Atwal affair leaves plenty of questions
Like much of the nation, I have been riveted by the highstakes test of wills between government and opposition over who should brief whom about what with regard to l’affaire Atwal.
As I need hardly recapitulate, the Conservatives had demanded the prime minister’s National Security and Intelligence Adviser, Daniel Jean, appear before a Commons committee to answer questions about his timely intervention on behalf of the prime minister’s ass during what is now universally known as His Disastrous Trip to India.
Among other embarrassments, the trip had been all but derailed by the revelation that a former member of a Sikh terrorist group, Jaspal Atwal, convicted in the 1986 attempted murder of a visiting Indian cabinet minister on Vancouver Island, had twice been invited by the Canadian High Commission to attend receptions in the prime minister’s honour.
That was before Jean, a career civil servant and the most senior member of the national security establishment, contacted members of the national press to suggest, off the record, that Atwal’s appearances had in fact been orchestrated by rogue elements within the Indian government to make the government of Canada look soft on terrorism and sow discord with India.
The theory was widely mocked, including by former intelligence officials, and frankly didn’t make a whole lot of sense: even if Atwal’s presence in the country were due to some elaborate high-level plot to sabotage the prime minister’s visit (he had in fact been granted several visas over the years, the latest of which was last summer) it did not explain how he got on the invite list — especially since a Liberal MP, Randeep Sarai, had already confessed his responsibility.
But this was not some flack from the Prime Minister’s Office spinning this, but the country’s top spook, so my colleagues felt obliged to report it, taking care to describe Jean only as a “senior government official with knowledge of security issues,” and the like. Until the next morning, when I suspect they woke up feeling used.
So when it all blew up, and blew up again — the prime minister backing Jean in Parliament, the Indian government bluntly expressing its dismay at this “baseless and unacceptable” suggestion — it was hardly surprising the Conservatives would demand to hear from Jean, by now outed as the source. When the Liberals refused, citing national security, the Tories held up parliamentary proceedings in protest.
There followed a government offer to give Tory leader Andrew Scheer a classified briefing — for which, as a Privy Councillor, he is eligible — countered by Scheer’s demand that MPs also be briefed on the unclassified bits, to which the government eventually agreed on condition that … well, it all gets a bit eyeglazing at this point. (The Liberals suggested they might be amenable to Jean appearing before the new, top-secret, multi-party, bicameral National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. If he did, we’d never know it: its members are forbidden by their lifetime secrecy oath even to divulge whether he appeared before them.)
That both sides are playing politics with this, the Tories seeking to prolong the prime minister’s India agonies, the Liberals doing their best to tie up their inquiries in national security knots, is not in doubt. But underneath all the partisan silliness there are some serious issues involved, and serious questions raised by Jean’s intervention.
First, who was responsible for the decision to involve him so overtly on such a political file? Was it on Jean’s own initiative? That would be odd, and improper, for someone in his position. Or did the prime minister’s office put him up to it? That would be even more improper.
Second, what is the truth of what he is reported to have said? Was there really a plot to embarrass the prime minister by high-level Indian officials seeking to poison Indian-Canadian relations? That’s a huge charge, and one worth investigating, despite — or because of — the Indian government’s assurances. Or if it is not true, then why did Jean say it? Was he making it up? Wrongly informed? Hallucinating?
Third, what is the evidence backing this theory? The reporters say Jean offered none. The Tories wonder nevertheless if it was based on classified information, which might thus have been put at risk. Or if no classified information was disclosed, then why all the stonewalling and foot-dragging? Why the reluctance to let Jean answer questions from parliamentarians? Why should MPs have less information than reporters?
So that’s national security, Canada-India relations, the rights of Parliament and the impartiality of the civil service potentially in play, to say nothing of the issues raised by the incident Jean was attempting to explain away: the presence of a convicted terrorist, posing for pictures with Liberal cabinet ministers, at official functions — and not just in Canada, where Atwal was a fixture at Liberal events, but on Indian soil. During a visit whose purpose was ostensibly to mend fences on this very issue.
It’s probable this was just a colossal screw-up. And yet the government has left hanging the unsupported accusation that elements of a foreign power were responsible — a power with whom we ostensibly have friendly relations. Only rather than make the accusation itself, it has relied upon the shadowy allegations of a shadowy civil servant, whom it has spent the past several weeks shielding from scrutiny.
This will not do. As I said, there are serious questions raised by this affair, and they demand serious answers: about what was said, and why, and at whose behest. At the very least Jean needs to account for his own actions. He may shed light on others’ as well.