Public Safety Committee on April 16th, 2018

[Daniel Jean]

To be very clear, I will say that a little before 10 o'clock on February 21, the director of CSIS advised me that Mr. Atwal's name was on the guest list. I immediately began searching for information through open sources like Google. Shortly after I obtained information in that manner, I provided it to the people who needed to have it, such as the Privy Council, the Office of the Prime Minister and our people in India.

Then I asked the RCMP to check whether other crimes had been committed since then, to establish that we were talking about the right person, and to confirm his criminal record. This is what we call due diligence. The RCMP and CSIS then specified that this individual was no longer considered a threat. In fact, as you can see, even the Government of India no longer considers him to be a threat, and has removed him from their black list. However, that does not mean that we need to invite him to a reception.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Once it has been established that a person no longer constitutes a threat, the decision to allow him to attend an event or not no longer falls within your purview, or that of the national security agencies.

[Daniel Jean]

That is correct.

We then sent the information to Canada's High Commission in India, in New Delhi. The High Commission and the representatives of the PMO over there made the final decision, as they do during a state visit.

Perhaps you would like to know why, given those circumstances, I opted for the briefing.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

The Prime Minister spoke to the media, and you did too, at a briefing without attribution, to correct the facts regarding information that was being circulated.

At what point should there be synergy? Was that synergy present?

Why did you not first allow the Prime Minister to provide the information and explain what was going on, while holding the briefing at the same time? That is what happens in a legislative process, for instance, when a minister tables a bill and provides a technical briefing to journalists; afterwards, the information is provided to the public. However, that synergy does not seem to have been present in this case.

[Daniel Jean]

I am glad you asked me that question, Mr. Dubé, because in fact, that synergy was present. As soon as we determined that it was Mr. Atwal who had been invited and that this would be considered a controversial situation, the invitation was withdrawn over there. The Prime Minister was the first to publicly state that that invitation should not have been extended. The member then said that he accepted responsibility for this. My technical briefing occurred afterwards. All of these events were related, sir.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

That means that the Office of the Prime Minister knew that you were going to provide that briefing.

[Daniel Jean]

Mr. Dubé, you can read the statement I just gave here.

Officials conduct deep background briefings and do not normally need to…. You mentioned synergy. For all the governments I have served, I have always let the people at the PMO know what I was going to do. I do the same with my communications staff. My position was clear: I firmly believed that too much misinformation had been sent to the media and that it was important to rectify the situation so that Canadians would know the truth.

I agree that a faux pas was made. Furthermore, I completely agree that tough questions should be put to everyone involved. That doesn't mean, however, that false information about three reputable public institutions should be allowed to circulate.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I'm going to continue along the same lines.

In response to a fellow member's question, you said your boss, Mr. Wernick, had suggested that you appear before the committee and send a letter to the chair offering to do so. Is that correct?

[Daniel Jean]

That's not quite accurate.

There was a fair bit of stalling. He did not want me to speak to the committee because he thought the Leader of the Opposition should have the full story, meaning classified and unclassified information. As you can appreciate, when I made the decision that night, I had in mind the classified information, but I also had the unclassified information I was able to share with the media. The government felt it was important.

During the period of stalling, the clerk told me that this game of ping-pong had to stop. Those are my words, not his. I offered to give a classified briefing—

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

If the request was made initially, it seems to suggest some sort of political arrangement. I don't mean at your hands, since it clearly came from higher up.

[Daniel Jean]

There was no political arrangement. The conversation was between the clerk and I, in his office.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

When you liken the situation to a game of ping-pong and a discussion has clearly taken place, it smacks of a political arrangement.

[Daniel Jean]

No. We were watching the political game of ping-pong, if you will. We said it had to stop, for the sake of the public institutions concerned. That's when he said he was going to give the Leader of the Opposition a classified briefing, which he did. Once the opposition leader agreed to the briefing, I immediately sent a letter to Mr. McKay, who was about to board a plane.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

I don't have much time left, but I'd like to discuss the public relations dimension or, rather, the matter of public accountability.

Why not take the least painful route and prove that everything was copacetic? You gave a presentation, but why not do so initially? It obviously wasn't you who made the decision, but as soon as you found out the committee wanted to meet with you, you seemed more than willing to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, Mr. Jean, you're going to have to work that answer into another question.

Mr. Bittle, welcome to the committee. Go ahead for seven minutes, please.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Monsieur Jean, thank you so much for being here today. I was wondering if you could expand on the answer, on what you said in regard to doing not-for-attribution briefings under the previous government.

[Daniel Jean]

Under the previous government...?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Under the previous government, is that something that—

[Daniel Jean]

I don't think I said that, but I certainly can talk about background briefings without attribution.

I think what you meant is that I said in my career I've always—

[Erin O'Toole, Durham, CPC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think the honourable member should clarify that Mr. Jean, in the previous government, was not the national security adviser. Is the member suggesting he gave background briefings as national security adviser in the last government, or is he suggesting he did that in another role?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I didn't suggest anything or any role. That is debate. Clearly we can look up on the witness's Wikipedia page his roles in the previous government.

I didn't suggest that, but Monsieur Jean, if you'd be willing to expand on that—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Let's confine ourselves to his role in this government.

[Daniel Jean]

Just to be clear, what I've actually said is that it is my personal practice when I offer, whether live briefings or background briefings, to always consult with the political side. I've always done that. Not all officials do that. Also, because you see a lot of confusion in the media, there's a difference between a background briefing that is authorized, where you're bringing facts and information, versus what you sometimes see when officials are talking but are actually releasing information that they should not be releasing, like a cabinet confidence.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

You mentioned in your testimony that there is more information behind this, that there is classified information. You also mentioned that there is a classified briefing that has been offered to the leader of the official opposition. To the best of your knowledge, has he accepted or scheduled that briefing?

[Daniel Jean]

My understanding is that he has accepted and it has not yet been scheduled. As you probably know, what's happened since that time as well is that the national security committee of parliamentarians has announced that they will do a review of the events and will look at all of these issues, and we welcome it.