Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to colleagues and to the witnesses helping us out with this thorough clause-by-clause.

I'll build on what Mr. Calkins said.

I want to start by saying this: Through all of this, including the amendment he proposed, which we passed a few minutes ago, Mr. Ruff has made a very concerted effort to narrowly target the issue at hand here. I think, for example, that the amendment that he proposed and we passed further clarifies what this is. It goes back to the right of parliamentarians to apply—end of story. The amendment and subamendment here are getting into secondary and later phases that are not affected. It does not jeopardize our national security, intelligence or classified documents in any way.

As Mr. Ruff asked our witnesses again this morning to confirm, and what Dr. Giles said in testimony to us on Thursday.... I'll read what was said on Thursday and reiterate it again here this morning:

A security clearance is sometimes misunderstood or portrayed as a special designation, a set of privileges or an earned qualification like a rank.... Since clearance holders work in every part of government, a security clearance does not automatically grant the holder access to all information or assets at that level of clearance.

We've gone on to have many conversations or debates about the need for safeguards, which I don't deny. I'm not denying we need to have safeguards. There's no discussion or debate on that. However, what Mr. Ruff has put a concerted effort into doing is narrowly dealing with the right of parliamentarians to apply for a clearance. This does not automatically mean that a parliamentarian gets one. They still have to go through the process like everyone else. It further clarifies that it does not mean that once.... For example, if I were to apply and be granted this, I can't suddenly walk up to any of you and say, “I'd like to see the following 15 documents on X, Y and Z.” The safeguard already exists for any of the quarter million clearances that were applied for in the last decade. If you're a staff member for a minister in the public service, being given that clearance does not give you, as Dr. Giles said the other day, a right to go on from there.

When we talk about the subamendment and amendment being proposed, and our argument about scale and it being out of scope, it is Mr. Ruff's intention of how we're doing this, because, at the end of the day, that safeguard is there. Anybody who gets the clearance does not automatically get.... The point Mr. Calkins raised, which has been raised a few times in discussions of Bill C-377, is that if a parliamentarian receives it, it's there. They are more turnkey-ready should a committee or an individual parliamentarian.... For example, if they are a victim of foreign interference, they are more turnkey-ready and prepared. At that time, as we saw with the Winnipeg lab and the Afghan detainee documents going back a few Parliaments now, a lot of the details are negotiated at that point in the discussion. We say, “This committee, special committee or whatever it may be, needs to see X, Y and Z.” Those can be negotiated or discussed as part of a disclosure to parliamentarians in a certain setting at that time. That's been done in the past. That is a safeguard at the time when the decisions are made.

I'll go back to make the same argument again, one we've repeated. Mr. Ruff has done a very good job of clarifying, umpteen times—I have lost track—this legislation and what he's proposed in good faith through an amendment. We've seen other efforts he's made and will be making again for the right of a parliamentarian to apply. Right now, if I were to put in an application, I would be rejected. This is just the right to apply to get the clearance. That's the end of the story. It does not entitle me or any parliamentarian to extra information or any other right going from there. What it can do is get more people at that level prepared to receive it, in the event we need it.

I think part of the effort and the reason for the continued expressed intent from Mr. Ruff is that if more members can get up to that level on various committees, as they choose, with the right to apply and to have that, I think, from a national security perspective, in the important roles we have in passing the budgets that you all work under and in passing the legislation that you interpret and operate in, it gives that opportunity, down the road, should the need or the circumstance arise, to have this clearance, to have it prepared and to be ready for it. I think that is essential.

The subamendment and the amendment that are proposed here, I will say again, are above and beyond the scope of Mr. Ruff's bill and his intentions. He's made that very clear. It is not to say that safeguards should not exist. The argument is that they do exist already because, again, when someone applies for and passes a security clearance, it does not automatically mean they're granted access to a single document because of that aspect.

I'll leave my comments there and will continue to encourage my colleagues to reject this subamendment and amendment. Let's get back to the scope and the level that Mr. Ruff is dealing with. It is very reasonable. It is very narrow and targeted for a specific reason. I think we could have a very good piece of legislation that does not jeopardize any safeguards that are there. They can use the existing ones that are in place now for the circumstance.

I'll leave it at that, for now, for my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Cooper, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While I fully respect your ruling on the scope of the amendment, at least that it is within scope on a technical basis, this really does add a whole new layer to what is a two-sentence, one-clause bill.

