# Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) & Canadian foreign intelligence capability (or lack th



## Yard Ape (28 Sep 2001)

> From the CSIS Web site:
> [qb] The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was created by an Act of Parliament in 1984, following the McDonald Commission of Inquiry of the late 1970s and the MacKenzie Commission of the 1960s. The CSIS Act established a clear mandate for the Service and, for the first time, legislated a framework of democratic control and accountability for a civilian Canadian security intelligence service. The Act created CSIS as a domestic service fulfilling a uniquely defensive role investigating threats to Canada‘s national security.
> 
> In meeting its mandated commitments, CSIS provides advance warning to government departments and agencies about activities which may reasonably be suspected of constituting threats to the country’s security. Other government departments and agencies, not CSIS, have the responsibility to take direct action to counter the security threats.
> ...



Does anybody here think Canada could be better served by an Intelligence Service with both a forgien and a domenstic mandate?


----------



## Yard Ape (3 Oct 2001)

*Sharpen those little grey cells*
_Canada can‘t join the war on terrorism or protect itself unless we upgrade our intelligence capabilities, says international security analyst WESLEY WARK_
By WESLEY WARK
Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Globe & Mail

As the United States and its allies gird for a long-term war against terrorism, we will hear much about the role of intelligence and security services. This will be a "war in the shadows," a war between intelligence agencies and their elusive terrorist foes.

Some U.S. commentators, such as Robert Kaplan, say that intelligence communities are entering a "golden age," like the 1950s, when the Central Intelligence Agency under legendary spymaster Allen Dulles was unleashed on the world. Whether the massive U.S. intelligence community, with its armies of analysts, its global reach, its astounding array of high-technology spy platforms, will truly enjoy a "golden age" will depend on their ability to recover from the unprecedented intelligence failure of Sept. 11 -- a more serious wound than Pearl Harbor. They will also have to earn the trust of a shaken and skeptical military and political leadership about their ability to find the terrorist enemy and render it vulnerable.

Will the Canadian intelligence community also undergo profound changes that will thrust it into the forefront of the war on terrorism? Two matters require serious consideration: the current state of the Canadian intelligence system and the question of what functions it might perform in a global war on terrorism.

Intelligence is the first and most important line of defence against terrorism and the first and most important weapon in any offensive against terrorism. Without it, there can be no early warning, no prevention, no deterrence, no wisdom in decision-making, and no hope of catching the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Commentators frequently confuse the issue by assuming that what intelligence agencies do is spy -- James Bond stuff. Intelligence agencies function to process information, a vast proportion of which comes from what is called "open sources," available to any literate newspaper reader or Internet searcher. Agencies not only collect information, they analyze it. They must have the capacity to deliver that analyzed information to decision-makers in a timely and credible format.

The Canadian intelligence community is, in my view, too weak at every stage in this intelligence process. It lacks resources, both human and technological, to collect the intelligence it requires. More importantly, it lacks a sufficient body of highly skilled analysts to make sense of the information that floods into its databases. Perhaps most important of all, it lacks the ear of senior government decision-makers.

Ottawa must take two steps that it has long debated, but never acted on. It must create a well-resourced, powerful central organization for intelligence analysis (the best model might be the Australian Office of National Assessments). At present, the material produced by a tiny cadre of intelligence officers hidden away in the Privy Council Office, however good, lacks influence.

And Ottawa must create a Canadian foreign intelligence service, similar to the CIA or Britain‘s Secret Intelligence Service, the SIS. Canada is the only G8 nation without such a service. This hampers our ability to understand foreign developments, and to contribute meaningfully to any global war on terrorism. At the moment, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) has a limited mandate for foreign-intelligence collection, is tied up in red tape and hamstrung by lack of resources and expertise. As we debate the creation of a Canadian secret service, we must decide whether CSIS is the appropriate body to take on this difficult mission.

