• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Spy Agency

big bad john

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Todays Ottawa Citizen:

Spend more on overseas spies, McLellan says
Deputy PM wants intelligence work expanded against security threats
 
Glen Mcgregor
The Ottawa Citizen


Wednesday, February 16, 2005


CREDIT: Tom Hanson, The Canadian Press
Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan is responsible for CSIS and the RCMP -- two agencies that could play roles in any overseas cloak-and-dagger work.


Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan says she wants more money for Canada to conduct spy operations in other countries and may even consider setting up a separate foreign intelligence-gathering agency to do it.

Testifying before a Senate committee on national security and defence, Ms. McLellan yesterday said Canada's domestic spy service is already doing limited intelligence collection in other countries. She wants to expand the work to better detect security threats against Canada and its allies, she told the committee.

"We live in a world where it is incumbent on each of us and our allies to ensure that we are doing our fair share to protect not just our own people," she said.

"While CSIS does collect foreign intelligence, I have made no secret that I think they should collect more."

She said she has requested funding for overseas intelligence from Finance Minister Ralph Goodale, who is currently preparing a federal budget that will be unveiled next Wednesday.

She would not say how much she requested, or exactly how she would spend the money if she gets it.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, some intelligence experts warned Canada must develop an ability to gather information in other countries, particularly the Middle East, to identify terrorist threats. But there are competing visions of how best to conduct foreign spying. Some favour expanding CSIS's mandate, while others believe Foreign Affairs is better suited to operating abroad.

Or, Canada could establish a separate agency, just as the U.S. has its Central Intelligence Agency and Britain its MI6.

As the minister of public safety and emergency preparedness, Ms. McLellan is responsible for both CSIS and the RCMP -- two agencies that could play roles in any overseas cloak-and-dagger work.

"No final decisions have been made to how we might collect additional foreign security intelligence," she told reporters.

"Whether or not one, in the future, would move to a separate agency is something that has been discussed. Different countries have different models."

Although CSIS is required by law to operate only in Canada, then-director Ward Elcock said in 2003 that many would be surprised by the extent of the foreign intelligence operations after 9/11.

Ms. McLellan appeared yesterday before the Senate committee as part of its review of the bill that will establish the super-ministry she will lead.

The committee, led by Senator Colin Kenny, has been strongly critical of Canada's counterterrorism efforts and has chafed against the reluctance of law enforcement agencies to provide information about their work.

Ms. McLellan admitted yesterday there is "a culture of secrecy" within the departments and agencies that she oversees. She agreed they should try to provide "benchmark" data on passenger screening, for example, to help the committee chart progress on security.

"I have asked my department and agency heads whether it is possible to be more forthcoming without blowing a criminal investigation, or revealing the identity of an informant, or whatever the case may be," she said.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2005

 
I'd be all for the creation of a Canadian â Å“CIAâ ?, but a separate agency only makes sense if Canada plans to start covertly collecting strategic intelligence.
 
The Big thing that surprised me about most Canadians that I have met, including Officers is that they think that CSIS is an Intelligence gathering agency.  I believe (please jump in and correct me if I am wrong) that the only Intelligence gathering "agency" is the CSE.  CSIS is a counter intelligence agency.
 
AFAIK, they both gather intelligence, it's the nature and the purpose of the intelligence that differentiates them.

CSIS gathers â Å“defensiveâ ? security intelligence (counterespionage, counter-terror, etc) and does so domestically and in foreign countries. An organization like the CIA gathers â Å“offensiveâ ? strategic level intelligence. For example: finding out whether an organization plans to blow up Parliement: defensive. Finding out where Iran's nuclear research facilities are: offensive. An organization like CSE rides the line between the two, focusing on a â Å“typeâ ? of intelligence that can be used by both types of organization.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CSE (Communications Security Establishment) collects electronic intelligence, rather than human intelligence - right?  Therefore, that would be the difference between the two.  CSIS collects defensive intelligence on the human level, whereas CSE collects intelligence on the electronic level.  Correct me if I'm wrong, thats always been my understanding though.
 
The best part of the article is the sucking sound as parliament finally pulls its collective head out of its A** on this issue. Going on tour with an armful of newspaper clippings (and discovering I am in fact the best informed person on the ground) is NOT the way to go...
 
Well whoever gets the job to gather intelligence for the Canadian Gov't, when they find some, I hope they pass it around Parliment Hill. There's a distinct lack of that commodity around there.
 
Amen to that.

I'm not trying to blindly speculate when I say this, but I read a book called "Covert Entry" - written by a former CSIS member.  He started out working for Canada Post as a postal inspector (Apparently Canada Post has its own non-official spy office of its own, which deals primarily with tracking mail that could be of interest to CSIS) - before getting a job as a CSIS agent.  I recommend the book, as it is a good read for anybody, even if it is a few years old.  Anyhow, although everything CSIS did in the book fell under domestic operations, it certainly indicated that Canada did have limited operations overseas, however they were quite modest - plus, since he worked his way into the agency using less-than-popular methods, he wasn't privvy to information about those ops.  Anyways, check it out - if for nothing else, a good read.
 
The mandate for CSIS is found in s. 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act which provides that,"The Service shall collect, by investigation or otherwise, to the extent that it is strictly necessary, and analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities that may on reasonable grounds be suspected of constituting threats to the security of Canada and, in relation thereto, shall report to and advise the Government of Canada."  Although the Service has operated as a domestic intelligence service it is not confined by statute as such.  Although it had operated mainly within Canada, the changes in the threats and the manners in which to identify those threats has changed as well.  Accordingly CSIS operates at times alone, and other times in conjunction with foreign intelligence services on joint operations, overseas.  
 