I think it is important that we understand what the purpose and effect of the bill put forward by my colleague Mr. Ruff would be, because it seems, with the greatest respect to some of my colleagues here in this committee, that it has been lost on some members. It's not to say that the concerns about protecting classified information and around national security that they raised are illegitimate—they are legitimate—but they have, really, nothing to do with the purpose and effect of this bill if it were to come into law. To that end, I underscore that this two-sentence, one-clause bill would amend the Parliament of Canada Act so that every member of Parliament and senator can apply for a secret-level security clearance—nothing more, nothing less. That's it.

It doesn't in any way provide that, upon making an application, the member would therefore receive a security clearance. That would be left to the government. The bill doesn't change that. In the event that the member receives the secret security clearance, it wouldn't provide that they would be entitled to access any information. That would be left, again, in the government's control. There are protocols in place around sharing such information with persons who have a secret security clearance, and information is shared to persons who have such a designation on the basis of a need to know. The bill doesn't impact that. It simply provides that a member can get their foot in the door with respect to the application process.

The reason there is a need for this bill is that, as it stands, members of Parliament and senators are more or less unable to get their foot in the door unless they already have a security clearance from their prior careers, such as my colleague Mr. Ruff, who has a top secret security clearance. He has a clearance as a result of his appointment to NSICOP but, prior to that, he had such a clearance as a result of his service in the Canadian Armed Forces. There are other examples of that. However, there is something fundamentally wrong, in my opinion, when members of Parliament—338 people, 338 Canadians, each elected to represent about 100,000 people—who deal with matters of national security, foreign affairs, public safety and national defence, all of which fall within the purview of what we do as members of Parliament, are somehow unable to even get our foot in the door to apply, not for a top secret security clearance but a secret security clearance.

There are several differences between a top secret and a secret security clearance, but one key aspect is that a secret security clearance does not disclose sources and methods. It does provide a member who might have that, and who might be able to establish a need-to-know basis for why they would like to have access to information, some further background, further understanding. That would actually provide, in some of these issues that we have been facing on matters of foreign interference and so on, greater transparency to the member in a classified setting. This could perhaps provide clarity and actually address concerns that might be raised where there isn't a basis, but the member might raise it because they don't have access to information that could help shed light on whatever concern they have.

In the last 10 years, 250,000 applications have been made for a secret security clearance. When Mr. Ruff appeared to present his bill, I asked him how many of those 250,000 secret security applications had been turned down. The number was 23 out of 250,000.

Somehow, we have 338 members of Parliament who can't get their foot in the door. Of course, ministers have security clearances, their staff have clearances, even interns in ministers' offices have clearances, but I as a member of Parliament representing about 125,000 people can't even get my foot in the door. How does that make sense? It doesn't.

All Mr. Ruff's bill would do is say that I can get my foot in the door. Then, if I made that decision, basically, I would have my entire life examined to determine if I was trustworthy and if there were any other concerns or red flags. If I passed that, then I'd have a clearance, but again, that is nothing more than receiving that accreditation. I'd still have to establish a need to know, and it would still be within the control of the government to share anything with me. I could have such a clearance and have no information of a secret classified nature revealed to me.

Now, you could have a discussion about issues and processes around how the government controls information and how it's shared, but that is, again, not the purpose of this bill. This bill has nothing to do with that. It is about as narrow in scope as one could draft, hence it being a two-sentence, one-clause bill.

I would have thought, given how straightforward it is.... I would also add that it was, in fact, a unanimous recommendation of this committee that there be processes in place for members to be able to receive security clearances to better understand national security matters. NSICOP has weighed in on it. It's been raised at the national inquiry on foreign interference. Given all of that, I would have thought that this bill would get out of committee after one meeting.

There are some members who seem to think it's funny.

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

Oh, no. That was something I said.

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

I don't find this very funny.

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

You're funny in your own way.

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

I find it dispiriting that we have members insulting me. That underscores the tone we have and why this is so disappointing.

We have someone like Mr. Ruff, who served his country in the Canadian Armed Forces for 25 years, has a very good understanding of matters of national security, has received security clearance at the highest level, has held that for a number of years and sits on NSICOP. Therefore, he has a unique perspective as a member of Parliament. We have certain members who don't have that background, don't have that experience and don't have that knowledge, and they didn't even have the courtesy to talk to him. They table-dropped a bunch of subamendments that have nothing to do with this bill. I will submit that there's one basis for that. They don't want this bill to pass. They would rather gut the bill.

