Jenny Kwan: CSIS director should be held accountable for "irresponsible actions"

Jenny Kwan, the NDP MLA for Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, has issued the following statement in response to comments by CSIS director Richard Fadden:

This year, Canada and China celebrated their 40th Anniversary of establishing diplomatic relations. 35 years ago, NDP Premier Dave Barrett was the first Premier in Canada to bring a delegation to China. 15 years ago, former NDP Premier Mike Harcourt twinned BC with Guangdong as sister provinces. As Economic Development critic for the Opposition Caucus in BC, I continue to build relationships with government and business officials in China and many other countries as part of a long tradition in Canadian diplomatic relations overseas.

However, public remarks made by CSIS Director Richard Fadden on three separate occasions are continuing to create confusion and may put these relationships at risk. As we continue to work diligently to build relationships with China and many other countries as elected officials, are we now under threat of surveillance by CSIS?

The public comments made by Mr. Fadden at the Royal Canadian Military Institute earlier this year, in a television interview last month and at a House of Commons Public Safety Committee this week continue to leave most questions unanswered. To suggest that some politicians are under the spell of foreign governments is not a usual finding of a security agency – it is an extraordinary charge made without substantiation.

Why was Mr. Fadden revealing confidential information to the private audience of a think tank that had not been made public before? Why did he make revelations in an interview which cast aspersions on elected officials, especially those who are visible minorities and have family ties to other countries? If elected officials are under the influence of foreign governments, who are they? By what basis does the spy chief make public accusations of this nature without providing details? Who else has he made these allegations to in ”˜private’ settings? What are the Prime Minister and Public Safety Minister doing about this?

How will they hold Mr. Fadden to account and will they commit to make the relevant information public upon receipt of the report from CSIS?

There is a fundamental issue of public oversight at question. If Richard Fadden can have CSIS spy on elected leaders without providing details, then it raises serious questions about who is in charge and if public oversight of the security agency is adequate.

CSIS has extraordinary powers granted to it to through the Parliament of Canada. With that, comes the expectation of professionalism and responsibility.

The tone of Mr. Fadden’s comments also raise serious questions about his judgment. In his televised interview, Fadden said, “You know, you get somebody of the same sort of ethnic background as you are. There’s an affinity to begin with. You’re usually not a longstanding Canadian”¦So you start developing a relationship. You offer a trip back to the homeland and before you know it, you’re being asked to think about things in a slightly different way.” Quite frankly, this is a viewpoint from another era. Does being a new Canadian citizen make you less Canadian? Should we be doing loyalty tests for new citizens? Mr. Fadden appears to be out of touch when it comes to contemporary Canada.

As Wesley Wark of the Munk School Global Affairs recently wrote, Mr. Fadden “spoke of concerns about agents of influence”¦before CSIS had completed its analysis of the intelligence it had gathered, before the Prime Minister’s national security adviser had been fully apprised, before the Public Safety Minister had been informed, before the government had made any policy decision on how to deal with the matter, and before any public statement had been made by a responsible government or the Prime Minister about the issue.”

At the House of Commons Public Safety Committee meeting, it was revealed that Mr. Fadden had not yet briefed Public Safety Minister Vic Toews about the specific nature of the threats posed by elected officials who had come under the spell of foreign governments. That begs the question, why is Mr. Fadden conjecturing in public when the due diligence has not been done to even brief the Minister that he supposedly reports to? If in fact there are real issues of concern, has he not compromised the investigative process with his loose lips?

There is an untenable rupture that has occurred by Mr. Fadden making these amateurish public comments in a premature manner. The principle of public oversight has been compromised. He has cast doubts about a group of elected officials, especially those of immigrant origin– he has done this in an open-ended and irresponsible manner without context or evidence. If Mr. Fadden won't act on his own accord, Minister Toews should hold him accountable for his irresponsible actions and ask for his resignation now.

Comments

28 Comments

LOL

Jul 8, 2010 at 3:50pm

Someone else said something to the effect that it's not necessarily the message which is amusing, but who jumps in response, and how high.

