Evidence of meeting #28 for Public Safety and National Security in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fadden.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In less than four weeks, okay.
You said that the individuals had been under surveillance by the service. You may have already answered this question, but are they still under surveillance? Are you continuing with your monitoring method, if you will?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I believe I mentioned earlier that the process of gathering information is complete. So we are at the analysis phase.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Fadden, very little attention was paid to your level of alarm concerning cyber espionage. To your knowledge, how prepared is the Government of Canada to protect national security secrets and even the personal information of Canadians from cyber espionage?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think it's a growing concern, and Canada's capacity to deal with this issue is growing. We don't have the lead on this, as you probably know, Mr. Chairman, but there has been reference to these matters in recent governmental statements. I think it is truthful to say that we are certainly as well prepared as we can be in a technological world where the assaults change virtually daily.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In your interview you stated, and I quote, “...what I really worry about is, is there a terrorist cell somewhere in Canada that we don't know about?”
Given your level of concern, Mr. Fadden, how concerned should Canadians be that they might be living next door to an unknown terrorist cell?
12:15 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That's a very difficult question to answer, Mr. Chairman, because you don't know what you don't know.
We have had very clear evidence in this country that there have been terrorists seeking to do harm. The Toronto 18 are a clear example. We're monitoring a number of other cases in which we think there may be similar circumstances.
Do I think that everybody needs to go to their basement with an 18-day supply of food? Absolutely not. My point in raising this was simply to say that Canadians will need to know this. I think if Canadians know about this kind of threat they will be inclined to let us know if they find anything that's worrisome.
July 5th, 2010 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Fadden, for coming here today.
It wasn't long ago that you were before this committee. It was on May 11, in fact. The Honourable Gary Filmon, chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, also testified that day. And if you will indulge me for a minute, for the benefit of those watching today who did not see the testimony that day--and I'm sure you don't have it in front of you--I would like to quote Mr. Filmon:
Let me say first that having served on SIRC for nearly nine years, during which time I have been in regular contact with many organizations with similar mandates, I'm confident that Canada's model is, and is recognized to be, one of the strongest review functions in the world. This is not to say that changes and improvements are not possible, but simply that we have in SIRC an effective tool for helping to ensure the accountability of Canada's security intelligence agency, CSIS.
As I'm sure you are aware, SIRC came into being at the same time that Canada created CSIS, its civilian security intelligence service. With the passage of the CSIS Act in 1984, Canada became one of the first democratic governments in the world to establish a detailed legal framework for the operation of its security service. It is equally significant that the CSIS Act created a framework to make CSIS accountable in exercising its powers....
Specifically, the CSIS Act defines the mandate and limits of state power to conduct security intelligence. It also spells out how the service's work is to be monitored through a rigorous system of political and judicial controls, including two review bodies, each with a distinct mandate, to watch over the new agency.
I draw your attention to this because it's important to appreciate the context in which CSIS operates.
That same day you testified,
The central duties and functions of CSIS are defined in section 12 of the act. We are to “collect...analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities” that could reasonably be suspected of being security threats to Canada. We call this security intelligence. We are then to “report to and advise the Government” on that intelligence.
Based on those general powers, CSIS collects intelligence on a variety of specific threats to Canadian security, defined broadly in our act and refined by directives from cabinet and the Minister of Public Safety. These include terrorism, espionage, and foreign-influenced activities.
I think we can all accept that the people of CSIS are dedicated to the protection of Canada's national interests and the safety of all Canadians.
Director, my question is this: with that level of monitoring by outside actors, why would you feel it is necessary to speak about something as sensitive as foreign influence? What's to be gained?
12:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think it is necessary, because despite that very comprehensive system of oversight and review, there is not a lot of discussion in Canada about espionage or terrorism or foreign influence. It's not, in fact, the duty of the Inspector General or of the SIRC to report on these things publicly. Their main job is to ensure that we comply with the law and ministerial direction. Public reports are issued, but they're pretty general.
So our view--and I want to stress that it's our view, not just my view, and that it has been the view of the service for some time now--is that there is a benefit to Canadians understanding that we are not for some reason protected from attempts at espionage, foreign influence, or terrorism. I say that partially because we think this is a democracy and people have a right to know.
Having said that, I want to be very clear that this is a matter we've discussed quite broadly, and it's shared among the security and intelligence community. We also think that if people know of these threats and any of these come to the attention of particular individuals, they may help us out by telling us about them or by going to the police.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Okay.
And what do you feel is the best way to communicate these threats or concerns to the Canadian public?
12:20 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think through a variety of means.
As I said to one of your colleagues a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties we have is that we can't talk about operational details. We try, in our annual report, to give a bit of a sense of this. I think the annual report of the SIRC does the same thing.
I don't think these have been particularly effective in drawing attention to these issues, so it was decided that we would try making a few public speeches. My predecessors have quite regularly spoken both to this committee and the opposite committee in the Senate, and to academic institutions. My speech to the RCMI and to CASIS was in that vein, to try to, in a general way, raise concerns we thought people should be aware of.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sir, when I was asking you questions before, you indicated that you were interviewed June 21 and June 22 by Mr. Mansbridge, and then you issued a clarification, or call it what you will, I think it was the next day. You also spoke, after the interviews, as you indicated already, with the national security adviser and the minister, and you indicated to me that you could not remember whether you spoke with them before or after you issued your clarification. So I'm going to ask you to go back and to search what you need to search--your records, telephone records, whatever it may be--to determine whether you spoke with one or both of these individuals before you issued your clarification about your CBC comments, and also to advise us, to the best of your ability, as to what the conversations were; in particular, whether they asked you to issue something, and if so, if they suggested what that might be, with as much detail as possible, please.
You were just nodding. I take it that's a yes?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Thank you.
In terms of these concerns, you gave the initial speech in March, right? When did these concerns become formed, though--how much before March? And when did you actually start surveilling the cabinet ministers or municipal officials in relation to your speech?
Once again, you've said "real danger", and I'm taking you at your word. So I'm asking you, when did this “real danger” get formed in your mind, and how much before this March interview did this happen?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
As I think I answered in a previous question, I was made aware of these two cases in a general way near the end of 2009. The service had been working on these for some time; I don't know quite how long. As I said earlier, I was sufficiently concerned about the matter that I raised them with the national security adviser in early 2010, although largely with the view of finding out what protocol would apply should it be decided that we needed to contact anyone outside of the federal government.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Okay, so you indicated before that you raised this in the spring of 2010 with the national security adviser, and I assume that you said something. Without details of the cases, I assume you said something to the effect that you had a concern, a real concern, correct?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I don't remember the words, but something along those lines.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
What did the national security adviser then do, between when you had this conversation in the early spring of 2010 to when you gave your speech in March and then you had your interviews in June, to the present? Give me the timeline. Do you know whether the national security adviser spoke with the PCO, the PMO, the minister, in around the spring of 2010 onwards?
12:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
My understanding is she did not, although just to be clear, she is of the PCO--
12:25 p.m.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
--so that's a different issue. I do not think she did, because I did not provide enough detail to warrant, I think, informing either the minister or anyone else. I gave her the sense that these were a couple of files the service had been looking at for some time. There was no immediate threat to national security. Nobody was going to blow up something, or anything of that nature. I indicated that we were finishing our analysis and our inquiries, and we would be getting back to her.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Let's say that you believed there was an imminent threat. Would you call the minister?
