‘Explain Yourself or Resign, Critics Tell Top Spy’

and ‘Chow Slams Spy Fiction’


Proof Canada’s National Security “Experts” and the

Universities That Hired Them Aren’t to be Trusted 

© 2010 Brad Kempo B.A. LL.B.

Barrister & Solicitor


CSIS Director Fadden predicted with accuracy what politicians, pundits and national security experts would say about his revelations.  That’s why he carefully strategized the disclosure – seeking to bait those who’ve protected the status quo all these decades so he can expose them as hypocrites on top of being guilty of Security of Information Act violations.  What he’s done and will do falls into the category of master-stroke genius. 


The arrogance of absolute power and a “culture of entitlement” on steroids, is what’s fueling the backlash observed within 24 hours of the Fadden bombshell.  Seeking to swiftly repair the damage caused by the CSIS Director’s carefully strategized CBC interview, the triangle of power and wealth mustered all its character assassination resources to discredit him.  So convinced they’ll weather this storm, the status quo protector Toronto Star authorized its resident Chinese reporter Petti Fong to publish the headline ‘CSIS head backtracks on allegations of foreign influence over Canadian officials’; and the day before Jack Layton’s wife, MP Olivia Chow, fired a salvo of her own using the newspaper’s national platform.  Both articles are reproduced infra.



It won’t be until Director Fadden satisfies his critics with ‘the evidence’ that he’ll be seen to have undertaken an exceptionally clever, nay genius, strategy.  He baited them with allegations – disclosing only enough to rile the Chinada establishment; then sat back and watched as those who have everything to lose commit themselves to a position that will be viewed very differently as the government, administration of justice and security apparatus crumbles under the weight of the his and the RCC’s national awareness campaign.  Thirty million plus livid Canadians will perceive these condemnations as profoundly hypocritical and disingenuous in the extreme when the proof his tendered.  



Two national security academics came to the rescue of the embattled establishment.  One is Welsley Wark; and the other Reg Whitaker.  The latter commented to the mainstream press about the CSIS Director, a long-term associate: “I just find that extraordinary and astonishing, because there was no gain for him to say it”.  Certainly that is the case unless understood in the context of what was argued in June 23, 2010: Canadian Politicians Accused of Being Under Control of Foreign Governments, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star and CBC News.


Explain yourself or resign, critics tell top spy

by Michelle Shephard

The Star

June 25, 2010

Read article 


[T]remors within Canada’s spy service continued Thursday with critics demanding an explanation – or the resignation – of CSIS director Richard Fadden for his comments to CBC TV about “foreign influence” on Canadian politicians.


Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff scoffed at the notion that the Prime Minister’s Office was unaware of the CBC interview and demanded the government recall the parliamentary national security committee to settle the issue.


“It is inconceivable that, on the eve of state visits to Canada and the G8 and G20, the Prime Minister’s Office had no knowledge of the allegations made public by CSIS,” said Ignatieff said in a statement Thursday night. “Right when the world is coming to Canada, this government has chosen to cast a cloud on Canadians of diverse backgrounds.” 


Fadden said in the interview that aired Tuesday that municipal politicians and cabinet ministers from two unnamed provinces were under the influence of foreign governments, then went on to speak of China and officials in British Columbia.


New Democrat MP Olivia Chow (Trinity Spadina) accused former and current CSIS officials Thursday of peddling “politics of fear.”  “Repeating discredited statements, innuendo and accusations heightens paranoia and is destructive to an open and democratic society,” she said.


Those who know Fadden were surprised that the longtime civil servant, who has spent more than three decades moving up the bureaucratic ranks, had been caught making what seemed like careless remarks.


Fadden is also no stranger to national security issues, having once served as the intelligence co-ordinator of the Privy Council Office.


“I just find that extraordinary and astonishing, because there was no gain for him to say it,” said Reg Whitaker, a retired professor of political science at York University who has known Fadden for years.


“He’s very much the bureaucrat. He’s been involved in the Ottawa scene for many years in senior positions. He’s not one to grab headlines and is comfortable as a faceless bureaucrat.”


But CSIS in recent years has been working on becoming a more public face in Canada and trying to reach out to ethnic communities and the media – hoping to foster cooperation, rather than just scorn during times of scandal.


“I view what he was trying to accomplish with his interviews as not much more than an extension of initiatives that the service has taken – sometimes tentatively – over the years to demystify what it is and what it does,” said Jack Hooper, a former CSIS director in an interview with The Star.