The most secretive institution in the Canadian security and intelligence community is the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), a bland title that hides an institution responsible for foreign-communications intelligence and the protection of government-communications networks. It will need more resources and a significant technological upgrade to operate at the same level as its sister organizations, the National Security Agency in the United States and GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) in the United Kingdom.

Moreover, CSE needs to rethink its policy of downgrading analytical reporting in favour of high-tech collection. Most significant of all is the question of whether, in the new world we have just entered, CSE will need powers to spy within Canada -- something it is now legally forbidden to do.

These measures are only part of what is needed to ensure a wholesale shakeup of the Canadian security and intelligence system. If Canada is unable to contribute significantly in the security and intelligence field to the war on terrorism, two things will happen. Our country will become increasingly vulnerable to terrorist action, as a safe haven or even as a target; and Canada will lose something it has cherished for more than 50 years -- membership in the tightly-knit alliance that links us to the United States, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Were that to happen, the Canadian security and intelligence community could pack its bags and look for other work. 

_Wesley K. Wark is a professor of international history at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto_


----------



## MP 811 (3 Oct 2001)

I can tell you......on the record, that I know of someone personally who is with CSIS who is working outside of Canada......wont say where, but rest assured, there are CSIS agents all over the place............


----------



## Disturbance (3 Oct 2001)

I always heard CSIS was one of the better intel agencies in the world


----------



## enfield (4 Oct 2001)

I wish. No, due again to lack of Government support, it is relatively ineffective. It is essentially an analyst agency - ie, takes what the CIA, SIS, and CNN give them and examine it and then give reports to the government. It has no mandate to work outside of Canada. 
A few years ago a woman who as I recall was in the process of being hired left classified documents in her car at a sports game and they were stolen. Considering that‘s about the only time they made news in the past few years - except to warn that Canada is full of terrorists - they‘re either the most effective intelligence service in the world, or they aren‘t doing much.

 Check out:
www.fas.org/irp/world/canada/csis/index.html


----------



## Yard Ape (4 Oct 2001)

*Cabinet considers setting up international spy agency*
Robert Fife, Ottawa Bureau Chief, with files from Robert Benzie
National Post, with files from news services
04 Sept 01

OTTAWA - The United States yesterday appealed for "collective assistance" from its 18 NATO allies in preparation for a military campaign against Osama bin Laden and the Taleban government that harbours the Muslim extremist‘s al-Qaeda terrorist network in Afghanistan.

While Canada has not yet been asked for a specific military contribution, senior Cabinet ministers say it is already providing Washington with "vital intelligence" to hunt down members of bin Laden‘s terrorist organization.

The Cabinet is also contemplating the creation of a foreign spy agency to help Canada‘s allies attack terrorism abroad. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which is responsible for domestic security, is forbidden by law from overseas espionage.

Lawrence MacAulay, the Solicitor-General, said yesterday a foreign spy service "would give us more ability to collect more information about other countries overseas."

Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, maintained the United States is relying heavily on Canada for intelligence gathering and analysis.

He said it is possible Washington might ask Canadian soldiers to fill the gap left if American peacekeepers are withdrawn from the Balkans to fight in the Middle East.

Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador, has already suggested Canada might help by replacing U.S. troops on duty in the former Yugoslavia.

"It‘s certainly up for consideration. The question of back-filling has had some consideration and will continue to do so. That‘s not to say we will do it, but we‘re certainly going to consider that," Mr. Eggleton told reporters.

However, Mr. Eggleton said Canada‘s biggest contribution since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is security and intelligence.

Mr. Eggleton said CSIS and military intelligence have provided crucial information to U.S. authorities, including assessing raw overseas signals collected by the highly secretive Communications Security Establishment (CSE).

"There has been a flood of intelligence information coming into the system of which we are partners with the United States and a few other countries in terms of gathering the information and analysis of it, and we have been assisting the Americans in the analysis, which is a very vital role," Mr. Eggleton said.

Mr. Cellucci confirmed the United States is impressed with the intelligence work provided by Canada‘s security agencies and the RCMP.

