The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - How Do Security Clearances Work, and Why Do They Matter?

Episode Date: April 16, 2025

Security clearances have become a flashpoint in the federal election campaign, with Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre standing by his decision to forgo vetting. So who needs a security clearance, what's involved in getting one, and what are the practical implications of going without? We discuss with Wesley Wark Senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and a fellow with the Balsillie School of International Affairs, in WaterlooSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

He was like a father figure to me. Unfortunately, found myself in a very vulnerable position. This is a story about a psychiatrist in Toronto accused of abusing two of his patients, which he denies. It's also a story about a system that is supposed to protect patients. From TVO Podcasts, I'm Krisha Collier, and this is The Oath. Subscribe today wherever you listen. for kids. Regular contributions from people like you help us make a difference in the lives of Ontarians of all ages. Visit TDO.me slash twenty twenty-five donate to renew your support or

make a first-time donation and continue to discover your two-point TDO. Security clearances have become a flash point in the federal election campaign with conservative leader Pierre Polyev standing by his decision to forgo vetting. So, who needs a security clearance? What's involved in getting one? And what are the practical implications of going without? Let's find out from, in the nation's capital, Wesley Wark, senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation and a fellow with the Basile School of International Affairs. Welcome, Wesley. Thanks very much for having me on the program, Jay. All right, let's start with the basics.

What exactly is a security clearance? So a security clearance gives right of access to primarily federal civil servants, right of access to classified information. There are different levels of security clearances. They can also apply to a very select group of politicians and they can apply of course to contractors who are working on classified projects. So it's a pretty wide pool of people that can require security clearance but as I say the key to it is understanding that there are many different levels and it is something that for many people certainly

working for the government or close to the government is an absolute requirement of their job. Well I want to pick up on that specifically about who needs to get one more time about federal employees, politicians, you talked about the varying sort of degrees of clearance break that down for me a little bit. Sure. So the highest level of clearance is now called top secret enhanced. There's a new sort of policy that

was put in place in the mid 2010s to define these different levels. So at the very top, top secret enhanced. And that can include special what is often called compartmented information that has its own code words attached to it. So top secret enhanced code word is, is it the stratospheric level below that is a more standard top secret below that secret below that, um, a clearance called reliable, which is where everyone starts.

And it's typically the place where, for example, like a summer student coming in to work in the government in some department and agency would require reliable. But for access to any of the more sensitive information, the leakage of which, a disclosure of which could do some harm to Canada, that's generally at the secret or top secret level. Okay, break it down a little. What kinds of information get classified as top secret? Well, that's a good question. So there's really a, it's operational intelligence.

It's intelligence that comes to us from our allies. It's intelligence that comes through special channels in terms of how it's collected, perhaps signals intelligence or intelligence provided by a human informant working inside or alongside some group, say a terrorist group of interest. So it's very special kinds of intelligence get that top secret label attached to it. And that really just reflects the sensitivity of the information and the damage that could be done if it's disclosed in an unauthorized way. I imagine that a lot of people, when they hear security clearance, they're thinking

of all the movies they've watched where everyone is rushing into a boardroom. It is the elites of the elites in a room. Everyone is really tense. And there's information being spread. And I'm curious, I know you've been in some of those kind of security clearances, and I'm curious, how or where do politicians review top secret information? Does it look exactly like the movies that I'm watching?

Well, no, not exactly. Inevitably, Jay. Alas for the drama of it. When it comes to politicians, and we're talking primarily about cabinet ministers, for example, or the prime minister, politician has access to top secret information, they can only be given that material if it's in written form or briefed on it orally in a special kind of setting. It's usually called a SCIF. There are many acronyms, of course, in the intelligence world. That one stands for secure compartmented information facility. So it's essentially a room, often a pretty small room, which is guarded against any exfiltration of signals or any kind of incoming efforts to access whatever is going on in that room. The room is swept for bugs. It's electronically monitored. So it's meant to be

very secure. And this is all just, again, to protect the information. But for politicians, of course, and that would include, for example, officials in the Prime Minister's office, and perhaps some senior aides, whenever they have to be briefed on top secret information, it often comes with a real kind of annoyance factor to it in the sense that anyone going into a SCIF or a secure compartment information facility has to leave every electronic device behind, any kind of mobile device, if you have some kind of smartwatch,

anything that emits a signal and could be used in a sophisticated way to tap into a conversation. All of that is left behind. So as you can imagine, for busy politicians, cabinet ministers, prime minister, busy staffers, they hate being, without their devices, hate being disconnected in the kinds of ways that you have to be when you get access to this information. As I mentioned, I understand that you have had top secret clearance.

I guess I'm gonna ask this question. I'm gonna assume the answer. You're not gonna tell me, but what was the clearance for? Well, the clearance was for a special project I was asked to do for the Privy Council Office. It was a history of the Canadian intelligence community trying to kind of track its evolution since the end of the Second World War into the Cold War. And that required my own access to all of the archival records and historical records about the community, many of

which remained highly classified, some of which involved allied reporting and policy discussions with Canada. So a lot of the material was classified as secret, top secret, code word. And so I needed that clearance to have access to that. But having the clearance also when I had any kind of need to know as other officials determined it allowed me to take part in some other kind of policy and intelligence discussions. That sounds like very important stuff. But I have to imagine there is some, there's a part of you that must think that's pretty cool.

I don't know if you get a badge of it saying, you know, top secret enhanced, top secret enhanced, but it must be pretty cool to get that kind of clearance. Well, I mean, it's certainly to have access to some very special channels of reporting is certainly a privilege, and it is cool in that sense. You're not supposed to tell anyone about the level of security clearance you have. And in fact, you're meant to, in many of the agencies,

you're meant to even hide the fact that you have an entrance badge. So there's secrecy around the fact that you have access to secrets. It is a privilege. It's also a daunting process, it must be said for many people going through the security clearance process.