It's passing strange for a party like the NDP, which has never been in government and hopefully never will be in government, to go against members of Parliament being able to get their foot in the door to apply for secret security clearance. I thought the NDP was all about accountability. I guess, now, under the leadership of sellout Jagmeet Singh—

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

On a point of order, I'm really sorry that I made the member mad, but maybe he can focus on the comments he was going to make about the bill, as opposed to trying to insult my leader.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, I didn't quite catch whatever exchange happened a few moments ago, but nonetheless, if you could, keep your remarks to the matter at hand. Thank you.

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

Under the leadership of sellout Jagmeet Singh, this is a party that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, there is a point of order.

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

You were told once, and you were asked once kindly.

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

Everyone knows Jagmeet Singh is a sellout.

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

Mr. Cooper—

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

Mr. Chair, going back to the subamendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Mr. Cooper, I have the floor now.

What I'm going to do is suspend so that everybody can catch their breath, maybe have some water, maybe have a bite to eat and maybe use the washroom. We'll see where we are when we come back from that suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ben Carr]

Colleagues, we are resuming debate on Ms. Mathyssen's subamendment.

Mr. Cooper has been subbed out for the moment, so we'll go to the next speaker on the list, who is Mr. Ruff.

The floor is yours, sir.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to go back to my testimony a little bit and to the history behind how I came up with this bill in the first place. It's very relevant to my concerns around the amendment and the subamendment, which is really discussing how we put in the proper safeguards around classified information.

I looked at this. I think I said this in my testimony. When I first conceived of this idea, I was thinking that I was going to make it mandatory for every MP—I couldn't handle senators—to get a security clearance. If they fail it, it should be publicized in the news, etc. As I dug into that with the appropriate people to help draft the legislation, I quickly ran into the issue of parliamentary privilege and issues that I recognized would actually interfere in the democratic rights of Canadians to some extent or to run for office.

As I dug more into it, I quickly realized that I can't solve this. I can't do justice to it in a private member's bill where I am limited to a couple of hours of debate, if it gets through and we get it to committee, get some testimony on it, get some experts forward and then properly get it to ground on a suitable solution to tackle the whole ambit of how it potentially interferes or not in parliamentary privilege, etc. I talked to different parliamentarians across different parties. I understood that there's actually a wide divergence of opinion on what the best way to do this is and what Parliament's and parliamentarians' rights are, so I said that I can't do that.

What can I do? I can fix an obvious stumbling block that I've seen under two different consecutive federal governments. They've run into situations where ad hoc committees had to be put together and people had to get a security clearance, and it took umpteen months or sometimes years for people to be approved. It could have been that people who were originally going to sit on some of these committees maybe were not suitable to get a clearance, and then these parties had to put forward new names to get clearance. It takes forever, which ultimately degrades the public's trust in our democratic institutions and processes. As well, we've had committees—you can look historically at the defence committee and other committees—where we've had witnesses testifying and saying that they can't tell us something because we don't have a security clearance.

How could I fix this? I thought about it and I said that the first step I can actually put in place is to allow a parliamentarian—an MP or a senator—to have the right to apply. That's it. I realized I can likely solve it with unanimous consent from all members. I thought they'd recognize that as parliamentarians they should have the right to apply for a security clearance. That's it. That's the whole purpose of the bill and that's all the bill states, that parliamentarians have the right to apply for a secret security clearance.

The intent behind it was never to get into and potentially handcuff, hinder or debate how the government of the day protects classified information—in this case, secret information, because my bill only deals with the secret level. Those steps and processes already exist. This amendment and the subamendment talk about putting safeguards in place that the government already has the ability to and does put in place.

Let's build on that. Let's look at some examples.

Mr. Jorgensen, I'll put you in the hot seat first. In your past experience, I know you were directly involved with the ad hoc committee on the Winnipeg lab. How long did it take to get all the members who ended up looking at those files security-cleared?

[Sean Jorgensen]

I don't have an exact number for you. I wasn't prepared for that.

Once the decision was made and the MOU was signed, it actually didn't take very long. I would point out that it was that process that took a long time.

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

It was to get that MOU and that process in place.

[Sean Jorgensen]

That's correct.

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

What about the actual security clearances for the individual members?

I don't need the names, but how many members ended up getting access to those documents?

[Sean Jorgensen]

There were eight members.

I can tell you that my team always prioritizes those requests, and we get them done in a week or two.

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

In a week or two, so they can be done very quickly.

I'm going to pick on you because of your previous employment as the director of operations at the NSICOP secretariat. Without naming names, how long does it take, now at a higher level, for some of those security applications to get processed for a top secret clearance?

[Sean Jorgensen]

With respect to NSICOP, it's the same thing. We would prioritize them, and they can have them very quickly.