National Security Under Stephen Harper and the Conservatives was a Gong Show
As conflicts get hotter and other countries get bolder, Canada needs to strengthen national security. The last time the Conservatives were in power, they were a disaster.
It’s clear from the news that Canada and the world are in a new and heightened phase of tensions and crisis. It’s playing out in outright violence and war, unrest, uprisings as well as in spying and subversion. There are new waves of political interference and manipulation through social media.
As I wrote earlier this week, the confirmation that Chinese researchers at a Level-4 lab in Winnipeg, Canada, were spies, and there have even other security challenges.
It has to be said, however, that Conservatives who are trying to make hay with this should not be able to ignore their own record on national security, which was abysmal.
Many of the issues we are dealing with today trace back directly to issues that were neglected and ignored under the last Conservative government.
That includes the researchers at the National Microbiology Lab. In 2009, a researcher was caught at the Canada-U.S. border with an envelope full of vials taken from the lab. At the very least, that should have been an incident that triggered a review of heightened security.
Nothing happened in the next six years to change it - because the spying at the lab and sharing of information with China continued for the next six years the Conservatives were in power, until 2015.
There was a lot of tough posturing and draconian legislative measures by the Conservatives - which can reinforce an image of being “strong” or “tough,” but it was all sabre-rattling and public relations.
A number of major blunders in security speak to incompetence, naiveté or negligence.
This is not an exhaustive list: there are more examples, but these are major ones because they are so serious.
1) Despite warnings, appointed Arthur Porter - a fraudster and accused criminal- as the head of the oversight committee for CSIS.
Harper appointed Arthur Porter IV as the Chair of the SIRC (now renamed) against the recommendations of Gilles Duceppe, who shared a series of articles about Porter’s questionable deals in Quebec newspapers. Porter turned out to be doing secret deals in Africa with Russia, and took a $22.5-million bribe to direct a contract worth more than $1-billion to SNC-Lavalin.
You can read it here -
Peter Nygard and Arthur Porter IV: The Strangest Political Meeting You’ve Never Heard About
Porter is now in Panama’s La Joya prison awaiting extradition to Canada, where he is accused of defrauding the McGill University Health Centre by taking bribes from former executives at engineering firm SNC Lavalin as part of a $22.5-million kickback scheme. Porter, who has lung cancer, says he is innocent, and the charges have not been tested in court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Porter head of the Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) on Sept. 3, 2008, giving him access to Canada’s most carefully guarded secrets, including information shared with Canadian spies by American and British intelligence agencies. In June 2010, Harper made him chairman of the five-member committee. SIRC’s job is to review operations of Canada’s spy agency, CSIS, by providing civilian oversight of operations and handling appeals from citizens who feel they have been mistreated by the agency. He stepped down amid controversy in 2011.
The PMO won’t comment on the reasons he was initially appointed, but at the time Porter was popular with the Liberal government in Quebec, which was impressed by his work getting the McGill hospital built; and with Conservatives such as Sen. David Angus, who sat on the hospital’s board. The Liberals and NDP raised no objections, saying they lacked information, but on Feb. 1, 2008, then-Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe wrote to Harper to oppose the appointment on the basis of Porter’s record during a period when he worked in Detroit. Duceppe pointed to “numerous problems: conflicts of interest, bad management and threatened guardianship.”
“Unless the checks carried out by the government have led to the convincing rejection of these allegations, I am obliged to reject the proposed nomination,” he wrote.
Duceppe’s letter was based on revelations from 2004 investigative stories in L’Actualite medicale, a Quebec medical publication, and Le Devoir, a Montreal daily. The stories quoted medical officials in Detroit who had raised concerns about Porter’s management of the Detroit Medical Center from 1999 to 2004, including allegations that he had an interest in a company that had received a $1 billion contract from the hospital. Porter was never sanctioned in relation to the controversy.
2. Then-Conservative Maxime Bernier leaving top secret documents at his girlfriends’ house -
She had previously been linked romantically to a member of a criminal biker gang
3) A Navy spy was selling Secrets to the Russians for years even though there were red flags about him being a security risk
Jeffrey Delisle had been selling secrets to the Russians for years.
During his prosecution, Delisle told the court he gave away “a lot” to his Russian handlers, a comment confirmed by one memo titled, “possible compromise of allied documents.”