"The co-operation between U.S. intelligence and Canadian intelligence has been extraordinary. It‘s always been very good. It‘s been extraordinary since Sept. 11," Mr. Cellucci said.

CSE, which is part of the Department of National Defence, has been eavesdropping electronically on hostile foreign governments and terrorist organizations. Canada shares a powerful and mysterious Echelon telecommunications network with the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand, which is able to pick up telephone, e-mail and other electronic communications.

Stewart Woolner, the former head of CSE, said the electronic surveillance agency collects raw intelligence, which is turned over to Foreign Affairs, National Defence and the Privy Council for analysis. This would then be passed on to the U.S. intelligence services.

"I certainly do know that organizations like CSE will be scanning every piece of relevant information that they can get their hands on," he said.

Reid Morden, the former CSIS director, said the spy agency would have valuable information on Islamic extremists organizations operating in Canada based on eavesdropping and undercover work.

Mr. Morden noted CSIS had told the government many years ago that Muslim terrorists poised a threat to North American security, although these warning went unheeded.

"The service has been telling people there is a problem out there for some time and, in the last few years, it has been pinpointing the fact that it is Islamic fundamentalism on the top of the pops on their radar," he said.

Despite the intelligence information provided to the United States since Sept. 11, security experts say there is an urgent need for a comprehensive review of Canada‘s intelligence capabilities.

Wesley Wark, a University of Toronto professor and past-president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence Studies, said the government needs to devote more resources to intelligence gathering.

"The military intelligence function of the Department of National Defence exists in a technological Stone Age," he said. "We have no spy satellites, no spy planes, no remote-controlled reconnaissance drones, nothing but antiquated secure communications networks."

____________________________________________

Check out CSIS.


----------



## King (4 Oct 2001)

If anyone here wants a good picture of CSIS read Official Secrets by Richard Cleroux. It‘s a bit dated (written in 1990) but it gives a good history of CSIS as well as some interesting stories and a good section on their selection & training. Appearently they had spy school established at CFB Borden.

Anyway, it‘s an iteresting book if you want to learn more about CSIS.


----------



## MP 811 (14 Oct 2001)

Enfield is correct, CSIS does not have an external security mandate...............................OFFICIALLY................................however, as I stated, agents are collecting intel and are working very closely with such agencies as MI5, Moussad, and others. And as I stated, I know someone personally working for the agency who is presently in a country in Africa. Dont believe the govt hasnt gone against any of there policies in the past or wont in the future...........


----------



## Yard Ape (15 Oct 2001)

how often does he get out of the embasy?


----------



## King (15 Oct 2001)

LOL, but MP811, I would guess, is right. It‘s like the JTF2. It‘s the way we do things in Canada.


----------



## MP 811 (17 Oct 2001)

Do you mean get out of the embassy on work related duties??.......................dont really know to be honest............SHE‘s a really good friend of mine, but she doesnt tell me everything!!!!!!!!!!!.............lol


----------



## Yard Ape (18 Oct 2001)

I think we all need to realize that liason and sharing of information with other nations intelligence services does not count as foriegn intelligence.  I am further disturbed by Mr Manleys comments that the CIA can do it for us. . . we should look after our own responsibilities.

___________________________________________

Manley willing to debate foreign spy agency
Wednesday, October 17
By ALLISON LAWLOR
Globe and Mail Update

Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley told the House of Commons on Wednesday that he remains open to debating the merits of a permanent foreign intelligence agency but isn‘t certain it is the answer to fighting terrorism. 

"A full-scale, highly funded foreign intelligence agency is not the only solution to the problems that exist with respect to terrorism," Mr. Manley said. "If so, the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] would have prevented the attacks of Sept. 11."

Commenting during Question Period, Mr. Manley responded to a call from Fraser Valley MP Chuck Strahl for Ottawa to allocate sufficient money and personnel to create such an agency.

The current head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service — Canada‘s spy agency — can only collect information when he can afford to, Mr. Strahl said during Question Period.

