44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/15/24 11:20:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the bill has some very interesting portions to it. It was interesting to listen to the member speak today.
I have received security clearance because of some of the work I have done with my other colleagues on the Winnipeg lab documents, and I recognize his perspective that the bill would increase transparency. I think it is very important to have that there. I also recognize that the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act is supposed to have a statutory review every five years, and we are two years overdue on that.
The question I have for the member is this: Has he looked at what other countries around the world do? We know that the U.S. has much more oversight, but I am wondering whether he has looked at other G7 countries, other allies, and how they deal with this issue.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 11:21:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have looked at some of them, but not specifically on this process, because for a lot of them it is actually a lot simpler to get a security clearance or access to information. In general, the U.K. has a much broader system to allow it. I am not proposing we adopt a U.S. system of congressional or senatorial oversight; I am just suggesting the first step in a process that would just allow us to apply. As I have mentioned, my bill would not guarantee that a member or a senator would actually get the clearance, and it would not guarantee they would get access. All it is saying is that the government of the day, regardless of political party, would not be able to deny somebody's applying to get a security clearance.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 11:21:59 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's contribution. Often when people come to this place, they try to either build up the government or build up Parliament. The proposed bill, obviously, would be building up Parliament. He talked about education, and I know there is a lot of confusion around oversight and review. To me, the bill really would create a floor, not a ceiling, as to how much. It is usually ministers who have oversight duties, and it is usually parliamentarians, in certain cases, who would have the review duties.
Could the member explain how this would benefit, and which side would?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 11:22:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my whole point is to increase the level of education and, I would argue, parliamentary oversight. I talked at length about accountability and transparency. Ultimately, all of us in this place were elected to represent Canadians. There is a huge demand, and I am sure the member has heard from some of his constituents, asking why they cannot know about certain things. In reality, there are legitimate reasons why we need to protect information. I am just saying that here is a way, through a proper process, that Parliament could actually get to know the information, hold the government to account and provide greater transparency as we continue to improve national security and intelligence in this country.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-377, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.
This legislation would amend the Parliament of Canada Act to specify that when a member of Parliament or a senator requests a secret security clearance, that the member would be treated as being deemed to need to know the information for which the security clearance is sought. This is important because, as it presently stands, it is highly unlikely that any individual member of Parliament or a senator would receive a security clearance.
Unless a member or a senator already has a security clearance as a result of their profession prior to being elected or appointed, or has served as a member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, or NSICOP, the chances of a member of Parliament or a senator successfully obtaining a security clearance are almost zero. That is because security clearances are issued on a need-to-know basis. Essentially, the policy of the Government of Canada is that members of Parliament and senators do not need to know.
That may come as a surprise to Canadians. I would submit that it is problematic, which I will get into momentarily, but that is the policy. This bill would change that; it would amend the Parliament of Canada Act such that, for the purposes of processing security clearance applications, members of Parliament and senators are deemed to know. In short, it provides a presumption that when a member of Parliament or a senator applies, they be granted a secret security clearance. That is what Bill C-377 would do. That is all Bill C-377 would do.
It is important to note what this bill would not do. It would not guarantee that a member or a senator would be granted a security clearance. They would have to be vetted, just as any Canadian who applies for a security clearance must be vetted. If they are deemed untrustworthy, or if there are security issues or other red flags associated with the member or the senator, pursuant to the security clearance review process, they would be turned down. They would not obtain a security clearance. This bill would not change that.
Moreover, this bill is targeted insofar as it applies specifically to secret security clearances, and I emphasize “secret” security clearances. It does not apply to, and will not create, a presumption of issuing a top secret security clearance to members of Parliament and to senators. Further, it is important to note that just because someone has a security clearance, it does not mean they have the unfettered ability to obtain whatever information they want. Obtaining a security clearance merely gets one's foot in the door.