It says that classified documents “proprietary” to an unnamed agency or nation were accessed by Delisle and “therefore suspected of having been compromised.”
Delisle was picked up by the RCMP in early 2012 after authorities were tipped that the junior naval officer was spying for the Russians. Within two weeks of his arrest, a top general established a high-level committee that touched on many branches of the military to deal with the fallout.
But as officers struggled to understand what may have leaked, they dealt with another worry too — that Delisle and his Russian handlers may have sabotaged Defence Department computers.https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/delisle-case-fbi-official-1.5877764
4) The Conservatives sold weapons to Putin-backed regime in Ukraine
While the Harper government is making a lot of noise about standing up to Putin in Ukraine, Canada was exporting weapons to the corrupt regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
Published: February 28, 2014
OTTAWA – As Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird visited Kyiv on Friday, the federal New Democrats wanted to know why Canada exported more than $80,000 worth of weapons to the former Ukraine regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
A Foreign Affairs Department report on the lawful export of Canadian military goods shows that shipments to Ukraine jumped to $82,000 in 2011 from $50,000 in 2010.
In 2011 — the year after Yanukovych was elected — Canada approved the shipment of $56,700 worth of “Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of less than 20 mm, other arms and automatic weapons with a calibre of 12.7 mm or less and accessories” to Ukraine.
The same year, Canada also exported more than $25,000 worth of “Smooth-bore weapons with a calibre of 20 mm or more, other weapons or armament with a calibre greater than 12.7 mm, projectors and accessories.”
Yanukovych is wanted on suspicion of mass murder after more than 80 people were killed last week in clashes between protesters and police, including sniper attacks.
5) Loosened restrictions on uranium sales to China, which exports to Pakistan
Under the Conservatives, Canada made it easier to sell uranium to China.
“the deal with Beijing has raised concerns in Ottawa, because it includes less stringent accounting for how the uranium is used than Canada typically demands, sources said. When Australia made a similar deal with China in 2008 that included less accountability, it faced criticism from other uranium suppliers, including Canada.
China insisted on getting the same sort of accounting requirements for Canadian exports that it got from Australia. As well as using uranium for other purposes, it also has military nuclear programs, which are not subject to accounting or inspection.
While the Canadian uranium deal raised questions, there are differences over whether it presents a real risk. China already has nuclear weapons, is believed to have halted stockpiling, and has shown restraint in limiting its arsenal.
Of greater concern is its long support for the civilian nuclear industry in Pakistan, which developed atomic bombs in the 1990s, and whose scientists have sold nuclear-weapons technology to Iran and North Korea. China is supposed to stop nuclear trade with Pakistan, but has argued it should be allowed to continue to supply nuclear material and equipment.
The new Canadian deal with China will rely on general assurances that all Canadian uranium is used for appropriate civilian purposes, although Canada usually requires a more detailed accounting from customers other than the United States.
Pakistan, by the way, sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea
6) Security coordination on Parliament Hill was so poor that security teams couldn’t talk to each other.
This was only addressed after a gunman shot and killed an unarmed soldier and stormed inside the Houses of Parliament.
7. There appeared to be an ISIS recruiter working in the Canadian embassy in Jordan who helped three young women from the UK fly to Syria to join ISIS
“Canada’s embassy in Jordan, which is run by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s handpicked ambassador and former top bodyguard, is being linked in news reports to an unfolding international terrorism and spy scandal.”
Canada’s ambassador to Jordan is Bruno Saccomani, the former RCMP officer who was in charge of Harper’s security detail until the prime minister appointed him almost two years ago as the envoy to Amman, with dual responsibility for Iraq.
The suspect in custody is a Syrian intelligence operative named Mohammed Mehmet Rashid – dubbed Doctor Mehmet Rashid – who helped the three London schoolgirls travel to Syria upon their arrival in Turkey, according to Yeni Safak, a conservative and Islamist Turkish newspaper known for its strong support of the government.
9. Conservative MP, Bob Dechert was courted by reporter from the Chinese State News Agency in what many saw as an effort to extract secrets from him
Li Fengzhi, a former agent with China’s Ministry of State Security, says politicians like Foreign Affairs parliamentary secretary Bob Dechert are a top target of Chinese spies keen on learning about Canadian secrets, or grooming advocates for Beijing in Canada’s corridors of power.
