- Member of Parliament
- Member of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians
- Conservative
- Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $91,173.06
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I want to thank everybody who participated in this important debate because it actually achieved one of my aims, which I talked about in my initial speech when I introduced this bill, and that is education. I will get into the reasons why that is so important.
I am not shocked by this, but after listening to members, there seems to still be a level of misunderstanding of what exactly this bill is. I am going to talk about what it is, what it is not, and why it is so important. I will read the crux of what this bill is into the record one more time because then it will be easy to break down. It is subclause 13.1(1) of this need to know legislation, which reads, “A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made.” That is the important clause.
My point is that the only thing this bill would do would be to allow parliamentarians to apply for a secret security clearance. The government would not be able to deny, regardless of who is in government, a parliamentarian from applying. That is all that it would do. It would allow them to apply. I would dare say that every speaker who spoke to this during the debate on my PMB highlighted two key examples: the Winnipeg labs, most recently, and the Afghan detainee file.
A colleague just spoke to what this bill does not do. This does not guarantee a parliamentarian will pass, should they apply. They still have to go through the same security vetting and clearance process that we have been doing for decades. I have had a secret level clearance for likely 25 to 30 years now. I have been at the top secret level for 15-plus years. The clearance does not guarantee one has a need to know or that one gets access to the information because that is how the system protects it. One still has to demonstrate that to the government.
Why is this so important? We have heard a little bit about this. The world is more complicated. We have listed a couple of historical examples. The most important one, which has been highlighted numerous times, is foreign interference. When we look at foreign interference, there are lots of cases. I do applaud the government about Bill C-70. It is going to come and address some of that because it allows changes to the CSIS Act, which then allows CSIS to actually share information beyond just the federal government, not just to potential parliamentarians. Again, if they are not cleared, they still cannot get that information, but it will potentially allow CSIS to share information to other levels of government, to industry and stakeholders, but they have to have the clearance.
We have heard testimony and speeches here, so we know that parliamentarians are being targeted. We have seen the original NSICOP annual report of 2019. What was one of the key takeaways? Parliamentarians need to be briefed on the threats that they face from foreign interference. We have seen Madam Hogue's public inquiry into foreign interference. Just recently we saw the NSIRA report that came out. We are only a few days away from seeing NSICOP's latest report. However, it is not just from those agencies. I would like to read again from the recommendations that came out of PROC, with unanimous consent, just a few weeks ago. Recommendation 3 reads:
That the government work with recognized parties’ whips to facilitate security clearances, at Secret level or higher, of caucus members who are not Privy Councillors (particularly those who sit on committees with mandates concerning foreign affairs, national defence and national security), who shall be taken as satisfying requirements for a “need to know,” to ensure that they may be adequately briefed about important national security matters, including foreign intelligence threat activity directed toward Parliament, or their party or its caucus members.
The point is that this has already unanimously passed at PROC to basically implement what my bill is trying to achieve.
In conclusion, I have not heard a single criticism of the bill that is based on what the bill would do and what is contained within it. I know members from all parties who I have talked to are going to support this bill. I am hoping that, when it does come up for a vote, it will pass unanimously.
786 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/24 1:26:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just want to take the opportunity to correct something from my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois. He did use the term “military-style assault rifles” when referring to the legislation. However, there is nothing in the legislation that refers to that, so it does bother me when we hear misleading comments that confuse Canadians.
My question to my hon. colleague is specifically about the bill and why it takes so long for any legislation from this government when it comes to accountability. This was actually passed at committee last November, and here we are six months later. To give another example, I sit on the NSICOP committee, and while that act was mandated to start review a year and a half ago, the government has yet to bring legislation forward to do that necessary review.
Could the member just elaborate on the importance of actually dealing with accountability legislation, and the lack thereof, by the government?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 11:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first off, I want to express my disappointment for having to be here tonight to re-address a simple question. It is a question of transparency and openness from the government on lessons learned from the fall of Kabul last year.
The first thing I want to do is read into the record the mandate of the Special Committee on Afghanistan. It reads:
to conduct hearings to examine and review the events related to the fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, including, but not limited to, the government's contingency planning for that event and the subsequent efforts to evacuate, or otherwise authorize entry to Canada of, Canadian citizens, and interpreters, contractors and other Afghans who had assisted the Canadian Armed Forces or other Canadian organizations
That was our mandate. I am going to read the definition, from the defence terminus database, of what an after-action review is. It is “A professional discussion of...[an] operational event that focuses on identifying what happened, why it happened, and how it can be improved.” In reality, we are asking for the same thing. It is just to get those after-action reviews.
I put a motion forward at the Special Committee on Afghanistan for the government. We brought it up during testimony, and we had Global Affairs Canada officials admit that they had conducted an after-action review or a review of what happened last summer in Kabul.
After that, we had defence officials there, including the chief of the defence staff. They admitted that they went through the Canadian Armed Forces after-action review process or post-operational review and conducted that. In fact, they fed into a PCO-led interdepartmental review of what went right, what went wrong and what we needed to improve going forward from last summer, all great stuff that made sense. Considering the mandate of the Special Committee on Afghanistan, would that information not be invaluable to our hard-working analysts and committee members so they can put together the report?
I therefore put a motion forward. I asked the officials about this, but unfortunately we did not get the information. I put it forward at committee. Unfortunately, the Liberal members of the committee decided to filibuster. It never got to a vote before we ran out of time, because the Special Committee on Afghanistan is wrapping up. In fact, the chair will table the report tomorrow.
I have gone down every possible avenue. I submitted an Order Paper question, a written question, to see if I could get the information that way. Then I stood up during question period, which brings me here tonight to ask for the information.
Again, I am just looking to get all of the reports, including any of the draft reports, to committee so we can move forward. We are lacking them, and it was obvious, based on testimony, that the interdepartmental coordination between the three departments involved in this, particularly with respect to immigration, was weak, if not non-existent. The committee was unable to get all of the reports to provide an effective response going forward.
This is really the key point that I want to hit. In the end, this is all about setting the conditions for the future. If Canada ever commits, whether it is militarily or diplomatically, to another mission around the globe, we need to rely upon the cultural advisers, interpreters and linguists who are willing to step forward. If they are unwilling to do so and do not trust us to have their backs if things go sideways, as they did in Afghanistan, we are the ones who will lose out.
We are likely going to hear from the parliamentary secretary. I am glad he is here to answer my question. However, I think he is going to use national security as an excuse, which is not the case. Ultimately, the sad reality is that the Afghans who should be coming here are the losers in this whole circumstance.
671 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 1:24:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will read a quote and then ask a quick question of the parliamentary secretary.
“I can’t help but notice with regret that both the tone and the policies of my government changed drastically on the eve and during the last election campaign. From a positive and unifying approach, a decision was made to wedge, to divide and to stigmatize.” That was said by the Liberal member for Louis-Hébert back in early February speaking about who decided to politicize getting vaccinated in this country.
The president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees has talked about the fact that back in early March the mandates were a temporary measure, and he has asked the government when it was going to release a plan that explains the rationale and milestones to remove vaccine mandates.
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
