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.