Evidence of meeting #127 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
They can. I know mine happened very quickly, but in talking to previous members of that committee, for some of them it took months.
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
Let me put it this way: The clearance can happen very quickly.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It can happen quickly if it's a priority, but it is one step in the negotiation.
Let's go back to the Winnipeg lab. What safeguards did the government put in place for those eight members of that ad hoc committee?
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
For those eight members, only four of whom were actually allowed to attend at a single time, the safeguard was an oath, and the oath essentially replicated what you have seen at NSICOP.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Is there anything classified about the oath itself?
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
No, the oath that you have taken as a member of NSICOP is online, I believe, but in any event it's not classified, no.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It's the exact same oath that the members of NSICOP have taken.
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
I believe it is.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
All right.
There was nothing preventing the government from putting in that safeguard and telling those members that if they wanted access to those classified documents, they had to swear an oath.
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
There is nothing preventing that.
I think it is important to note, however, that those members never waived their parliamentary privilege.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
That's an excellent point. In fact, I think that's a very valid point that may come up as part of a future discussion, or maybe another amendment.
Again, I'm not talking about parliamentary privilege, because the amendment and the subamendment don't actually talk about parliamentary privilege; they just talk about a process. The process that's laid out in the amendment and the subamendment, again, is more of a statement of what they should or shouldn't do, but ultimately this process.... The government, if it chose today.... Let's pretend my bill never got debated and wasn't part of the discussion here today, but a committee or a group of parliamentarians.... Let's just pick somebody. Let's just say that, before I was put on NSICOP as a member with top secret security clearance, when I got elected, I had asked to see, based on my background, the daily intelligence brief that is produced by the Canadian Forces at the Canadian joint operations command. I want to see that document every day; I want to know.
Would the government likely grant me access to that document just because I had a top secret security clearance?
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
I can't speculate. If the minister of defence wanted to grant you access like that, he or she could do that.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Now, again, I'm a bad example because I had top secret clearance and there are different.... For the members sitting here, when you do get a TS, there are additional safeguards and protections that are put in at that level. But at the secret level, let's pretend the minister gave that approval and said, you know what, Ruff, you're allowed to see this. What would be the safeguards?
If you're not the right person, we'd better have the DM of defence here, as the department responsible.
Let's park the defence; let's look at law enforcement, the RCMP. Let's say Mr. Calkins is being targeted by foreign interference. He has a secret security clearance. He has applied and he has it. It's hypothetical. CSIS might want to jump in and answer this. If he had a secret security clearance, would you be able to brief him at a much higher level of specificity and detail?
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
Do you mind if I quickly respond?
I think it's really important as a factual matter to note that all of the security clearances we give under TBS were purpose-built for the public service, so there are plenty of safeguards in place, but there is no safeguard equivalent to your immunity under parliamentary privilege.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
That's fine for sharing of information. I'm not questioning it.
What's the safeguard for exempt staff, subsection 128(1) of the PSEA?
Executive Director, Policy on Government Security, Treasury Board Secretariat
With any kind of security policy framework, part of the strength of that policy framework is monitoring compliance and enforcing it. For an exempt staff member of a minister's office, if they are chosen as a candidate for that job, before they are offered the position they must pass the security clearance process. If they perform any action or there is any reason to believe they should not continue to hold a security clearance, they could lose their job. They could lose their employment, and they could suffer other consequences, legal consequences, as a result of that. They do not enjoy parliamentary privilege.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Yes, I don't question that.
Do exempt staff swear an oath?
Executive Director, Policy on Government Security, Treasury Board Secretariat
Exempt staff do not swear an oath.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
The exempt staff, the interns, do not swear an oath to get a secret security clearance.
If my previous amendment had passed, which would have made the process for applying for security clearance applicable under the PSEA subsection 128(1), what would the consequences be for a parliamentarian who improperly disclosed any information? Would the recommendation be back to strip them of that secret security clearance? Would they lose it?
Executive Director, Policy on Government Security, Treasury Board Secretariat
It's very difficult to speculate. If a parliamentarian released classified information in the House of Commons and claimed parliamentary privilege on it, my understanding is that they are not subject to any kind of legal or civil liability as a result of that. Could their clearance be revoked? It certainly could be, but that would be the only impact.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
That's my point.
Right now, when we put.... We've had that case. Let's go back to the Winnipeg lab. Those members of Parliament who were part of that committee swore an oath—the safeguard that was put in place by the government—got access to classified information, and did not waive their parliamentary privilege. Have they leaked any of that information publicly?