Progressive Conservative MP Peter MacKay also pressed the government on the issue saying Canada is the only G7 country that doesn‘t have a permanent intelligence gathering agency.

"We need to look at whether we need to increase foreign intelligence," Mr. Manley said.

Earlier this month, Solicitor-General Lawrence MacAulay, the minister responsible for CSIS, told the Commons that the government would allocate whatever money it thinks is needed to improve intelligence collection.

But Mr. MacAulay would not say whether a new foreign spy service will be created.


----------



## Roko (18 Oct 2001)

Something I came across today..

Director says CSIS runs spy operations overseas, despite public misperception 18-OCT-2001


----------



## McG (9 Jan 2006)

Yard Ape said:
			
		

> Does anybody here think Canada could be better served by an Intelligence Service with both a forgien and a domenstic mandate?


Steve Harper sees a seperate intelligence service:





> *Steve Harper*
> international spy
> CanWest News Service
> Published: Saturday, January 07, 2006
> ...


----------



## Haligonian (19 Jan 2006)

CSIS does indeed operate outside of Canada, in fact I believe they came out publically about this like 2 years ago.  I believe I read it in the National Post or the Globe and Mail.  I've heard that there are CSIS agents in Afghanistan and they've been trained by the CF and are carrying arms there.


----------



## dutchie (19 Jan 2006)

b00161400 said:
			
		

> CSIS does indeed operate outside of Canada, in fact I believe they came out publically about this like 2 years ago.  I believe I read it in the National Post or the Globe and Mail.  I've heard that there are CSIS agents in Afghanistan and they've been trained by the CF and are carrying arms there.


well, correct me if I'm wrong, but if Parliament establishes a framework in which they must operate (ie-defence ops against threats national security, does not act themselves, other agencies do, etc.), and they violate those 'rules', then the head of CSIS can swing for that, not to mention everyone right down to the operative doing the job. What I'm saying is that they might _want _ to act like say, the CIA, moussad, etc., and you might _want_ them to be able to participate in offensive ops, but they *can't* and likely *don't*. 

What I gather from their website and all I've ever heard about them is that they are strictly intel gathering, that's it. No clandestine ops to far flung dirtholes, picking off 'tangos'.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 Feb 2006)

I think it's funny that half of the contributors to this thread are either guests or don't have completed profiles 8), spook contributions per chance??

I agree that CSIS is likely happy with a "we are just federal clock punchers with no capabilities" reputation.  They can fly way under the radar and do whatever they want, with no public interference.  Look at those CIA planes that were compromised not so long ago.  That is an agency with too much of a spot light on it.  If no one is scrutinizing CSIS, then they can go help our allies with their domestic surveillance that is far too un-PC to do for themselves.  Go for it.  Do us all proud in ways we will never be aware of.


----------



## gnplummer421 (4 Feb 2006)

Yeah, I have an opinion...CSIS probably does lots of things that are not on the "formal menu." Disinformation, and throwing the public off, is that not part of what spy agencies do? I believe what they say "officially" and do "unofficially" varies greatly. Like JTF2, CSIS has to operate out of the public eye and cannot be public about their operations. It only makes sense that the average citizen doesn't know the details of current operations, because that is the whole point isn't it? If we cannot guess what exactly they do, then they are doing their jobs right. 

Gnplummer


----------



## George Wallace (4 Feb 2006)

I rest snuggly in my hideaway, assured of my safety and that you four are not working for CSIS.  You have successfully resurrected a five year old Topic, commenting on long ago forgotten points.

The interesting thing about Intelligence Services is when they do their jobs properly, you will never hear about it.  Spies will be caught.  Acts of Terror will be stopped before they can take place.  Criminals will be caught.  Industrial Secrets will be saved.  All these things will be done while you are safely going about your peaceful everyday lives, blissfully unaware of what is going on.  

