Evidence of meeting #38 for Public Safety and National Security in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was know.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I think you sense what concerns us. I hope that is a good reason to provide us with an answer, instead of going around in circles. We are concerned because the papers are saying certain things. You obviously read the newspaper. I understand that before reaching a decision, you wanted another source of information. Newspapers, however, can say worrisome things if they are true. I believe that if newspapers talk about a relationship with a person who had important ties with organized crime, there is something worrisome there.
Would you agree with me on that?
5:05 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
We had just done the background check. I'm not sure what more I can answer. I think I've already answered the question. I'm trying not to repeat what I've said.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
When things are as worrisome as that, would you not think to ask the RCMP to verify the information, to verify if indeed it can be confirmed in our criminal databases? As a matter of fact, the newspapers that came out at the time also confirmed that this person had had close relations with organized crime.
5:05 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
I've explained what we did, and at that time we had checks that were complete in early April.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Would you do this in the future, should a similar situation arise?
5:05 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
In the future I will follow the system that is in place. No system is perfect, and it can change, no doubt. I've described how they can change.
5:05 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
Its not up to me to change the system. I give some advice, but in the end it's prime ministers who decide. I'm not talking about just this Prime Minister. It's this Prime Minister and all previous prime ministers for whom I've worked. It's they who decide who is in cabinet and what measures they want to take, of which background checks are one small part.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I will suggest to you something that is easy to do, that does not require much time and that costs nothing. It pertains to spouses. Would it not be appropriate to ask the RCMP to check if ministers' spouses appear in criminal databanks. If they do, then you could ask why.
5:05 p.m.
National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Associate Secretary to the Cabinet, Privy Council Office
There are always things that can be done in relation to spouses. I think, as Mr. Cullen has pointed out, those have been of considerable debate. So it's not up to me to do that. That would be up to a government to decide it wants to enlarge what it does.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to come back to Mr. Tardif. You are the director of security operations at the PCO.
My apologies, but I will speak English.
5:05 p.m.
Marc Tardif Director, Security Operations, Privy Council Office
I also understand English. I will express myself in French, if you do not mind, but I do understand English as well.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
So you're director of security operations at the PCO. You're responsible, then, for the processes of security within the cabinet operations and within the PCO itself. Is that correct?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Security Operations, Privy Council Office
Yes, my role as Director of Security Operations at the PCO involves several facets. That is one of them.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
If I was guessing, I would think that you probably also have a network of people you work with--law enforcement, security people--an informal network. Is that correct or not? Or are you focused solely on the processes?
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Okay, because I'm coming back to this point that the background checks were updated in April 2008. I can't remember the exact timing, but the stories, I think, started to come out in the press after that. That's fair enough. And I know you don't believe everything in the press, but there were some photographs there, and some other evidence that someone, somewhere, within the PCO or the PMO must have asked a question.
It's quite a sensitive matter in the PCO to raise this with the Prime Minister or the Prime MInister's chief of staff, but could a conversation have occurred, notwithstanding the fact that you had a background check in April 2008 that cleared Mr. Bernier? But with all the other stuff coming up subsequent to that, did it happen in this case, or could it have happened, that you briefed Mr. Tardif and Ms. Bloodworth, then Ms. Bloodworth might have discussed, with either the Prime Minister or the Prime MInister's chief of staff, that notwithstanding this clean security clearance, there seems to be some noise out there that someone might want to check out? Would that kind of discussion occur?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Security Operations, Privy Council Office
No. This discussion didn't occur.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Director, Security Operations, Privy Council Office
No. The background check, as explained, had already been done on Monsieur Bernier.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Roy Cullen Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Yes, but in May, I think, when these stories started to surface...? I know it's only a newspaper report, but there were photographs of Julie Couillard with all sorts of organized criminals. As the director of security operations, would you not have a network of people who could try to substantiate that--notwithstanding the clean background check in April 2008--just to make an assessment--you know, there's something that doesn't seem to add up here? That never happened and might not ever happen?