“Most disappointing in the aftermath is that the effect will likely be more tightly shuttered windows into the service.”


Some Fadden supporters believe he has been hung out to dry by the prime minister, since his office would not only have been privy to the allegations, but likely would have known about the contents of the CBC interview. 


As one former colleague scoffed, “Dick can’t say hello to his wife without the blessing of the PMO.” 


The allegations that foreign governments – particularly China – are influencing Canadian officials should come as no surprise to anyone in the government. CSIS’s annual public reports have claimed as much for years and there have been more than a decade of new stories about “foreign interference.” Fadden’s predecessor Jim Judd had said publicly that China accounts for about half the attention his agencies gives to foreign intelligence gathering efforts.


But in the interview with CBC’s Peter Mansbridge, Fadden said that his service has found “a couple cases of politicians and a couple of cases of public servants whom we think are just a little bit too close to that foreign government.”




“One of those two statements is true and one of them is false,” said Wesley Wark, a security expert with the Munk Centre and longtime CSIS observer. “He has been thrown under the bus to a certain extent . . . the government has distanced itself and left the problem to CSIS. It could be that Fadden feels he has to fall on his sword and take full responsibility for this but then he has been caught out on a lie if that’s the case.”


Wark is one of the critics who believes Fadden should offer his resignation and agrees that the controversy will be used to push an already media-averse Ottawa to be even more so.


“The inevitable reaction at CSIS and everybody in town is going to be pull their neck back into their shell and say, ‘This is what happens when we talk to the media,’ forgetting that the problem’s not the media, it’s following their own rules of the road in terms of what they can say.”


Wark says that the political misstep of Fadden’s comments is that whether the PMO was notified or not, those types of allegations can’t be publicly aired by the spy service director.


“You risk turning CSIS into a political instrument of the government to wage campaigns of slander or political warfare against its opponents. That’s not where CSIS can be.”  


Chow slams spy fiction

CSIS needs to clear air on issue of political spies, NDP MP says

by Susan Delacourt

The Star

June 24, 2010

Read article 


OTTAWA – New Democratic Party MP Olivia Chow has shot down any suggestions that she has links to Chinese-espionage interests in Canada and is demanding that Canada’s spy agency clear the air of suggestions newly floated this week that elected officials are under China’s influence. 


Liberal MP Mark Holland is also demanding a Commons-committee investigation this summer over allegations raised by CSIS head Richard Fadden this week about Chinese involvement with elected officials at the provincial and municipal level.


At a news conference on Thursday, Olivia fired back at an author and Halifax radio host who raised her name in the context of the continuing uproar over Fadden’s remarks.


“How does CSIS know that certain elected representatives are under influence by spies? Is CSIS keeping files on elected representatives now, if so, whom, and why? CSIS must come clean and explain itself,” Chow said. “Make public the files on all elected officials, name names, and give evidence. Hiding in the shadow and and making blanket statements is harmful and destructive.”


Chow’s name was raised on Thursday in an interview between Halifax talk-radio host Andrew Krystal and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, a former CSIS official who wrote a book last year called Nest of Spies. Chow reminded reporters that allegations in Juneau-Katsuya’s book had been subject to a legal retraction and withdrawal from the bookshelves.


“Baseless spy stories belong in novels and movie theatres,” she said. “Let’s not allow them to damage friendships between countries and tar the reputations of elected representatives and other Canadians.”


Both Wark and Whitaker were contacted along with all their colleagues in the academic genres of security, defence and intelligence after the RCMP National Security Division launched the September 2008 Security of Information Act investigation.  It, like The Sidewinder Report, generated an incontestably strong measure of credibility of the allegations of Chinese joint governance, economy monopolization and wealth misappropriation.  Well over 120 professors and heads of or on the executive boards of institutes and think tanks who are specialists in these fields were invited to inform the discussion and debate triggered by the August ’07 launched edification initiative involving three levels of government.  Phone calls consisting of the standard introduction followed by e-mails with what’s contained in the RCC Introductory Correspondence were delivered.





Mr. Wark is identified in the academic section of the RCC List of Recipients as a Fiefdom treatise recipient.  Professor Whitaker isn’t because he proved hostile right from the outset.  He and others who were not just non-cooperative but outright hostile and engaged in reform sabotage were subjects of disciplinary complaints filed with their respective universities.  Just like senior lawyers whose nationally operating law firms on the evidence were complicit in dotting the Is and crossing the Ts of unlawful Chinese economic activity and faced complaints, so too were academics where they failed to heed what the RCMP investigation represented. 



