By Peter Ewart

John Donne, the great 17^th Century English poet, once wrote about death:  [Ask not] for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.  And so it goes with the Harper government’s “anti-terror” and “security” legislation.  It, too, is tolling and, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series, could impact the lives of many Canadians in negative, unexpected ways.

If adopted, this legislation will ramp up anti-democratic laws and practices in the country and further erode the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.  The existing situation is bad enough.  There are many examples of serious abuses by federal security authorities in Canada, especially since 9/11, that have been catalogued.

Many of the individuals abused come from middle to lower income levels with few connections and little means of influence.  But to demonstrate how no one is immune from the swollen power of the federal state and its security agencies, here are three examples from people considered to have more influence, and be higher up on the social ladder and income scale; yet who, without any credible evidence against them, were still thrust into a Kafkaesque world where up is down, black is white, and innocence is guilt.

As related in a recent extensive Vancouver Sun article (1), Steven De Jaray, based in Delta, British Columbia, was once the owner of a medium size technology company with 200 employees and $40 million a year in sales.  Part of its business was to export routine electronic components to China.

However, one day in 2010, all of this came crashing down when he was charged by the Canadian Border Services with exporting goods to China “that could pose a threat to national security”.  As a result of this charge, he lost his business and wealth, and his social and business reputation was destroyed.  In effect, he was ruined.  And to top it all off, his 26 year old daughter was also charged.

Despite the fact that there was no evidence at all that the export of these goods was in violation of Canadian security law (the electronic components were “common, available everywhere, old technology”), federal officials refused to investigate or budge.  It was only later that it came out, he reveals, that federal security officials were using him as a kind of sacrificial lamb to show American officials that the Canadian government was tough on export controls.  The aim was to ease border restrictions and “allow an easier flow of certain goods across the [U.S / Canada] border.”

Although the article does not mention it, there clearly must have been other corporate interests in the country (perhaps even competitors) who wanted this “easier flow” to happen one way or another.  And so Steven De Jaray, as the sacrificial lamb, had the great misfortune to be the one staked out by the government as a threat to Canada’s national security.

Eventually, after several years of hell, De Jaray was declared a completely innocent man, and received a large out-of-court settlement from the federal government (estimated to be $10 million).

Like some of the other federal security agencies in Canada, the Canadian Border Services has sweeping authority, and overweening (and widely criticized) power, but no outside oversight.  As well, it is one of the security agencies that will receive even more power and authority under the federal government’s new “anti-terror” legislation.

Another well-known case of abuse was the plight of Maher Arar, an Ottawa-based professional engineer, who had the bad luck of having a landlord who, although not a terrorist suspect, was a “person of interest” in another investigation and was being watched by CSIS.

Because Arar happened to meet with his landlord at a restaurant on October 12, 2001, CSIS designated Arar as also a “person of interest,” despite the fact that there was no evidence whatsoever linking him to terrorist activity of any kind.  CSIS passed on this “person of interest” designation to U.S. authorities.  One thing led to another, and, as a result, Arar was arrested while visiting the U.S., and  transported off to Syria for a 9/11 style “rendition”, which included imprisonment and torture in a notorious Syrian jail.

Eventually, Arar was released and completely exonerated, receiving a large settlement and apology from the government of Canada.

One of the most disturbing things about the federal government’s new “anti-terror” legislation is that it formalizes and puts into law exactly what happened to Maher Arar.  Under this new legislation, all that is required for you to become a target by CSIS is that you are “relevant” in some way to an investigation.

It is also important to keep in mind that the rationale for these investigations falls under very broad categories now, including “interfering with the economic and financial stability” of the country, or its “critical infrastructure.”

And so it is that, if you have a landlord who is a “person of interest”, or a next-door-neighbour, or a third cousin, or a barber, or shop at a certain grocery store, or know an environmental or First Nations anti-pipeline activist, or have participated in an anti-tax or anti-HST campaign (and who knows what else), lo and behold you could conceivably be added to a CSIS list for further investigation (which could include ransacking your personal and business life, and even mounting dirty tricks against you).  This list, of course, could be shared with foreign powers.  And all is now authorized and formalized under new and current legislation.