Director General and Chief Security Officer, Privy Council Office
To the best of my knowledge, they have not done that, but you can't change parliamentary privilege through an MOU.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I understand.
That is all great. My point is that it's a decision that the current government—just looking at the most recent example—has already decided to put in place as a process. They swear an oath, and the government accepts the risk that a parliamentarian could stand up and disclose that information. The government decided that it was in the best interest of the Canadian public, of our country, to share that information, to allow people to apply to get a security clearance to get access to that information. They accepted that risk.
My bill does not stop the government from doing that or even doing more. They could ask any parliamentarian, as a condition.... Just because they have a security clearance.... If they want access to anything, they have to follow the following safeguards.
Again, I am not opposed to safeguards. What I am opposed to is an amendment to a bill that doesn't.... We didn't hear testimony. We didn't debate that. We didn't bring it forward. I didn't bring it forward as part of a thing to tackle because that, to me, is something that is worthy of a legitimate in-depth debate and discussion in the House of Commons, to allow all 300-plus members who don't have the privilege of sitting on this committee and having this debate right now, and the 100-plus senators, to actually debate that.
To be fair, the senators will eventually see this, regardless, if it goes through in whatever form, and then they'll have a chance to study it properly. For those of us who have gone through second reading, where I was limited to two hours of debate, the only person who had to answer questions was the sponsor of the bill. Everybody else had spoken to it. I sat there, and the government put up a parliamentary secretary who spoke for 10 minutes on a bill he hadn't even read before he spoke to it. If you listen to my reply, I called him out on it.
Conservative
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
No, it wasn't you. It was the MP who speaks 10 times more than any other parliamentarian in the House of Commons. He was caught on it a couple of days later because he made the mistake of being honest with me.
My point is that this amendment and subamendment.... Not that I am opposed to safeguards. I am 100%.... In fact, my opinion may be much more draconian than those of a number of the members around this table, and even the officials sitting here, on what the necessary safeguards would be and what the potential punishment should be if somebody discloses information that compromises our capabilities, our techniques or our sources. I have zero time for that.
The point is, that is worthy and it's important that the discussion and debate are done in a proper, wholehearted manner, right up front. What the legislation and the intent behind the legislation that has been put forward.... In fact, I would argue that it should not be a private member's bill to figure out what is the best way to protect classified information that may or may not be shared with parliamentarians. That is worthy of a government bill that could come forward and lay out the intent, why they're doing it and what the concerns are.
I would argue that we have a great example with foreign interference in this country, where people with the highest security clearance have leaked information. They have the consequence of going to jail for decades should they get caught, and it didn't stop people from leaking information.
I am all about the safeguards, but that needs to be discussed and debated in a wholehearted manner in the House, at a committee with all the people who actually have the time and effort to consider the implications of parliamentary privilege.
Let's look at parliamentary privilege. For NSICOP, we waive it. As an individual, I have no issues. I signed that in two seconds. I don't need parliamentary privilege, ever. It doesn't bother me in the least. I will stand by my word, whether I say it in the House or out on the street, and I will willingly accept the consequences and the accountability for anything I say. If I say it here, I'll walk out and say it on the street. I have no issues with that. That's who I am.
The issue is that this is being challenged. I'm not a lawyer here. I think they were seeking leave at the Supreme Court just yesterday or the day before, challenging it and saying that Parliament and the NSICOP Act should not be able to take away parliamentary privilege. This is a huge issue. If they are questioning that for NSICOP, where members are cleared to the highest levels and have access to information that a lot of the cabinet doesn't have access to, then I think it's worthy of a proper debate and analysis with the appropriate people at all levels before we try to go down this path.
I'll shut up for now. I know some of my other colleagues have other points that they want to make.
Ultimately, I would just ask my colleagues in this committee to consider this: Do they think parliamentarians have the same rights as a summer intern to apply for security clearance?
Second, if we're going to do that and allow them to apply, before you give them access to anything, a proper debate on safeguards should occur, in a properly non-time-constrained aspect, to make sure we are not interfering in a parliamentarian's ability to represent their constituents and do their job. They need to understand up front what compromises, weaknesses or risks they are putting forth by our passing this amendment and subamendment, which, again, go way beyond the scope—I know I lost that argument, Chair—of what the intent of my bill is.
I'll leave my remarks at that for now, Chair.