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.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It would depend on the nature of the threat. If the threat were immediate, I would call one of the first responders. I would call the police.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
Okay. What circumstances would be involved for you to call the minister, to advise the minister directly of this grave concern, this real danger, as you phrase it?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
I think it's very difficult to answer that question. I think in the first instance we would consult interdepartmentally. You can do that by phone. You can do it very, very quickly.
If I thought that.... And I cannot imagine this happening; it's just not practical. If we thought that, because of foreign influence, a decision by somebody in Canada was going to be skewed because of this foreign influence, and it was a significant decision, I can imagine calling the minister.
Liberal
Andrew Kania Liberal Brampton West, ON
So you have this concern--a real danger--at some point in time in the spring of 2010, and you express it to the national security adviser.
Have you met with the minister at any point since the spring of 2010, either at your suggestion or at the minister's suggestion, to advise the minister of any of these concerns?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, again, because I did not think they merited ministerial attention. They had not reached that point. And they did not appear to us to be critical in the sense of immediate harm likely to take place.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fadden, in the few minutes I have, I will try to show you why you are no longer the right man for the job.
It started back in 2009. And you say in the document we have in front of us that it was simply due to a lack of attention on your part that the information in question was made public.
Is that true? Is that what you said?
Bloc
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Regardless, you knew you were making a statement in front of a hundred or so people who did not have their security clearance. So given that you said what you did in front of a group of people when you were not certain that doing so was highly secure, right there, tells me that you talk too much.
Would you agree that you talk too much?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
No, Mr. Chair.
Can I explain why? Because the remarks I made to the group on March 26 were not classified statements or information.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I am not talking about those statements; I am talking about the answers to the questions about which you knew very well.... Or you may have thought that the media would not make it public, but you still shared highly secure information that had not been shared with the government. That is what you told us.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
The information was not highly secure, nor did it require a high level of security clearance.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No? To say that two provincial ministers and municipal officials..., it is not something that was—
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It may not have been smart, but no one was charged with violating the law.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Fadden, you talk too much. That is what I am telling you.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
That is your opinion, sir.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
And when you are the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, talking too much is not a good thing.
Then you said—and you just repeated it—that it did not affect national security. Yet you brought the entire Canadian political establishment into disrepute. And by doing so, you knowingly chose to cast suspicion on politicians in general. And you add to that, in your document today, by saying that decisions affecting Canada should be made by Canadians for Canadian reasons, in other words, by people who are loyal.
So there are two people under investigation who may not be loyal. True or not true?
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That would mean they were traitors. You did not want to use that language earlier.
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
It is not treason, Mr. Chair. The definition of treason in the penal code does not apply in this case.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So they are people who are disloyal, but that does not make them traitors?
Director, Canadian Security Intelligence Service
Absolutely not, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Great. In my view, to bring the entire political establishment into disrepute is to make an error of judgment. That is the second reason you should not be in your position.
And here is the third and final reason. My colleague from the NDP—or the chair—asked you earlier to apologize to the Chinese-Canadian community, which—given its size in British Columbia—may have felt more targeted by your remarks. And you refused to apologize. Once again, that is a sign of someone who will not change. When you cannot admit your mistakes and say you are sorry, that is an error of judgment, and that is the third reason why you should no longer be in your position.
The fact that you are still there means that the Prime Minister is protecting you and that the government knew about the situation, and I have a very hard time with that. I will repeat my colleague's question: do you still think you are fit to be in your position?