Public Interests are protected.  On the other hand, Public interest would only put them at a disadvantage.  Police Forces wouldn't be able to surprise criminals to make arrests.  RCMP and Intelligence Agencies wouldn't be able to surprise Spies or Terrorists to make arrests.  Spies would be warned away or around any attempts to steal Industrial Secrets.  That is why there is a "Need to Know" policy.  If you don't need to know, don't push it.  You are being protected and you don't need to know all the details, as then the people that are trying to do you harm would know too.


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 May 2007)

I think the government finally got this right:

Tories drop plan to build foreign spy agency
CSIS to get more power to operate outside Canada Day
_Ottawa Citizen_, May 16
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=2f125639-65f7-431d-8fc0-ab62fd29b817



> The Harper government has backed down from a campaign promise to create a foreign intelligence agency [the promise was so ill thought-out that the Tories at first said they would "expand" a non-existent "Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency" - MC], and now plans instead to give the Canadian Security Intelligence Service more power to spy on foreign countries.
> 
> Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said yesterday that instead of launching a new agency, the government will amend legislation to strengthen Canada's existing foreign intelligence capacity.
> 
> ...



More at these guest-posts at _Daimnation!_:

"Smiley's Canadians?" Not the answer
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005697.html

CSIS is the answer
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/006177.html

Still no need for "Smiley's Canadians"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007990.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters (16 May 2007)

One less government agency to argue over their share of the financial fruit bowl ....


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 May 2010)

Stiil, CSIS does seem to be getting more 007ish:

Undercover CSIS agents carry guns in foreign flashpoints
Spies get only few weeks training; 'amateurs with guns are dangerous to everyone,' says critic
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/undercover-csis-agents-carry-guns-in-foreign-flashpoints/article1580873/



> Ottawa’s spies are carrying guns in Afghanistan, a new practice for the clandestine civilian agents who are not authorized to bear arms inside Canada.
> 
> In response to Globe and Mail questions, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service confirmed for the first time that intelligence operatives can carry firearms in overseas hot spots.
> 
> ...



CSIS's operating abroad has been public knowledge for several years, see these posts:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/59283/post-549043.html#msg549043
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/94094/post-936502.html#msg936502

I am not in favour of a distinct  foreign intelligence  (HUMINT) agency (see posts above); rather I think the current situation with CSIS operating abroad as necessary to collect security intelligence (which can take on a quite broad definition indeed)  is the right route for Canada to follow (I had a fair bit of experience with intelligence analysis in the government).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jun 2010)

A letter from the Director:

CSIS and sidearms
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/june-2-letters-to-the-editor/article1588609/



> A select few Canadian Security Intelligence Service employees abroad are authorized by the CSIS director to carry a firearm in dangerous operational environments such as Afghanistan (Undercover CSIS Agents Carry Guns in Foreign Flashpoints – May 26 [see preceding post]). CSIS personnel who are required to carry sidearms receive intensive training on the safe carriage and handling of a sidearm. They must also obtain a firearms certification prior to receiving the authority to carry a sidearm.
> 
> The fact that Canadian diplomats abroad are unarmed is not a model for CSIS officers. CSIS personnel in Afghanistan are often required to meet individuals – some of whom would be described as unfriendly at best – in very dangerous situations *while carrying out their work in collecting security intelligence on threats to the Canadian Forces* [emphasis added] and to Canada. They are not in Afghanistan to do administrative work. To send CSIS personnel into harm’s way in Afghanistan without adequate protection would be completely irresponsible.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 57Chevy (11 Jun 2010)

(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)


When CSIS rings your doorbell

With the G20 Summit approaching, political activists accuse the federal spy agency of trying to undermine democracy and freedom of speech. So far, 28 have been interviewed by agents

Each visit would begin in more or less the same way, usually early in the morning or late at night, as a CSIS agent would ring the doorbell and flash his credentials.

Then the questions would begin:

How long have you known Stefan Christoff ?

Is Stefan Christoff an anarchist?

Is he planning to protest at the G8 summit?