I would further note that this bill would importantly establish a certain level of uniformity with respect to how applications for security clearances involving members of Parliament and senators are dealt with because, at present, the process has been one that is ad hoc in nature. Members of NSICOP have security clearances, quite appropriately so. However, if members of NSICOP have security clearances, would it not also make sense for members who serve on committees such as the national defence committee, the foreign affairs committee and the public safety committee to also have security clearances, provided they are properly vetted?
The government has established, for instance, a special committee to review the classified Winnipeg lab documents. Members on that committee were granted security clearances. Similarly, with respect to reviewing the Afghan detainee documents, the Harper government established a special committee in which members again had security clearances. Therefore, there is no consistency and no uniformity, with the granting of such clearances being done on an ad hoc basis. I would submit that this is not desirable and can be improved; this bill would improve it by providing greater certainty and transparency around the application process.
As I noted at the beginning of my speech, I find it problematic that, as a general rule, members of Parliament and senators are unable to access security clearances. After all, Parliament deals with matters of national security and intelligence, which fall within its purview.
It is the responsibility of Parliament to hold the government accountable and to provide meaningful oversight on these matters. It follows that not having a security clearance and, therefore, not having the ability to access what may be pertinent information around national security and intelligence matters impedes the ability of members of Parliament and senators to do their jobs, to hold the government to account and to provide proper oversight and accountability.
In addition, there is value in members having security clearances, insofar as this enables them to better understand national security and intelligence matters. It creates a culture of greater awareness and enables a member to, in certain areas, perhaps fill in the blanks and have a better context with respect to national security and intelligence issues that they might be dealing with as, for example, a member of a parliamentary committee or a shadow minister.
In that regard, I cite the ruling of Speaker Milliken in April 2010 concerning the Afghan detainee documents. Speaker Milliken said the following: “In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.” He quoted, “The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.”
With respect to members of Parliament and senators being trusted with sensitive information, Speaker Milliken said:
The insinuation that members of Parliament cannot be trusted with the very information that they may well require to act on behalf of Canadians runs contrary to the inherent trust that Canadians have placed in their elected officials and which members require to act in their various parliamentary capacities.
I concur wholeheartedly with Speaker Milliken. This bill is an important step in the right direction to enhance transparency and accountability around national security and intelligence matters, as well as from the standpoint of better empowering members of Parliament and senators to fulfill their oversight responsibilities.
1073 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 7:55:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada.
We have taken the responsible and prudent actions necessary to investigate the claims that are being presented to us. These processes are well under way. The party opposite needs to understand that proper due diligence takes time and that the appropriate measures are in place to allow these processes to play out. ISED has temporarily frozen SDTC's funding and has appointed a legal agent to review the organization's HR practices. The minister has also accepted the resignation of the board chair.
On the matter of a potential conflict of interest situation with the appointment of the former chair of SDTC's board of directors, the department was made aware of the situation prior to her appointment in 2019. Prior to the finalization of her appointment, Ms. Verschuren completed a conflict of interest review with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
A further review of conflict of interest practices is being conducted by the Auditor General. Innovation, Science and Economic Development is now in the process of finalizing the assessment of SDTC's response to the “Management Response and Action Plan” issued by the department to address the recommendations in the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report. This includes ensuring that there are appropriate oversight measures in place to provide for ongoing compliance monitoring. Funding will not be restored until the minister is fully satisfied that SDTC has fully implemented the necessary corrective measures.
The facts matter. Our actions will continue to be informed by the proper due diligence. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is prepared to take additional measures in response to any findings or recommendations that may result from the legal review of SDTC's human resource practices, from the audit by the Auditor General and from the Ethics Commissioner's investigation.
SDTC is an organization that wants to get back to supporting Canadian innovators in the clean-tech sector, and this government is committed to supporting Canada's innovative clean-tech industries. This is a sector that is crucial to ensuring Canada and the world meet our 2030 and 2050 climate commitments, and I am confident we are on the right path with the implementation of the corrective measures, the review of SDTC's human resource management, the AG's audit and the Ethics Commissioner's investigation. I think the party opposite should allow the due process to take its course as we remain prepared to take the necessary actions.
436 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