I'm welcoming a probe into the matter, and guessing that Fadden did have enough material to make such a statement.

NDB

Jul 8, 2010 at 4:07pm

What should happen is the all information should be made public, and people should decide based on that information if they want to recall their MLA.

Name withheld until charged

Jul 8, 2010 at 5:10pm

Every politician in Canada is under a cloud of suspicion.
Yet I fail to see anything wrong with that!

Scott B

Jul 8, 2010 at 8:23pm

"are we now under threat of surveillance by CSIS?"

Uh... CSIS is a Canadian agency. It's not out to threaten elected officials, it's out to protect the nation. If they didn't look into relations between officials and corrupt, authoritarian regimes that have miserable human rights records (like China, for example), then we'd have a real problem. This is the real world we live in, we cannot afford to be naive about it:

<object width="300" height="251"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cAz0Pt3NUWM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cAz0Pt3NUWM&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="300" height="251"></embed></object>

"There is a fundamental issue of public oversight at question. If Richard Fadden can have CSIS spy on elected leaders without providing details, then it raises serious questions about who is in charge and if public oversight of the security agency is adequate."

CSIS can spy on anyone without providing details. That's their job: http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/ct/cssct-eng.asp

Political leaders should not be given immunity to scrutiny, in fact, it should be the other way around; they should be held to greater accountability than the rest of the populace, as they hold such a disproportional amount of power in our society, and are an obvious target for foreign influence.

About the affinity aspect of the issue, Jenny Kwan writes: "Quite frankly, this is a viewpoint from another era."

No, cultural affinity is alive and well today -- cultural and ethnic heritage strongly bind diaspora communities in Canada, and the mal-intent will leverage these connections to their advantage -- just ask Bernie Madoff, who preyed on Jewish communities in the US, while the SEC did nothing (which seems to be the course of action you're asking CSIS to take):

<object width="300" height="251"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DtvolnU6Zgc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DtvolnU6Zgc&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="300" height="251"></embed></object>
(fast forward to 2:50)

Honestly, I don't know what I find more worrying, that one of the top Canadian officials tasked with keeping our nation secure is concerned about our security and felt it necessary to speak out to the citizenry, or that our only response is to act hurt and defensive, and turn on each other.

Who is paying Kwan to say this?

Jul 8, 2010 at 8:51pm

The Chinese government?

What did CSIS say that is so controversial? There are spies in Canada, and politicians are corrupt and can be bought off? Is that something new?

Seems that the only people that are offended are corrupt beaurocrats and naive middle class college students.

J.Curtis

Jul 8, 2010 at 9:14pm

i find the whole thing laughable considering todays appointment of the GG who represents a foreign government isnt that influence i would'nt be to alarmed this is just a lot of smoke a mirrors being used and no real substance .its like the old yank saying most people are shot with there own guns.........

AWP

Jul 8, 2010 at 10:58pm

Gee Jenny wasn't it LIBERAL PM Trudeau who did the first contact before Barret and Harcourt? Are you saying China doesn't have any covert operations in Canada? Hope you don't break into tears over this.

arborman

Jul 8, 2010 at 11:11pm

If Fadden had the material he should have used it appropriately to investigate and/or press charges. As it is, he just did a smear and will likely get away with it.

Those who harbour fantasies of traitors under the bed will hold fast to what he said. The rest of us will know he is speaking out of turn.

To be honest I am far more worried about US influence on our affairs than distant China. They stand to gain the most (at our expense) from policy changes and cave-ins like the softwood fiasco. And they are right next door and have a long history of meddling in their neighbours' politics./

Evil Eye

Jul 9, 2010 at 2:42pm

And, just what is Jenny Kwan afraid of? The truth maybe?

I think McFadden was stating the obvious, our politicians are bought and sold like penny stocks.

GAY

Jul 9, 2010 at 3:27pm

Every politician should be under heavier scrutiny at all times, not just when CSIS calls for it. They have so much more influence and power than the average Joe that it simply means running a tight ship.