It escaped me in the moment, but it is perhaps worth noting that the Conservative MP who most aggressively pursued Richard Fadden yesterday was Dave MacKenzie, who holds the title and responsibility of parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.
Secondly, the portion of the CSIS Act in question yesterday was Section 19. Mr. Fadden’s defence seemed to be that the information he disclosed was not specific enough to constitute a violation.
19. (1) Information obtained in the performance of the duties and functions of the Service under this Act shall not be disclosed by the Service except in accordance with this section.
(2) The Service may disclose information referred to in subsection (1) for the purposes of the performance of its duties and functions under this Act or the administration or enforcement of this Act or as required by any other law and may also disclose such information,
(a) where the information may be used in the investigation or prosecution of an alleged contravention of any law of Canada or a province, to a peace officer having jurisdiction to investigate the alleged contravention and to the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of the province in which proceedings in respect of the alleged contravention may be taken;
(b) where the information relates to the conduct of the international affairs of Canada, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs or a person designated by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the purpose;
(c) where the information is relevant to the defence of Canada, to the Minister of National Defence or a person designated by the Minister of National Defence for the purpose; or
(d) where, in the opinion of the Minister, disclosure of the information to any minister of the Crown or person in the public service of Canada is essential in the public interest and that interest clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, to that minister or person.