Finally, even if you are an Establishment politician or government official, you can be a victim of the increasingly swollen power of CSIS and other intelligence agencies.  For example, in the summer of 2010, the then head of CSIS, Richard Fadden, made the stunning allegation that two unnamed provincial cabinet ministers in Canada, as well as other provincial and municipal officials, were “under the control of foreign countries as part of espionage schemes” (2) (3).  In effect, he was claiming that these politicians were guilty of high treason, like the “Manchurian Candidate” (in the 1960s movie of that name), the implication being that one of the countries was China.

The reaction was swift from provincial premiers.  Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty called on Fadden to back up his unsubstantiated allegations.  Gordon Campbell of British Columbia, quite justifiably, called the comments a smear, as well as “unprecedented and completely unprofessional”.  He further said that “To cast a shadow of doubt across municipal politicians or provincial cabinet ministers without so much as a shred of substantial evidence I have seen, or anyone else has seen, is simply not acceptable in Canada” (4).  He also argued that Fadden’s comments called into question how CSIS itself was operating as an agency.

For her part, Barbara Steele, first vice president of the Union of BC Municipalities, stated that “the accusations [were] unfair to 1600-plus men and women who have been elected to local office in British Columbia.”

CSIS director Fadden later retreated from his remarks, claiming that “CSIS has not deemed the cases to be of sufficient concern to bring them to the attention of provincial authorities.”  But the McCarthy-style damage was done.  Despite the outcry from provincial politicians, Fadden appears to have suffered no repercussions for his outrageous remarks.  Indeed, he continued on as head of CSIS for several more years and was eventually appointed by Stephen Harper to be Deputy Minister of National Defence, a position which he still holds.

What role did the Prime Minister’s Office play in Fadden’s statements?  A Globe and Mail reporter explains: “[Fadden] does sort of shoot from the lip a little bit, but he’s not reckless.  The PMO would not have not known this was coming” (5).

It is well known that there are powerful factions within the corporate and political Establishment of Canada that fight and compete over government subsidies, tax breaks, foreign trade and economic development schemes.  Indeed, these days much of the Canadian state has been corporatized to the point where the line between big corporations and big government has been all but erased.

Were Fadden’s allegations a shot across the bow from the PMO to intimidate and bring under control certain provincial politicians who were challenging the federal government’s economic and political direction?  Or who were associated in some way with another corporate faction?

It all remains a strange mystery.  But it shows how a powerful federal intelligence agency can trump and intimidate top elected provincial and local officials, and get away with it.  This speaks to the heart of the democratic process.

In the last few years, both CSIS and the Prime Minister’s Office have taken on huge new powers that are creating what many feel is a Kafkaesque world.  The examples given above are what can happen to innocent individuals who are higher up on the economic and social ladder in Canada and had the resources to fight back.

What about the rest of the people in the country who do not have such resources at their disposal?  How many innocent Canadians will have their lives upended in the name of “fighting terror”?

A tolling bell can also be a wake-up call.  We live in times when it should be heeded.

Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia.  He can be reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca

1. Culbert, Lori. “Wrongly accused, Metro man collects millions from Ottawa.” Vancouver Sun. January 31, 2015.
2. Freeze, Colin. “CSIS director backtracks on comment that governments infiltrated by spies.” Globe and Mail. June 23, 2010.
3. Boesveld, Sarah. “Government infiltrated by spies, CSIS boss says.” Globe and Mail. June 22, 2010.
4. Freeze, Colin & Ian Bailey. “CSIS director’s future in doubt as politicians decry remarks.” Globe and Mail. June 23, 2010.
5. Freeze, Colin. Audio transcript. “What the CSIS director said and why.” Globe and Mail. June 23, 2010.