A former CSIS member lashes out at the spy agency, but CSIS stands by its investigative work.

A former member of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service says the spy agency's recent slipshod investigation of Bhupinder Liddar whom CSIS mistakenly declared a security threat because of its "regrettable" attitude that supporting Arab causes can be suspicious, is "just another typical example of how CSIS destroys some peoples' lives and careers." The former CSIS member, who did not want to be named, told The Hill Times last week that the spy agency has had to pay "more than a few individuals as a result of the spy agency's suspicions being reported as hard facts," and said the spy agency will "fight any attempts to get the actual information they used to claim he is a security threat because the service does not want it to be known that they never had anything substantive about Mr. Liddar, only fears and suspicions."However, the CSIS member also said the spy agency is discouraged from releasing such information because CSIS doesn't like to publicize its mistakes, and due to the fact that releasing any information would mean allied services would not want to cooperate or provide intelligence if Canada's spy agency can't guarantee that the information won't be passed on, even to the government, or made public.

"It's a fixture in the intelligence world. The third-party rule. That I cannot blame the service for although I think it's maybe self-serving. It's just the way it works," said the former CSIS member.

However, the former CSIS member said he recalls when the spy agency began watching Mr. Liddar, remembers that the evidence was "flimsy," and said even if the Cabinet minister responsible for CSIS told the spy agency to drop an investigation, it wouldn't.

"I left the government because I became disgusted by the way peoples' rights, privacy and lives were trampled on by the Service. I was black-balled by the service because I didn't toe the line. I lost my family and my career," said the former CSIS member.

The Department of Foreign Affairs cancelled Mr. Liddar's appointment as Canada's consul general to Chandigarh, India, in March 2004 after he failed to get a security clearance.

Mr. Liddar filed an appeal with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, requesting a review of CSIS' findings.

Before Mr. Liddar filed his appeal with SIRC, Mr. Liddar said the Privy Council Office offered him $60,000 in return for a resignation from his position and a promise not to discuss this issue in future which he rejected.

Last week, SIRC issued a report in which it slammed the spy agency for making a recommendation to deny a security clearance to Mr. Liddar without establishing solid grounds and also expressed disappointment about the way in which the spy agency handled this case. The report showed that the spy agency was concerned about Mr. Liddar in part because he worked as a Parliamentary assistant in the 1970s and 1980s for MPs who were sympathetic to the Arab causes and the job meant he was in contact with the Palestine Liberation Organization and Arab lobby groups. It shows the spy agency was concerned about his hobnobbing in Ottawa's diplomatic community when he started his diplomatic magazine.

"To summarize my conclusions, I find that there was no reasonable basis for the recommendation that CSIS made that Mr. Liddar be denied a top secret security clearance," wrote Paule Gauthier, former chairwoman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

After receiving this report, Peter Harder, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs granted top secret security clearance to Mr. Liddar.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Pettigrew (Papineau, Que.) issued a statement of "regret" last week.

"On behalf of the Government of Canada, I wish to take this opportunity to express our sincere regret for the impact the delays related to Mr. Liddar's diplomatic appointment have had on him both personally and professionally," said Mr. Pettigrew. "With Mr. Liddar's consent, I also wish to confirm publicly that the government has granted him a top secret security clearance based upon the recommendations of Canada's Security and Intelligence Review Committee."

Conservative Party Foreign Affairs Critic Stockwell Day (Okanagan-Coquihalla, B.C.) also later said that "the botched attempt by Paul Martin to dump Jean Chrétien's appointment of Bhupinder Liddar to a consular post is one of the sleaziest and shabbiest examples of Martin cronyism yet."

Mr. Liddar's lawyers were in consultation with the Foreign Affairs lawyers last week and it was unclear whether Mr. Liddar would get his appointment back. But Global National reported last week "that Bhupinder Liddar will be given a new diplomatic posting by the Martin government but not the original job in the province of India."

A Foreign Affairs spokesperson declined to comment on this specific issue or any issue relating to Mr. Liddar's case.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Anne McLellan (Edmonton Centre, Alta.), in a statement last week, said that she has written "to the director of CSIS asking him to look into certain matters raised in the [SIRC] report and provide me with his assessment."

Mr. Liddar, meanwhile, told The Hill Times that he's pleased with the SIRC report and Mr. Pettigrew's statement as it has helped him in clearing his name.

"I'm pleased with the SIRC report because it clears my name and restores my credibility and my reputation and it also restores the faith and confidence in the Canadian institutions that if things sometimes do go off rail, there's a process that can take care of it. I'm also appreciative of Foreign Affairs Minister Pettigrew's expression of regret and I welcome his expression. I look forward to serving Canada in a diplomatic capacity at the earliest possible moment," Mr. Liddar said.

Meanwhile, the former CSIS member said most of the cases in which the spy agency brands an individual a security threat are never challenged, he said the Inspector General's Office has been "gutted," and that the government and the spy agency hide behind secrecy laws in order to prevent the public from ever knowing what's going on.