Dechert’s relationship with Toronto-based Xinhua reporter Shi Rong was revealed when someone hijacked her email account and forwarded a series of intimate messages she received from the Mississauga politician in the spring and summer of 2010. The leak was traced back to an apparent domestic dispute with Shi’s husband.
Li, who defected to the United States in 2003 and is now believed to be working for the Central Intelligence Agency, was speaking to a high-level conference here on espionage through video link. For security reasons, his location was not disclosed.
He said it is not possible to say with certainty that a Xinhua reporter is providing intelligence back to Beijing, but the act of striking up a relationship with an elected official fits the modus operandi of Chinese spies.
“That’s the normal way to get the job done,” he said.
Shi was called back to China when the relationship hit the news, which is another reason to be suspicious, Li said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dechert-s-chinese-reporter-friend-reassigned-1.983698
10. Rahim Jaffer seeking secret military satellite technology from his former colleagues
When a scandal involves “busty hookers” and allegations of cocaine use, people tend to focus on lurid details - while missing other ones completely, like the fact that former MP Rahim Jaffer - husband of Minister Helena Guerguis - allegedly pumped his former colleagues for information about Canada’s military satellite technology.
… Jaffer wrote to David Pierce, then the director of parliamentary affairs to then industry minister Tony Clement, with detailed questions about the Canadian government’s “long-term space policy” regarding Radarsat Constellation, a high-technology earth-observation satellite being developed by MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates with more than $500 million in federal funding.
On March 16, 2010, Jaffer, using an email address belonging to Guergis’s MP account, wrote that he had “a few questions on behalf of some constituents who are friends of Helena and I.”
He then asks, in the email, about the government’s plans for the satellite program, including its sensitive “automatic identification system,” a military system used to identify vessels in Canadian waters.
“I know these are very technical questions and I have pretty much copied and pasted their request directly to you,” Jaffer wrote in the email to Pierce.
In a letter to ethics commissioner Mary Dawson on April 16, 2010, after Guergis left the government, Pierce wrote that he also spoke to Jaffer on March 17 but did not pass on any information about Canada’s space program.
In June, 2010, CSIS director Richard Fadden warned that China was attempting to influence Canadian politicians, and former CSIS agents have publicly warned that the communist government’s agents are engaged in an ongoing, multifaceted intelligence operations in Canada, driven by interest in Canadian technology and resources.
10) The Conservatives’ anti-terrorist “No fly list” let people keep flying who were actively promoting terror and how to commit it
In 2015, there was a heated debate about bill C-51. By heated, I mean the debate was more heat than light, as well as divisive. There was plenty of political posturing as well as outright misinformation and fear mongering. Some parts of the bill, if passed, would result in miscarriages of justice - but MPs were playing political games and voting down amendments that would actually fix the bill.
Some critics also went overboard by claiming There was also a lot of scoffing that more people are killed by moose in Canada than terrorists. This requires ignoring the 1985 Air India Tragedy, when 329 people were killed when a bomb set by terroris in Canada exploded on board a jet at 31,000 feet. There were also multiple shootings and bombings related to abortion, and bombing attempts related to racial and religious hate. White supremacists were plotting to blow up a mall in Nova Scotia, and there have been further acts of violence and threats, including intimidation and assassination plots for foreign powers on Canadian soil.
It also has to be said, there are still laws that need improving. One was around Canada’s no-fly list.
The origins of the “immediate threat” conundrum can be traced back to one man: Hani Ahmed Al Telbani, a former master’s student in Concordia University’s department of engineering. A Palestinian immigrant and permanent resident of Canada, Telbani was 26 when he showed up at Montreal’s Trudeau Airport on June 4, 2008, with a round-trip ticket to Riyadh, via Heathrow. But instead of a luggage tag he was handed an “emergency direction” from Transport Canada, branding him an “immediate threat” who “will endanger the security of an aircraft.” He was the program’s inaugural hit, the first person ever denied boarding as a result of the new list.
