Why was Fadden in front of cameras? Questions abound over the spy master's reasons for talking to the CBC. By Evan Duggan Published July 7, 2010

View story Email Comments To the Editor

After two hours of high intensity shelling by joint-party interrogators on Monday, Richard Fadden, Canada's top spy, maintained a firm grasp on one particular message: the Canadian public needs to know.

"I would argue it is good public policy for Canadians to be attuned to the threats that the country faces," Mr. Fadden told members of the Commons' Public Safety committee in his opening remarks. "[The Canadian Security Intelligence Service] believe[s] there is merit in Canadians being more informed about the threats to our national security."

On the surface, it appears that is the reason Mr. Fadden was in front of the CBC's cameras last month: Canada's spy agency, under increasing pressure to be more transparent and accountable, was simply trying to open itself to the public and offer a blunt assessment of the type of world Canadians live in.

Some experts say this move towards more transparency is a positive step that has been long coming, and is in fact a partial return to the spy agency's original mandate. Others, however, have questioned whether there might have been other, political motives.

The interviews in question were broadcast on June 21 and 22 and cast a residue that has clung to the spy director culminating this week in his dramatic committee appearance. During the CBC interviews Mr. Fadden alleged that foreign countries were successfully influencing Canadian elected officials. In particular, he suggested municipal politicians and a "couple of cabinet ministers" at the provincial level were known to be adjusting their public policies in response to foreign influence. He also went so far as to hint that the source of the influence could include China.

But while these comments have created a furor, they were only one small part of the CBC interviews. Mr. Fadden also talked about other foreign threats facing Canada, both political and commercial, and the country's lack of a foreign intelligence agency.

The head of CSIS left Monday's committee meeting having apologized for getting off track during the high-profile June interviews with his comments about Canadian officials, but refused to concede that CSIS should close the door on public engagement.

The committee members struggled to understand how his allegations of multiple counts of foreign influence in high-level Canadian political offices were helpful.

Conservative committee member, Dave MacKenzie seemed particularly unconvinced that Mr. Fadden had a mandate to invite the Canadian public into the depths of Canada's spy agency.

"I agree that foreign activity in Canada and the rest of the Western world is serious," Mr. MacKenzie said. "And I agree that Canadians need to be educated about it, but that does not mean it is the job of CSIS to decide to publicize intelligence information.

"I cannot find the section of the CSIS Act that gives CSIS a mandate to launch a public relations campaign to promote its intelligence findings. Can you point me to something in the act?"

He conceded his regret for providing the sensitive details but argued that, to his knowledge, one of the general undertakings of CSIS—as with any government department and agency—is to inform the public as the agency sees fit without compromising operational details.

When pressed about the extraordinary access that CSIS provided to the CBC, Mr. Fadden again defended himself, saying he did not disclose any classified information during his time with the CBC on, or off camera.

The committee members, led by a line of questioning by Conservative MP Kelly Block, wanted to know what led to the CBC special in the first place.

Mr. Fadden said the idea originated several months ago, before he took over the helm of the CSIS. But the idea, he said, was revitalized and promoted in expectation of the upcoming 25^th anniversary of CSIS. "The initial idea came from the CBC," said Mr. Fadden, adding that CSIS believed "it would be a useful thing to do."

During his testimony, Mr. Fadden repeatedly referred to the need for more transparency in public safety.

The spy director pointed to the agency's annual report as an example of its typical disclosure of general security information, but said he didn't feel the reports had been going far enough.

"I don't think these have been particularly effective in drawing attention to these issues, so it was decided that we would try making a few public speeches," Mr. Fadden testified. "My predecessors have quite regularly spoken both to this committee and the opposite committee in the Senate, [and] to academic institutions."

He said that during his speech to the Royal Canadian Military Institute on March 24, 2010—the event at which Mr. Fadden first publicly claimed that foreign influences had penetrated Canadian elected offices—he lost track of the media, but stressed that the speech and the subsequent CBC special in June reflected the concerted effort to clarify the mandate of CSIS.

David Harris, former chief of strategic planning for CSIS, said the CBC interviews were not uncharted territory for the organization, and supported Mr. Fadden's premise that Canada's intelligence service needed to be better understood.

Mr. Harris said CSIS was created, in part, due to the troubling record of its precursor, the RCMP Security Service. Issues such as poor transparency and repeated breaches of law led to the dismantling of the former service and necessitated the development of a new organization; an agency that could do a better job of synergizing complex tracts of information while reporting back to the necessary authorities.

In 1984, that new agency, CSIS, was constituted to be primarily an aggregator and disseminator of information, Mr. Harris explained.

"One of the things that has been pressed upon CSIS for years has been the need to be open," said Mr. Harris. "But this openness has brought with it, especially in the last 10 years, much greater media involvement in CSIS communications."

CSIS has repeatedly found itself—and its activities—under the limelight, particularly since 9/11. Its involvement in cases like that dealing with Maher Arar and other Canadians detained abroad as well as questions about its policies vis-à-vis information obtained through torture have contributed to calls for more transparency and accountability.

At the same time, there have long been lamentations from some corners that Canadians—largely untouched by terrorism and other threats in the post-9/11 world—don't have an appreciation for the type of world they now live in.

Wesley Wark, security specialist from the University of Toronto, said people shouldn't be surprised that Mr. Fadden has gone public.

"Mr. Fadden...believes that it's important that the service do more to educate Canadians about the realities of threats to national security," said Mr. Wark. "[Mr. Fadden] has the notion that the Canadian public, including the media, are very badly informed about these issues."

But others, including Liberal committee member Andrew Kania, caught the scent of politics in the air. He asked afterwards why it took so long for the government to acknowledge Mr. Fadden's warnings in the first place.

"What I think is, possibly, when he had the interview with Mr. Mansbridge, [Mr. Fadden] was actually crying out for some help because the Conservatives have essentially ignored his grave concerns that he expressed [since] March 2010, and [they have] done nothing," said Mr. Kania.

However, while Mr. Wark faulted the spy director for divulging sensitive information before the government could properly handle the intelligence, he rejected the notion that this was a public relations maneuver staged to garner more resources and a wider mandate for CSIS.

He said it doesn't fit Mr. Fadden's character to risk his career by stepping out of line, and he also stressed that CSIS has no reason to feel neglected by a government that has consistently provided ample resources for the spy agency.

There have been reports that the government has initiated a national security review, while in the 2006 election campaign, then-opposition leader Stephen Harper promised to establish a foreign intelligence service similar to the CIA or the British MI6. The Harper government has since backed off that promise, but has been increasing CSIS's funding.

Asked if he thought the interview was a ploy to garner public support for more resources, Mr. Kania said he suspected not, but did support Mr. Fadden's mandate to talk directly to Canadians.

Throughout the hearing, Mr. Fadden repeatedly told the committee that the government had not facilitated or sanctioned specific statements during his interviews, though he acknowledged that the government was aware that the interviews had taken place.

"Our view—and I want to stress that it's our view— [is that] there is a benefit to Canadians understanding that we are not, for some reason, protected from attempts at espionage, foreign influence or terrorism," Mr. Fadden told the committee. "Partially, because we think this is a democracy. People have the right to know."

eduggan@embassymag.ca