TORONTO – Earlier this week CSIS accused Michael Chan, the Ontario Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, of holding office while not being white.
“Sure, when we made our initial reports in 2010 you’ll see that mostly we focus on possible economic ties to China,” explained Richard Fadden, the former director of CSIS. “But the real impetus for the investigation was that he didn’t have the lily-white skin we expect from our politicians. It was our duty to try and take him down.”
A recent Globe and Mail article alleges that back in 2010 Chan was potentially receiving favours from the Chinese government in exchange for advancing their agenda. The story re-emerged in the Globe and Mail last week after CSIS officials realized that Chan was still not Caucasian.
“As a politician Mr. Chan should know that to offer political influence for his own gain is a horrible ethical violation,” said David Walmsley, editor of the Globe and Mail. “That is, unless you’re white and doing it with foreign oil lobbyists. Then it’s fine.”
Michael Chan, for his part, says he has no idea why CSIS was looking into his affairs.
“I’m not sure why I was targeted,” said Chan. “I haven’t been charged or indicted or had any evidence of criminal activity brought against me. What could a government agency working for a cabinet known for “us vs. them” rhetoric and anti-immigration policies want with me?”
CSIS explained that their first clue that Mr. Chan might not be white was when they realized he had been elected by a decidedly un-white electorate.
“I noticed some things,” said Fadden. “The area of Markham-Unionville is a place where we can hear a lot of what we like to call Un-English.”
When questioned further Mr. Fadden explained that, “Un-English” is something that Canadian citizens use to identify themselves to the federal government as potential threats.
After proving that Mr. Chan was not Caucasian, CSIS successfully rooted through Mr. Chan’s life looking for vague accusations. CSIS classifies this “not quite defamation” as a real win for the agency. When asked what CSIS would do if further investigation did not yield information that allowed them to bring charges against Mr. Chan, Mr. Fadden was thoughtful.
“If it came to that, I think CSIS could leak information to the press again,” he explained. “That’s a great way of making someone seem guilty, even when all the evidence says they aren’t.”