And with the revisions to the process that took place after a famous spy case in Canada, a Jeffrey DeLisle case, it's now a matter of form that anyone working, for example, at any of our key intelligence collection agencies, CESIS, for example, or the communication security establishment, you have to go through a polygraph exam, which was not the case when I had a top secret clearance. And I'm sure polygraph exams are particularly nerve wracking. Right. I want to pick up on that and understand, actually,

who is doing the actual vetting? What are they looking for specifically? And who decides whether someone passes or fails? Sure. So good questions, Jane. And I think little understood by Canadians who haven't gone through the process. So the agency that is responsible for doing security clearances, that is checking all the information about an applicant for a security clearance, is the Canadian Security Intelligence

Service. And on an annual basis, they have to deal with a very high volume of security clearance requests. So CSIS does that, is engaged in that process. And it's up to CSIS to make a recommendation. They don't have a final determining say, but they make a recommendation to what is called the deputy head or deputy minister

of a department or agency for which a person is employed. And the recommendation will say, this person passes the vetting process, or that there are serious signs of concern about this person, and the deputy head should perhaps determine that that person should not have a security clearance. So it's a process of advice.

The test that's involved, and there are many different kinds of forms of information that go into these tests, the test is really twofold. Is a person deemed reliable in terms of their workplace behavior? And perhaps more importantly, is a person deemed loyal. And if you think about that element of the security clearance, it's probably pretty obvious.

But loyalty would involve things like associations with foreign partners and powers that might be of concern, concerning travel history, having relatives still living in authoritarian states where authoritarian state might put pressure on those relatives that would impact on a particular individual. So loyalty is probably the key test. Reliability is really just determined, is important in the sense that they want to make sure

that there aren't, you know, signs of kind of abnormal or odd behavior in a person's work past or, you know, even educational past. If we're talking about loyalty, I think there's one position in this country that a lot of people would assume is loyal to the nation, is the prime minister. And I'm curious, do prime ministers automatically receive security clearance? The answer is more or less yes and they go through a different process and and it's not just the prime minister it's also anyone who's appointed as a cabinet minister. All such individuals are deemed to be what's called privy councillors this is an old practice linked back to practice in the UK parliament. If you are appointed to one of these positions you become a privy councillors. This is an old practice linked back to practice in the UK Parliament.

If you are appointed to one of these positions, you become a privy councillor, you have special rights and privileges. You do go through a kind of minimal form of security vetting, but it's not anything like as intensive as would normally be required for the kind of access to information that a minister or prime minister would have. And certainly, for example, we don't polygraph cabinet ministers or the prime minister. So there is a vetting process, but it's a little bit more minimal than is required for many federal civil servants. Obviously, we're talking about this with the federal election happening

and a lot of this being some members and some leaders who did not want to have that access. Have opposition leaders always had access to security clearances? And I am curious with the parties that we have here, with the NDP, the Greens, the Bloc, do they have clearance as well? Yes, so first part of the question is important, I think, to understand. The idea of a government offering security clearances, high-level security clearances, to opposition party leaders in the House of Commons is a pretty new development.

It's not standard practice. It's really come about in the context of all the controversy over foreign interference. And it was first offered to allow opposition party leaders to see the classified annex to the report that David Johnson, when he was serving his independent special rapporteur, delivered. There was a public report. It was a classified annex. And the government said, well, we'd

like opposition party leaders to have the opportunity to read that classified annex and have a better sense of what David Johnson found. And many opposition leaders, including from the NDP and the Greens, took up that opportunity. This goes back to the spring of 2023. At that time, Pierre Paulier, the leader of the Conservative Party, of course, determined that he did not want a security clearance.

And I think it's probably important to understand the political context of that decision at the time. And that was that the Conservative Party, in particular, was adamantly opposed to the kind of process that had established the independent special rapporteur. They were really pushing for a public, or what we would understand as a judicial inquiry, which ultimately came about.

So I think there was a kind of political reason in the moment for Pierre Poliev to refuse that security clearance. But then he was, I think it's fair to say, locked into that decision and hasn't found a way to find an exit ramp from it. So he continues to say he doesn't want a security clearance. The reason he continues to say he doesn't want a security clearance.

The reason he gives is that he doesn't want to have his lips sealed. A gag order is essentially his words, yeah. Yeah, because of this access to classified information. I'm curious, on that note, do you find the rationale persuasive enough? I know, as you mentioned, a little politicized, but him calling it a gag order? Yeah, I don't find it persuasive at all. Let me be very frank about that. And I think

that's a view shared by many people who have had security clearances and been involved in policymaking with national security or intelligence implications. And the reason why I say it's not persuasive is that one has to make a distinction between the absolute requirement for anyone with a high level security clearance receiving classified information. You have to, of course, to protect that information, you can't divulge its details,

but that's a very different thing from saying you can't learn from the access to briefings or documents that you might have with a security clearance. And the learning piece is the important piece, I think. It's not the details, but it's the learning piece. And from the perspective of any major opposition party, I think there is a real need in this day and age of geopolitical threats and domestic threats and foreign interference threats and so on for any opposition party

leader who wants to fashion an independent policy stance around these issues, wants to make sure that his own caucus maintains its integrity against various kinds of threats. Very important to understand the threat environment and that's what a security clearance can give you. Of course, your lips are sealed about the details, but your mind is not sealed from learning and applying those lessons to your own policy platforms and to your own leadership.

Leslie, I think we're gonna leave it there. Thank you so much. That was really, really informative stuff. Really appreciate it. My pleasure. Thanks so much, Jay.