Thank you very much.
Through the chair, I'm not sure that I would go and criticize Mr. Wark for his opinion. Obviously, that's his opinion.
I would say that what he's getting at, if I were to interpret his remarks, is the issue around safeguards. In fact, Parliament has discussed safeguards in the context of NSICOP before. You'll recall, Mr. Ruff, that you went through a clearance, which is what we're discussing here.
There is more to security in the Government of Canada than just a clearance, as you well know. If you look at NSICOP, for example, every member there is permanently bound to secrecy. They have given up their parliamentary privilege. In fact, if they divulge something in Parliament, that information can be used against them in a court of law. They've taken an oath.
The other thing I would emphasize, though, is that Parliament allowed the Governor General to pass regulations. Those regulations set in place all the very safeguards that I think Ms. Giles covered very well. That is around who can do what, when they can share the information, how they can process it and what they need to use. All of those safeguards are what I think make up—and I hate this word—the ecosystem of security in the Government of Canada, of which security clearance is one part.
I'm not sure I'd agree that it's fatal. We already give clearances in certain circumstances to MPs. The NML issue is one and NSICOP is another. I think that all of those were buttressed with the safeguards that we're talking about.