According to CSIS, Telbani was one of the devoted administrators of a notorious but now defunct Web forum known as el-Ekhlaas, a militant, password-protected site that broadcast fresh messages from Osama bin Laden and how-to guides for aspiring jihadists. His online alias was “Mujahid Taqni” (Technical Jihad). Posts on the web page ranged from how to launch a shoulder-fired missile to “eliminating the phobia and anxiety that some people feel and which hinders them from participating actively in jihad because they assume that intelligence services are counting their breaths and monitoring their every move.”
Telbani appealed his no-fly list ruling - and won - when the security experts on the appeal committee determined that because there was not enough evidence he was an immediate threat to the plane he was boarding - that despite his open advocacy for acts of terror, that he should be allowed to fly and should only be placed on the no-fly list if he was planning to commit an immediate act of terrorism.
A point here about the restriction and issues of civil liberties put in place by a no-fly list. Flying - like being licensed to drive a car - is not a right. A government can suspend your right to drive on a public roadway, and private air carriers can ban or refuse service. There are possible injustices from this, but there is no right to fly.
This was eventually overturned as well - but it took the Tories seven years to address it in legislation
Better security means strong legal protections as well as effective enforcement
Canada need effective legal tools to deal with terrorism and foreign threats and interference.
We don’t need a repeat of “war on terror”-era laws that cut corners on rights and opened the door to abuse, including instances of real harm. The legal measures to fight “terror” rolled back decades (and sometimes centuries) of protections against being snatched off the street by secret police and held without charge while never being told what you’ve been charged with.
In 2009, the Federal Conservatives brought in a Ministerial Directive that essentially green-lit the use of information obtained by torture. These measures lead to horrific injustices, for the basic reason that they don’t work. Under torture, people will say anything.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ministerial-directive-evidence-torture-1.3692142
We need to have a better-working security and police agencies. They need to be properly resourced, properly trained, and they need proper oversight.
In the two decades, especially after the attacks of 9/11, we have seen countries abandon the pretence of the protection of basic rights that have existed for centuries in the name of fighting terrorism. In a so-called “clash of civilizations” we saw a race to the bottom in barbarism.
The response to acts of terror was often for western governments to start voluntarily dismantling the very structures of justice and the rule of law that define “civilization” - in the sense of being rules and laws that enforce impartial justice.
There were debates about whether torture techniques, like waterboarding, were really torture. They were called “extreme interrogation” but they were unquestionably torture. Waterboarding simulates drowning: it makes people feel as if they are about to die at the hands of their questioners - quite aside from other forms of interrogation.
The common defence of torture and other corner cutting of basic rights and liberties was that the existing tools weren’t up to the job, and that the legal restrictions placed on authorities were holding them back.
These are not credible arguments - though they are satisfying to people who want revenge.
There are practical, legal and moral reasons for staying true to these principles, both for ourselves as a society and for resolving these conflicts, not just continually extending and escalating them.
In some cases the laws being repealed date back centuries - to the Magna Carta. Being detained without charge was considered unacceptable 800 years ago. Ironically, at the time the Magna Carta was signed, it happened as an uprising against King John (of Robin Hood fame) was because he was raising taxes to pay the ransom for his brother, King Richard the Lionheart, who had been captured during the Crusades.
If detention without charge was considered unacceptable during the Crusades, why is it supposed to be acceptable now?
We naturally find these crimes and acts of terror disgusting and abhorrent. The argument people want to make is extreme and violent criminals and terrorists pose a special threat.
Actual experts in interrogation will tell you that the methods don’t work. You get bad intelligence that you can’t use.
It is also a fact that the people who commit these horrific acts are human beings. This might seem like an obvious thing to say, except that the fundamental basis of our laws, and human rights, is that they apply when you are a human being.
The actual people who commit these crimes may be moral monsters, but they are still human moral monsters, and if we don’t recognize that, we risk becoming moral monsters ourselves.
This matters because of the society we are going to live in, what we are “fighting for” and also - in purely strategic and practical terms - whether the methods to confront terror and espionage are going to work, or whether, by betraying our own values, we are handing the enemy a moral victory, and a new cause to rally around, fuelling further conflict.
In the current growing global unrest, there is plenty of escalation and doubling down on conflict, and no clear road map to greater stability.
Yes, we need investments in security and national defence. We also need to make sure that we are doubling down on our commitment to our own fundamental principles of freedom and due process. That’s something worth fighting for.
• DFL
The O.Canada article about Canada supplying arms to Yanukovych has been removed.