"I cannot fathom how a country such as Canada can tolerate such a draconian organization as CSIS. In fact, the whole infrastructure is run by the Privy Council Office. And now the government plans on getting legislative authority to do what they have been doing for years: intercepting Canadians' communications, written, telephone, email, etc., perverting Sec. 16 of the CSIS Act in order to help the CSE justify its budget after the fall of the Iron Curtain. PCO is responsible for the gathered information, as per an arrangement reached between External Affairs, CSIS and PCO. The Solicitor General was cut out of the loop even though he is on paper as being responsible."

The former CSIS member, who said he is motivated by the desire to see that Canadians' privacy and freedoms are not further eroded, said "another typical tactic is to approach immigrants and threaten to have them deported if they don't provide information," adding that the spy agency had "sources" on university campuses and at least in one church in the 1990s. The CSIS member said although the CSIS Act requires the director of CSIS to report any instances of "unlawful" activities by CSIS members, it rarely happens.

The former CSIS member said the situation in Canada is far worse than it was in "the pre-MacDonald Commission days," emphasizing that there is little or no real accountability.

"The Air India case could have resulted in a conviction or convictions if CSIS had not destroyed evidence. The people who should have seen that the tapes were protected never followed the ministerial directives, most of which have now been destroyed. The tapes were erased because people in Vancouver argued CSIS is not in the intelligence collection business," said the source.

The former CSIS member said he wasn't surprised by SIRC's report last week that found CSIS investigators routinely destroy screening interview notes, and are not above lying, and making it difficult for anyone to scrutinize their work.

The former CSIS member said he remembers a CSIS member destroying security screening files because he couldn't handle the stress and also remembers when CSIS started and recruited a drug dealer by mistake.

Lia Quickert, press secretary to Ms. McLellan, declined to comment on the former CSIS member's allegations, arguing that if the person making these accusations can substantiate them, the person should contact SIRC.

"I am not going to comment on these allegations. These are very serious allegations, and if the person has any information that they believe is important in this matter, then that person should bring it to the attention of SIRC," said Ms. Quickert.

CSIS spokesperson Barbara Campion said the spy agency categorically denies and refutes all the allegations made by the former CSIS employee.

Ms. Campion said CSIS' mandate, under the CSIS Act is to provide security assessments to government departments under the Government Security Policy and with respect to Mr. Liddar, CSIS' advice to Foreign Affairs "differed from SIRC's recommendation following its investigation of Mr. Liddar's complaint."

"This case validates the important and vital role played by SIRC in ensuring that CSIS remains accountable to the government and to the Canadian public," stated Ms. Campion, in a prepared statement.

Moreover, Ms. Campion pointed out that Sec. 41 and 42 of the CSIS Act provide the opportunity for any individual to complain to SIRC if they're concerned about the spy agency's treatment, which Mr. Liddar did.

"On occasion, the Service and SIRC will differ in their conclusions and it is the responsibility of the Deputy Head to make the final decision in all cases," said Ms. Campion.

As far as the allegations that the spy agency intimidates immigrants to Canada, Ms. Campion said CSIS has clear internal guidelines with respect to interviews, emphasizing that although the policy recognizes that some immigrants to Canada come from countries with a history of human rights violations by police and security officials, "when dealing with such persons, employees are sensitive to the fears or attitudes which often result from prior association with police and security officials. Additionally, while conducting interviews, employees must not make threats of any nature for the purpose of intimidating any person into cooperating with the Service."

Responding to the allegation that CSIS had "sources" on university campuses and at least one church in the 1990s, Ms. Campion said "the recruitment and direction of human sources is an acknowledged investigative tool used by the Service in fulfilling its mandate. CSIS is sensitive to the special role played by institutions of higher learning in our society, and the approval of the minister is required before directing human sources on campus."

Ms. Campion added: "Special care is also exercised in the recruitment or direction of human sources involved in other fundamental institutions of our society, and the approval of a very senior CSIS official is required prior to using a human source to provide operational assistance in any investigation which impacts or appears to impact on a sensitive sector."

Moreover, Ms. Campion said under the CSIS Act, the director is required to report any illegal activities to the minister. "These instances are rare. Furthermore, every year the director sends a letter to the Inspector General about any non-compliance activities that might have taken place throughout the year under review."

Ms. Campion said the spy agency "takes very seriously any breach of policy by any of its employees," which is why the reports to the minister and the Inspector General vehicles exist and "are only two of the systems that are in place to capture and report any deviation from the law and policies."

As far as the Air India allegations made by the former CSIS member, Ms. Campion said CSIS' internal policy "directs that transcripts of intercepted material shall not be kept once a final report is submitted, the 'strictly necessary' clause."


As for Mr. Liddar's case, Ms. Campion said the spy agency's policy is not to release notes and interview tapes of security clearances for legal and national security reasons, but added that the CSIS director "has undertaken a commitment to the minister to give further consideration to this recommendation at this time."

Declared Ms. Campion: "SIRC and CSIS enjoy an excellent working relationship and SIRC has consistently found CSIS to act appropriately and within the confines of its mandate and of the law. Instances of disagreements between SIRC and CSIS are rare."

[email]
[email]
The Hill Times