But it's only when Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents continued to drop in on Christoff's friends and acquaintances, after the Vancouver Olympics and now into summit season, that the local activist became alarmed.

"The first couple of visits were disconcerting, but now it has become a pattern," said Christoff, 29, a vocal opponent of the Harper government and an advocate for human rights.

Christoff was first told he was the subject of CSIS questions late last fall after he joined with aboriginal groups to protest against the Vancouver Olympics as the torch passed through Montreal.

Seven people have since been questioned about him, from musicians he has worked with to refugee claimants he has sought to defend.

"When the government is spying on citizens involved in public, democratic activities everyone should be concerned," he said. "Not just me and the people I know. Everybody ... It's intimidation and it creates a culture of fear."

Christoff, who has helped organize pro-Palestinian demonstrations and benefit concerts for Haiti, is not the only activist to be put under surveillance recently.

In Toronto, as construction workers continue to erect a three-metre-high fence around the area where the G20 summit will be held June 26-27, community groups say CSIS and Toronto Police have been questioning people planning to protest outside the fence.

As of yesterday, 28 organizers had been questioned, eight of them by CSIS agents.

And in Montreal, Freda Guttman, a visual artist and human rights activist, also received an unexpected visit recently.

CSIS rang her doorbell April 7. But she refused to speak to them.

"I can't prove it, but I'm assuming I was visited because of my work on behalf of Palestinian rights," said Guttman, 76. "My reaction was to feel terribly angry, first that I was visited just because I happen to disagree with my government's position on Israel ... And as a Canadian I have protection. But I really worry about all the people in more precarious positions like immigrants and refugees. When you don't know your rights, it's very intimidating and threatening to be visited by CSIS, and that's why CSIS is doing it."

A spokesperson for the intelligence service confirmed yesterday that CSIS has been conducting "private interviews" relating to certain activists -and will continue to do so, though the intention isn't to intimidate people, but to gather information.

"We collect and analyze information and intelligence on all threats to national security," Isabelle Scott said. "One of the ways we do that is by meeting with individuals who may have information of interest. While most cooperate, some individuals simply don't want to speak with us and choose to characterize our visits as a violation of their rights.

"It's our job to collect information on potential threats -these interviews are necessary, they are legal and responsible, and they will continue."

Clayton Ruby, a prominent civil rights lawyer in Toronto, agreed yesterday that CSIS does indeed have the right, according to its mandate, to interview whomever it chooses, but that interviewees also have the right to refuse to speak to CSIS.

However, this kind of questioning, called a "noisy" investigation, is not designed to get information, Ruby said, but to "stir the pot" -to let the subject know he is under investigation and hope that he calls someone or does something incriminating while CSIS is listening.

"It's an old technique, and sometimes it works," Ruby said. "The problem is that it has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly which our constitution guarantees. It's a dangerous phenomenon in a free society."

Still, none of this explains why CSIS would target someone like Christoff who is so public about his views and activities, said his friend Ian Ferrier, a writer and performer who was visited by CSIS recently and asked, among other things, whether Christoff was a violent person.

"He is the opposite of violent," Ferrier said yesterday. He wishes he had never answered CSIS's questions to begin with, and now wonders what the agency will do with the information.

If the point was indeed to create a chilling effect on would-be protesters, the investigation of Christoff might have done the opposite.

"The CSIS agent who came to my door said, at the end of our conversation, that he hoped I would keep our conversation confidential," Ferrier said. "I feel that I should do exactly the opposite: tell everyone what happened, and make what happened a matter of public record."

As for Christoff, who was never contacted by CSIS directly, he plans to protest the G20 protests in Toronto, "along with tens of thousands of other people."

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/When+CSIS+rings+your+doorbell/3139439/story.html#ixzz0qXiizhj4


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Nov 2010)

Mildly related, at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

Is the CIA really any good at actual espionage? What about Canada?
http://unambig.com/is-the-cia-really-any-good-at-actual-espionage-what-about-canada/

Mark
Ottawa


----------