CSE collects Signals Intelligence or SIGINT....basically any form of communications..with the aid of the CF Information Operations Group (CFIOG).  CSE is only devoted to foreign intelligence, domestic issues are not in its mandate, unless requested and warranted. 
As far as creating a foreign intelligence agency, I would be all for it as well.  It would be nice to have one along the lines of the CIA, whereas they co-ordinate all intelligence gathering.  Most federal govt Dept's have their own intelligence sections, but one of the major deficiencies is that there is a serious lack of sharing going on amongst them.  We don't have much of a HUMINT capacity anymore, but that being said, we are working on re-building it.  We could also go with something like the Brits, however, I don't like the idea of a Joint Intelligence Committee (mainly politically appointed) overseeing all the activities, so I would lean more towards the US version.  Though the public may not like it, the intelligence services have to remain behind our blankets of secrecy, the main point I always try to put across is that we're not trying to hide it from the citizens and people we're protecting, but the opposite, we don't want the bad guys figuring out how we do business because it will eventually put us out of business altogether.
 
291er said:
  We don't have much of a HUMINT capacity anymore....

Utter tripe...care to back that statement up?

Regards
 
a_majoor said:
The best part of the article is the sucking sound as parliament finally pulls its collective head out of its A** on this issue. Going on tour with an armful of newspaper clippings (and discovering I am in fact the best informed person on the ground) is NOT the way to go...

You said it brother!
 
Sorry Franko....I'll rephrase.....we don't have nearly the HUMINT capacity we should.  By that I don't mean just the HUMINT teams on the ground in theatre (who do a tremendous job), but all forms of HUMINT collection.  The CF is really starting to improve our HUMINT, they just established a school in Kingston for it.  But CSIS for example, needs to improve it's HUMINT gathering...
 
You mentioned the CF opened a school in Kingston, in which the primary objective is to teach human intelligence skills to intelligence officers, and personnel within the intelligence trade?

I know the intelligence trade has a lot of hush-hush to it, but this would indicate that the intelligence trade does infact send personnel overseas to collect intel? 
 
There is a school in Canada, yes. The course used to be taught in the UK.

HUMINT is a category of intelligence derived from human sources.

General HUMINT is gathered by all members on the ground in an operational theatre through their interaction with the local population. HUMINT Teams are deployed for specialist collection activities -   specifics of which should not be discussed here or anywhere in this forum, with any type of specific detail - This falls under the concept of Need to Know - The reasons for this are simple. Primarily the safety of the Operators while conducting their duties.

The school is not just for intelligence personnel, or intelligence officers. There is a unique and challenging selection process for this specialised training. Not everyone is suitable, for a variety of reasons. If you have an interest in this topic, you should research the DWAN, or DISPATCHES, LESSONS LEARNED - I apologise I don't have the publication number and reference.
 
Theirs a CANFORGEN out there somewhere I beleive, the contents of which have been posted on this board before. If you're interested, use the search.
 
I wrote my Master's thesis on Canadian Intelligence...

CSIS is a securtiy intelligence agency...it is taksed with collecting information on anything that is deemed to be a threat to Canada.  So in other words, there has to exist an identifiable threat to Canada or Canadian interests before CSIS can actually engage in any type of espionage.

CSIS is not a foreign intelligence agency (like Britain's MI6 or the CIA)...there is a distinct difference between securtiy intelligence and foeign intelligence....the distinction is made in the CSIS act, wich provides the legislative basis for CSIS.

Foreign intelligence simply refers to information on other countries that is of strategic, political, economic etc. value...for example, "What is China's position on trade negotiations X"

That does not mean however, that Canada cannot engage in intelligence gathering overseas...its been said on numerous occasions that CSIS gathers intelligence overseas...I heard the words from Ward Elcock himself when he used to be the head of CSIS...he said it in a speech at a conference I attended...if there is something outside of Canada that constitutes a potential or an actual threat, then CSIS can send spies abroad to investigate...and it has done so on several occasions...

Alot of our politicians like to spout off about how Canada needs a foreign intelligence agency and all that when they actually don't really look at the facts and the details...If anything, all that needs to be done is to amend the CSIS act and expand the service's mandate to cover foreign intelligence...why bother setting up a whole new agency...then we'll end up having bureaucratic overload like in the US (I believe there are 17 federal agencies in the US that have intelligence gethering powers)...believe it or not, its getting that way in Canada...there are already way to many agencies in Canada that deal with intelligence...mostly on the analysis side of things (CSIS, CSE, DND/CF, DFAIT, RCMP, CIC, Pivy Council Office)...not all of them collect int, but most of them have analysis branches...this causes obvious problems...

In any case, there are merits to having a foreign intelligence capacity...for one thing, threats are not always identifiable...that is the big weakness of securtiy intelligence, you may not know about a threat to Canada until its already happened...and then what is the point...foreign intelligence, because it is aggresive by it very nature, can pick out the threats before they materialize, giving us time to prepare an effective response...not to mention the strategic and political benefits it offers...

ALot of Canadians like to think that our country is to good for foreign intelligence...they believe that Canada is above having a "dirty tricks" department like the CIA or something...but alot of academics are now saying that in today's security environment and increasingly competitive global arena...a foreign intelligence gathering capacity might be something Canada needs to start considering if it wants to effectively comabt terrorism and to remain competitive internationally...

All we really need to do though is to beef up CSIS...no point setting up a whole new agency...



 
Back
Top