We have two examples.
Are you aware of any instance in which members of those two select committees used their privilege to publicize what otherwise would be classified information?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's in reference to those two...?
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's in reference to those two committees in which those members did not waive privilege.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
No, I'm not aware of any incident.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I think it goes without saying that if a member of Parliament did so, in some extraordinary circumstance, there would be repercussions, including political repercussions, for doing so—if they in any way breached national security or other issues. However, we have two examples.
I find it passing strange that there are 250,000 people who have been granted a secret security clearance. Members of Parliament seem to not trust members of Parliament to be granted access to such clearance, but 250,000 people, including every ministerial staffer, have such a clearance.
Going to the language of the bill, there was a question perhaps about an ambiguity. You noted that there are two steps to receiving information that is classified as secret. First is to get oneself in the door for the purpose of applying and being granted a clearance. The second step would be actually getting information that is protected as secret. It is at the disposal of the government in terms of making the determination as to whether that person who has the clearance is granted access.
For the purpose of applying for a clearance, to get through that first step, one must have some need to know.
Is that correct?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I will say that generally that is correct, but in the intelligence or information world, the need-to-know principle or terminology is used in the second step of the process. That's why I was referring earlier to some confusion.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
At both stages, there's a need to know. There's a need to know, to get one's foot in the door. I mean, not anyone on the street could just apply for a secret security clearance by virtue of being a ministerial staffer, a minister or an officer in the Canadian Armed Forces. Those would be bases upon which there would be, at the outset, a need to know. Then, when it comes to the information that someone might obtain, there would be a whole second analysis done as to whether they needed to know that particular classified information.
Is that correct?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That's generally correct, but if I may clarify, the need-to-know principle or test will apply in relation to specific information in the two-step process that I described earlier.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
If you look at the language in the bill, it says, “for the purposes of the consideration of their application...of which the application is made.”
It's very clear that it's in reference to the application.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
There are different ways to say the same thing. I think the intention behind the bill is very clear. Mr. Ruff, in his speech before the committee and in his speech in the chamber, made it very clear.
Now, I understand—and there was a question asked along this line—that there could be some questions raised about the language. I'm just saying that if the committee feels that should be clarified, then my office is available to prepare the appropriate motion and amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ben Carr
Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Turnbull, the floor is yours for five minutes.
October 3rd, 2024 / 11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Mr. Bédard.
You've said here today that there are some statutory rights to information that MPs have. I think you've also said that MPs do not have a right to classified information. Otherwise, there would be no reason to get a security clearance.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Just the status of being a member does not give them access to classified information.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Currently, who decides whether a member of Parliament can apply for a secret-level security clearance?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
The process is a government process. It's the government that will decide if it's required for specific members of Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
This bill essentially allows all members of Parliament to access an application, essentially to deem themselves, rather than having the government deem.... I'm not going to say they have a need to know, but they have a right to apply.
Now it's not a government decision; it becomes an individual MP's decision. Is that not correct? Is that the implication of this bill?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It becomes a member's decision to apply, and because of the proposed provision, the government will not be able to say they do not need this access to classified information in their functions.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
My understanding is that those applications are not processed currently.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I've got that. I think that's helpful.
Essentially, all 338 members of Parliament could deem themselves as having a right to apply, and could apply, for a secret-level security clearance, but then the government, in the second step, may deem them as not needing to know in many of those circumstances.
Is that correct? Is that a possibility?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It is a possibility, except you jumped a step. If they apply, first there's the screening process. They need to receive the appropriate clearance, whether secret or—