Canada’s spy agency crafted PR strategy to boost morale, explain role

TORONTO – A firestorm of criticism that followed a rare television interview with the head of Canada’s intelligence service was the unintended consequence of an otherwise carefully crafted strategy aimed at burnishing the agency’s image, internal documents show.

It was during that appearance on the CBC in 2010 that Richard Fadden, then-director of the Canadian Intelligence Security Service, suggested certain politicians had become too close to the Chinese government, an assertion he was forced to backtrack on.

The public relations offensive that preceded that interview — and an earlier major speech Fadden gave — came at a time CSIS was feeling hard done by because of reporting on the case of suspected terrorist Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian the federal government had left stranded for six years in Sudan.

As a result, the agency decided it needed to win both public sympathy and understanding for its shadowy role in protecting national security, according to documents disclosed as part of a civil suit Abdelrazik has filed against Ottawa.

“The accuracy and context of media reporting on this and related issues may improve,” one document states. “CSIS employees, who often feel they are not being defended, would respond extremely positively, and morale would be improve (sic).”

While Canadian courts had found the federal government complicit in Abdelrazik’s predicament, CSIS was keen to refute reports that it had asked Sudanese authorities to detain Abdelrazik — it hadn’t — as well as his contention that service agents had threatened him. CSIS also wanted to get across that its agents have to interact with Canadians to their job.

“This is not harassment, as is often reported,” the writer states. “It is part of our legal mandate and our duty.”

The spy service, which did not respond to a request for comment, kicked about several ideas, such as offering an interview with an “agenda-setting” media outlet or even having The Canadian Press national news agency organize an editorial-board with various journalists.

The aim, according to the documents, would be to foster a more informed and “reasonable” public debate on security issues and the law.

The agency employee who devised the plan — his name is redacted — said going public could have advantages in getting a positive message out, but also fretted that a “counter-narrative” could backfire and create more skepticism or mistrust.

“CSIS could effectively be interjecting itself into a case that has been poorly communicated for many years, becoming the lightning rod for accumulated anger and outrage for (Foreign Affairs) and ministers,” the writer states.

“CSIS could be accused of doing the government’s ‘dirty work’ or of having its intelligence politicized in an unhealthy manner.”

Overall, the analysis concluded that government ministers rather than the agency should speak to the Abdelrazik case given the “highly political dimension of consular policy and the overall stance towards Canadians who are in difficulty abroad” but Fadden delivered his speech and went on national television.

Intelligence expert Wesley Wark said the strategy, while perhaps premised on a good idea, was poorly executed and backfired badly in light of Fadden’s comments on the foreign influence on politicians about which he was forced to backtrack.

“It did force CSIS very much back into its shell, where it has essentially remained from those events to the present,” said Wark, a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa.

“One of the impacts it had was to strengthen the culture of secrecy and a culture of us versus them within CSIS.”

However, Wark said the election of the Liberal government in Ottawa would likely put pressure on the agency to become more transparent.

Fadden could not be reached for comment.