Two of the first disciplinary complaints to be filed were against Professor Douglas Bland (read bio) and Professor Charles Pentland (read bio):


February 4, 2009  

Queen's University

99 University Avenue

Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 

Attention:  Dr. Daniel Woolf, Principal & Patrick Deane, Vice-President, Academic 

Via-email: vpacad@queensu.ca 

Dear President & Vice-President:  

Re: Formal Complaint Against Professor Douglas Bland, Chair, Defence Management Studies 


This is a formal disciplinary complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants at minimum his dismissal with cause from the Institute and at maximum his tenure terminated with cause and barred from campus in perpetuity.  




A dissemination initiative involving public and quasi-public sector institutions was commenced in August 2007; and expanded beginning in late November 2008 to include those members of Canadian academia who had relevant teaching specializations, research interests and positions in academic institutes and think tanks.  That expansion was due primarily to the launch of the investigation.  Invitees to the discussion and debate include: 

York Center for International & Security Studies

Carlton’s Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies

Carlton’s Centre for Security and Defence Studies

Brigadier Milton F. Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society, University of New Brunswick

Norman Paterson School of International Affairs

Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba

Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University

Queen’s Defence Management Studies

Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute

Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary

Laurier Center for Military, Strategic and Disarmament Studies

Center for International Relations, University of British Columbia

Royal Military College

Canadian Forces College  



He was invited to contact and discuss these matters with his colleagues on campus and his counterparts in universities, colleges and institutes throughout the country.  […] He sent this e-mail six days later:  

Re: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

From:  db26@queensu.ca

Sent: January 28, 2009 8:33:51 AM

To:  Charles Pentland (ccp@queensu.ca)

Cc:  rlatham1@yorku.ca; jeremy_littlewood@carlton.ca; milner@unb.ca; david_mendeloff@carleton.ca; ferguss@cc.umanitoba.ca; denis.stairs@dal.ca; jgranatstein@rogers.com; cmss@ucalgary.ca

Mr Kempo 


Do not send me any messages.  Do not call.  And do not suggest to anyone in any manner that I am interested in any of your quaint and fantastic ideas.  

Douglas Bland 



Professor Charles Pentland, Executive Director at the Center for International Relations, was contacted in the same way and during the same period of time as Professor Bland.  A long introductory phone call was made on January 22, 2009, followed by the same kind of e-mail.  His response was as follows:  

Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:26 am

Subject: Re: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

To: Brad Kempo 


Cc: rlatham1@yorku.ca, jeremy_littlewood@carlton.ca, milner@unb.ca, db26@queensu.ca, david_mendeloff@carleton.ca, ferguss@cc.umanitoba.ca, denis.stairs@dal.ca, jgranatstein@rogers.com, cmss@ucalgary.ca

Mr. Kempo: 

Please do not contact me further in this matter.  

Charles Pentland



His e-mail was attached to Professor Bland’s and both were circulated to other academics as a c.c. – including: 


·         Professor Robert Latham, Director, York Center for International & Security Studies


·         Professor Jeremy Littlewood, Director, Carlton University Centre for Security and Defence Studies and Norman Paterson School of International Affairs


·         Professors Marc Milner, Director, & Lee Windsor, Deputy Director, Brigadier Milton F. Gregg Centre for the Study of War and Society, University of New Brunswick


·         Professor David Mendeloff, Director, Carlton University Centre for Security and Defence Studies


·         Professor James Fergusson, Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba


·         Professor Denis Stairs, Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, Dalhousie University


·         Jack Granatstein, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary


·         Professor David Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, University of Calgary  



This cluster of hostility and reform and accountability sabotage at Queen’s leads to the conclusion your university is a place where government illegality, unconstitutional conduct and internationally unlawful activities are prevented from having the kind of transparency required for a mature and healthy democracy like Canada.  


In the circumstances, therefore, a disciplinary investigation is warranted; and given the seriousness of the professor’s academic abdications – and using his position at the Centre to advance what the research project discovered – serious sanctions as recommended above are justified.  

