SECU Committee Report

DISSENTING OPINION FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY OF CANADA

At the call of the Opposition, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security held meetings to discuss remarks made in March 2010 by Richard Fadden, the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). These meetings, including one held during a Parliamentary recess, consumed substantial resources and were, in the view of Government Members, little more than a chance for the Opposition Coalition to advance their political agenda at the expense of national security.

Rather than presenting a thoughtful analysis on issues raised during Committee proceedings, the Opposition majority produced a report which bears very little resemblance to the reality of the hearings and ignores testimony provided by witnesses, including evidence from the Director of CSIS.  As a result, the Conservative Party cannot support the inflammatory and inaccurate recommendations contained within the report.

The inflammatory nature of the report is exemplified by the Opposition’s recommendation that the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister be censured for Mr. Fadden’s statements during an interview.  This is both inaccurate and illogical, as the Director stated to the Committee – both in testimony and in writing - that his comments were made during the unscripted Question and Answer session, and were not divulged to, or approved by the Minister, Prime Minister or any members of their staff.

On July 5, 2010, Bloc Public Safety Critic Maria Mourani asked Mr. Fadden, referring to the Minister of Public Safety and the Prime Minister, “Were they aware that you were going to identify people without really naming them?” Mr. Fadden replied, “Absolutely not, madam.”  Therefore, the Conservative Members would reiterate that Mr. Fadden’s specific comments were his own and were made without the Government’s prior knowledge or approval.

The Opposition has also made the recommendation that the Prime Minister issue an apology in the House of Commons for Mr. Fadden’s comments regarding the Chinese-Canadian community.   Much like the rest of the Opposition’s Report, this is not substantiated by a single fact presented during the Committee’s study. As well, the observation that, “No one who appeared before the committee acknowledged the damage and harm caused by the unsubstantiated allegations, particularly to the Chinese Canadian community,” is baseless. No one from any cultural community testified before the Committee to give evidence of the veracity of this claim.  Furthermore, the question of the possible impact of Mr. Fadden’s comments was never addressed by any witness. Readers will note the allegations that ‘damage and harm were caused by Mr. Fadden’s comments’ are also not supported by any evidence.

Moreover, during his testimony, Ms. Marie-Lucie Morin said, “I would take exception to the concept that we are questioning the loyalty of any group of Canadians when we talk about foreign interference. In fact, to the extent that these activities are conducted, I would argue that the communities are a victim and in fact should not feel targeted.” There was no evidence presented to support the conclusion that Mr. Fadden intended to create a situation where cultural communities are targeted. However, Mr. Fadden did express regret for the situation that arose:

“My comments did not in any way threaten national security, and was purely an oversight on my part that the information was made public. I do not agree with all the criticism voiced, but I regret any distress I might have caused and would not provide such detail again.” (July 5, 2010)

Furthermore, the Conservative Party takes issue with the third recommendation proposed by the Opposition Coalition, “that the Minister of Public Safety require Richard Fadden to resign for having stated, in circumstances entirely under his control, that Ministers in two Provinces as well as municipal elected officials in British Columbia were agents of influence of foreign governments, thereby sowing doubt about the probity and integrity of a number of elected officials and creating a climate of suspicion and paranoia.” There was no evidence given at any point during hearings from any witness that such a climate was created as a result of Mr. Fadden’s comments, or existed in any sense. Mr. Fadden even clarified that his general claims regarding foreign influence would automatically apply to ALL those that have influence:

“I was making a general statement about foreign interference. As I was saying a moment ago…if foreign interference is to take place in this country, it has to take place with respect to people who have influence. So it should come as no surprise that it involves people who have political decision-making authority.”  (July 5, 2010)

While Government members agree that the level of detail in Mr. Fadden’s public comments were regrettable, we do not support the Opposition Coalition Report which ignores the facts and makes reckless recommendations on important issues of national security.

The use of matters of national security and the staffing of senior ranks of the Canadian public service for partisan political purposes are reprehensible practices unbecoming of any serious political party in a modern democracy. The opposition coalition has done both, firmly establishing that no member of the coalition is ready or able to assume the responsibility of governing.