Evidence of meeting #39 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 pco.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
My brief response is that this was a decision made by PCO. I had no control over it.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will get straight to the point. First of all, if we did ask some hypothetical questions, surely it was because you did not wish to answer any direct questions. I will go over some of the questions that I asked. These appear on page 29 of the blues of the meeting of Tuesday, June 10, 2008. To put things in context, I will ask you a question.
I see that you're ready for me. Good.
On page 29, I put this second question to you:
You've now said that five times; we've understood. However, let's take it for granted that you're given some information, that it is correct, and that you think, based on your investigation, that it does indeed present a security risk. Are you going to inform the Privy Council of it?
Answer:
Yes, absolutely; we'll inform the Privy Council.
Question:
Good. Now, if you realize that a relationship is developing in the minister's personal life that may constitute a breach of security, if you are satisfied with that information, if you have checked it in your data base, and so on, and if you are of the view that it is a security risk, will you inform the Privy Council of it?
Answer:
Yes, absolutely, if we think it can cause a concern, we will inform the Privy Council.
Question:
You're very familiar with the criminal organizations in Canada, particularly those of the bikers, aren't you?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Like the witness who preceded you, and perhaps better than he, you are aware of the regular attempts by those organizations to place moles wherever they can. You know that, don't you?
Answer:
Yes.
Question:
Good. If you have information that you have checked in your data bases and that you think is reliable as to where there is a reasonable chance that a minister, perhaps without his knowledge, is starting a relationship with a mole, do you think the Privy Council should be informed of that?
Answer:
Yes, if the situation causes concerns for us, absolutely.
Question:
Does a person who has had sustained intimate relationships with members of organized crime over a number of years present a security risk?
Answer:
That's possible.
Question:
If that person may come into contact with highly confidential documents in the minister's bedroom, at her home, at his home or during conversations, do you think that presents a security risk that it is worth the trouble to make the Privy Council aware of?
Answer:
Secure documents must not be shared with anyone, whether it's a person associated with organized crime or not. If that person has no qualification to see those documents, then they must not be shared.
Question:
I read in Margaret Trudeau's book that she hated those black books that Mr. Trudeau brought home at night. As you'll understand, he must not have been the only Prime Minister who worked at home, and, as you can well imagine, a number of ministers work at home as well. Consequently, they don't always have their eyes on the documents. A mole can indeed open documents and see them. In that sense, are you prepared, in the case of an unusual relationship, to enter that person's name in your data bases to see whether there are any reliable indications on the relationships that he or she has had with organized crime?
And then the Chair broke in to say:
That will have to be the final question.
And you answered as follows:
Once again, Mr. Ménard, if such a situation is brought to our attention and causes us concerns, we will inform the Privy Council.
So then, as I understand it, you did not inform the Privy Council because you felt the situation was not cause for concern.
4:05 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
Thank you for your question, Mr. Ménard.
I have to caution everybody that hypothetical questions have their own set of facts. The matter about which we are appearing before the committee has its own set of facts. Two plus two doesn't equal five. If you take facts from a hypothetical case and try to apply it to a specific case, you may not come out with the same results.
I had very clearly said that when information comes to our attention, we check the information for accuracy, reliability, and relevance. Should all these factors come into play, as well as other external factors that may come into a very specific case, we would then take action. If necessary because it's reliable, accurate, relevant, and causes us concern based on the facts, we would notify PCO.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
In terms of what's already public knowledge—I hope you can discuss what's public knowledge—it's common knowledge that the minister had a relationship with Ms. Couillard, and it's common knowledge that Ms. Couillard had been involved in the past with several organized crime members. These facts were reported then, and continue to be reported today. You have the means to verify if in fact this information, which is public knowledge, is accurate.
Do you consider, if in fact this information exists, that this situation poses a security risk and that therefore the Privy Council should be informed?
4:10 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
First of all, again I would caution you about newspaper articles that come out in the media. Some are accurate--
4:10 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
--and some are not very accurate. I'm not prepared to speak about this specific case or the accuracy, reliability, or relevance of the facts surrounding this case as they appeared in the media.
I caution you, again, do not simply take what you read in the media and project that into some sort of conclusion.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Ménard Bloc Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Let me present another hypothetical situation, one that was not mentioned by the media. If a minister starts up a relationship with a woman who in the past was associated with terrorist organizations, do you feel the situation warrants informing the Privy Council?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
I would follow the same procedure, Monsieur Ménard. I would follow the procedure of accuracy, relevancy, and reliability and formulate a position at that point.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Penny Priddy NDP Surrey North, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm actually going to give my time to Mr. Mulcair today.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
He can't do that. He has to be substituted legally for you at the committee.
In fact, he voted--against the rules of the committee.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
I was told that the form was not here, but we'll check that.
I won't count this against your time, Ms. Priddy.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Garry Breitkreuz
Yes, it's okay; Ms. Priddy can't speak today, but Mr. Mulcair can.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Commissioner Soucar, I'd like to come back to the question you raised earlier in response to a question from Mr. Ménard. Ms. Bloodworth has issued a statement maintaining that she never heard from you.
4:10 p.m.
A/Commr Raf Souccar
That she never...
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
...she never heard from you. Yesterday, my colleague asked her if, assuming the media reports were true, she would have expected to be contacted by the RCMP. She responded in the affirmative.
You should said that we shouldn't believe everything we read in the newspapers. There are those who have professed their faith in you today. Generally speaking, I for one prefer to think that the media do a good job. I'll leave it up to you to analyse the job they do.
I'd like to put to you the same question that my colleague did. Assuming the reports were accurate, would you have informed the Privy Council?