Yours truly,

Brad Kempo

Barrister & Solicitor [Alberta, Inactive] 


Another disciplinary complaint was filed against Order of Canada recipient Jack Granatstein (read bio):


February 13, 2009 

University of Calgary

Administration Building, Room 100

2500 University Drive NW

Calgary, AB T2N 1N4  

Attention:       Alan Harrison, Provost and Vice-President (Academic) 

Via-email: provost@ucalgary.ca  

  Dear Professor Harrison:  

Re: Formal Complaint Against Jack Lawrence Granatstein, Senior Fellow, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies and Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute  



He responded today by indicating that I was entertaining nothing more than a “conspiracy theory” – giving no appropriate weight or consideration to the research and the evidence contained therein and fact the RCMP’s National Security Division is formally investigating.  He also indicated he’d consulted colleagues and stated they collective are going to treat this matter as being “dead”.  


He confessed to not having done any significant due diligence.  Not doing so betrays a bias.  His review and opinion therefore are not considered to be bona fide.  What was brought to his attention are most serious matters of state and international affairs on military and security issues and Canada’s relationships with the United States, NATO allies and other members of the international community. They required a complete examination before (a) passing judgment and (b) sharing it with others.


He knows that his accomplishments, accolades and especially being awarded the Order of Canada gives his assessments major weight.  He believes his views carry such commanding credibility that everyone invited into this unique information loop who consults him will lock-step follow him and his conspiring or loyal colleague into rejecting treatise research conclusions and dismiss the existence and purpose of and results to date in the back-channel diplomatic environment described on the website; and will participate with him and others in thumbing a collective nose at my international clients and colleagues – rejecting holus bolus their fears about the true nature of Canadian governance and the relationship this country has had with China for thirty five years. 




What adds to the evidence Mr. Granatstein is harbouring loyalties to the secret constituent of Canadian governance is the fact his cousin is the managing partner at the Toronto office of one of Canada’s largest law firms: Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP.  Part of the dissemination initiative involved contacting firms with links to China to advise of the secret governance status the Beijing leadership’s enjoyed here for decades.  On behalf of all managing partners and the entire senior partnership he contacted me approximately twenty-three and a half hours after delivery of the information package to advise the firm was rejecting what was being sought; which was a review of client policy to ensure the firm was not advancing the secret policies and agendas described herein.  A disciplinary complaint was filed with the Law Society of Upper Canada against Robert Granatstein on March 13, 2008. 


The firm is a member of the China Canada Business Council – according to the research a front for the Chinese in this country. 


The law firm website says the following about its Chinese clientele and objectives: 

Doing Business in China 


Blakes officially opened its Beijing office in October 1998, and is the only Canadian law firm with an office in China. Our China Practice Group, made up of three Canadian lawyers and four trained Chinese legal personnel in our Beijing office, plus a team of lawyers in Canada, is able to advise clients on a variety of aspects of investing and doing business in China, including establishing representative offices, structuring and documenting joint ventures and wholly owned foreign enterprises, conducting due diligence, arranging intellectual property protection and assisting in dispute resolution.


Blakes is very active in serving Chinese companies in their needs in Canada and elsewhere in the world. Our Canadian and Chinese-based lawyers have, over the years, participated in most of the significant investments by Chinese companies in various industries in or through Canada, in particular those relating to energy and mines. We have also assisted Chinese companies in financing transactions, including the TSX listing, in Canada.


The China Practice Group consists of lawyers in both our Beijing and Canadian offices who are able to advise clients on legal issues affecting foreign businesses in China. Blakes' services in China include:  

·         advice relating to investment strategies and financing alternatives

·         government relations, approvals and licensing

·         establishment of representative offices

·         conducting due diligence

·         structuring, negotiating and documenting joint ventures, wholly foreign-owned enterprises, PRC and offshore holding companies

·         infrastructure projects and environmental issues

·         assistance with tax planning and foreign exchange issues

·         sales, supply and distribution agreements

·         labour and employment matters

·         regulatory compliance

·         technology transfer and intellectual property protection

·         dispute resolution  


Blakes was the only law firm represented in the January 2000 Trade and Investment Mission to China, organized by Ralph Goodale, Federal Minister of Natural Resources. Gerry Deyell of our Calgary office, and Robert Kwauk of our Beijing office participated in the mission, which visited Beijing, Shanghai (Energy and Forestry) and Yunan province, Kuming (Mining). 


Blakes' lawyers also assist Chinese clients to expand into Canadian and other western markets through a variety of means including securities offerings, stock market listings and establishing corporations in Canada. In addition, the Firm has been actively involved in civil litigation matters in Canada on behalf of Chinese clients.


Blakes Beijing consists of three resident lawyers, all of whom have spent a significant length of time living and working in mainland China. In addition to providing traditional legal advice for a non-traditional market, these lawyers maintain close relationships at all levels of Chinese government. 




A professor in the China studies genre of academia was filed against Professor Tim Cheek (read bio):  


February 20, 2009

The University of British Columbia

6328 Memorial Road 

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2 

Attention: Professor Stephen J. Toope, President & Vice-Chancellor  

Via-email: patricia.stevens@ubc.ca 


Dear Sir:


Re: Formal Complaint Against Professor Timothy Cheek, Centre for Chinese Research, Faculty Member at the Institute of Asian Research & Louis Cha Chair of Chinese Research


This is a formal complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants his dismissal with cause.




On February 18, 2009 I received an e-mail indicating he’d deleted a recently circulated memo to recipients without reading it:


Not read: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

From:  Cheek, Tim (cfis.cheek@ubc.ca) 

Sent: February 18, 2009 10:23:05 PM

To:  Brad Kempo

Your message To: rlatham1@yorku.ca; jeremy_littlewood@carlton.ca;milner@unb.ca; db26@queensu.ca; ccp@queensu.ca;david_mendeloff@carleton.ca; ferguss@cc.umanitoba.ca;denis.stairs@dal.ca; jgranatstein@rogers.com; cmss@ucalgary.ca;Lee.D@parl.gc.ca; regwhit@uvic.ca; gkealey@unb.ca; d.wright@utoronto.ca;Byers, Michael; ratkey@rogers.com; mark.jewett@gowlings.com; R. KennethCarty; t.cheek@ubc.ca; dbuse@laurentian.ca; gkinsman@laurentian.ca

 Cc: bkempo@hotmail.com

 Subject: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

 Sent: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:00:56 -0800 was deleted without being read on Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:23:04 -0800


On February 19th, I left a message on his voicemail asking for clarification of his position.  He did not reply. 


This is trademark behaviour witnessed throughout the now eighteen-month dissemination initiative – revelatory of either complicity or loyalty to those who are in the matters I brought to his attention.


Academia is a critical component of a mature and healthy democracy – providing much needed transparency and critical assessments of government policy, decisions, action and results.  It is impossible to operate the kind of governance system Canada secretly has without the complicity and loyalty of a portion of the academic community.  The same goes for the media and the administration of justice.  Accountability is assured where there are independent and unbiased lawyers and judges and news agencies.


In the circumstances, therefore, an investigation is warranted; and given the seriousness of Professor Cheek’s academic abdications serious sanctions as recommended above are justified. 



A professor in the defence genre of academia, Dr. Elinor Sloan (read bio), also faced a disciplinary complaint.


February 20, 2009

Carleton University

607A Robertson Hall

1125 Colonel By Drive

Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6 

Attention: Logan Atkinson, University Secretary  

Via-email: logan_atkinson@carleton.ca


Dear Sir:


Re: Formal Complaint Against Associate Professor Elinor Sloan, Associate Supervisor of Graduate Studies 


This is a formal disciplinary complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants at minimum her dismissal with cause.




Ms. Sloan is on the Advisory Council at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, is Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science and is a former defence analyst with Canada's Department of National Defence.




The February 19th telephone call, again lasting no more than a couple minutes, was filled with “polite” hostility.  She began by saying she would look at the website when she had time.  However, her demeanour changed rapidly stating with high anxiety “I have a full time job, kids at home and don’t call me again”.  She then hung up without notice.


This is trademark behaviour witnessed throughout the now eighteen-month dissemination initiative – revelatory of either complicity or loyalty to those who are.   Her experiences in and with the federal government leads to the conclusion she is both.




Another academic invitee, an expert on democracy and constitutional issues, was Professor Ran Hirschl (read bio):   


March 13, 2009  

University of Toronto

Office of the President

27 King's College Circle,

Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 

Attention: Professor David Naylor, President

Via-email: president@utoronto.ca

Dear President: 


Re: Formal Complaint Against Professor Ran Hirschl, Department of Political Science & Faculty of Law, Canada Research Chair in Constitutionalism, Democracy, and Development


This is a formal disciplinary complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants his dismissal with cause from the University and barred from campus in perpetuity.   


This was the response [to the e-mail]:  


Fwd: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

From:  ran.hirschl@utoronto.ca 

Sent: December 4, 2008 5:34:46 AM

To:  bkempo@hotmail.com

Please remove me from your distribution list immediately. I am not interested in receiving any of these materials.



A second attempt was made to formally introduce him – this time on today’s date.  I indicated to him within the some 30 seconds the phone call lasted before he rudely hung up that some 120+ academics had been edified and given this wide dissemination and his position as the Canada Research Chair in Constitutionalism, Democracy, and Development he ought to review this information.


And then there’s the complaint filed against national security expert Reg Whitaker (read bio and list of publications):


March 27, 2009

University of Victoria

3800 Finnerty Road

Victoria BC V8P 5C2  

Attention:   Professor Cassels, Vice-President Academic & Provost and Kim Hart-Wensley, University Counsel                                               

Via-email: avpfraa@uvic.ca        

Dear Sir & Madam: 


Re: Formal Complaint Against Adjunct Professor Reg Whitaker, Department of Political Science 


This is a formal disciplinary complaint against the above-captioned for conduct that brings the integrity of the University into serious disrepute; and which warrants at maximum his dismissal with cause from the University and barred from campus in perpetuity. 


The Professor was awarded an Isaac Walton Killam Research Fellowship:   


The Killam Prizes are awarded annually to distinguished Canadian scholars in the fields of health sciences, natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities. 


Te Killam Research Fellowship Program is designed to recognize and support distinguished Canadian scholars, normally full professors at Canadian universities and research institutes, who have established an outstanding reputation in their area of research.  

Source: http://www.canadacouncil.ca/prizes/killam   



Seven days after the [standard] introduction and e-mail he responded with finality this way:  


RE: from Brad Kempo Barr&Sol National Security Confidential

From:  Reg Whitaker (regwhit@uvic.ca) 

Sent: December 17, 2008 3:35:01 PM

To:  Brad Kempo


Dear Mr. Kempo


Please be advised that I do not wish to be associated in any way with this matter. As I recall, I once before indicated that I was not interested in being associated with this when you earlier contacted me by telephone, and I see nothing in the material indicated to change my mind. 


Please do not contact me any further concerning this. From my point of view, I consider this matter closed.  

Yours sincerely,  

Reg Whitaker  



A second attempt at contacting him by phone was made on March 2, 2009.  Telephone records indicate the call lasted less than a minute.  The call was in fact over within ten-fifteen seconds – just enough time for him to articulate his position and then he rudely hung up.   It was hoped he would have contacted or been contacted by other recipients and therefrom reversed his position of non-cooperation.   He was given a second chance to rectify his misjudgement; and instead ratified it. 


Like other professors and heads of institutes and think tanks, he was being informed about critical matters of state and international affairs that came within his teaching specializations, and research and publication interests; and was formally invited to contact and discuss these matters with his colleagues on campus and his counterparts in universities and colleges throughout the country.


Another purpose of the dissemination initiative is to deconstruct existing assumptions about Canadian governance and advance a new understanding.   Given his publications he has the academic expertise and informed intuition relevant to what was being asked of him.  The image of Canada suffers from what the research project calls “democratic respectability façade generation” – a devious complicity involving, inter alia, political spin and news media coverage that conceals the true nature of governance.  The suppression of The Sidewinder Report after it was leaked is a prime example.  Academics of his calibre have the ability to pierce through image veneers and see substance lurking behind form.


By his hostility and refusal twice in three years to grapple with what he was provided demonstrates to my satisfaction he is at maximum complicit and at minimum harbours loyalties that ought not be tolerated at your University; and in the circumstances as historic and profound as they are, therefore, a disciplinary investigation is warranted; and sanctions as recommended above are justified. 




What was undeniable from the fact each and every complaint filed against the foregoing and Lloyd Axworthy, Anne McLellan, John Manley, Irwin Cotler, Wesley Pue, Lorne Sossin and Jonathan Calof were, like those registered with the law societies, ignored.  There were no investigations, no adjudications – nothing.  These results prove that the university system in this country has been undermined by trans-generational nepotism and patronage, lengthy Liberal rule and the secret China agenda.  Having been vindicated by their respective universities, the likes of Wark and Whitaker continue to use their academic respectability whenever the establishment requires it; and tearing down the CSIS Director was one of those occasions.   




This free website was made using Yola.

No coding skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to www.yola.com and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola