# restructure of Canada national security department



## Manimal (13 Jul 2005)

i admit i don't know much about the system in place, but with all the talk from the people in the big seats, i don't believe they are doing enough.

at the top of this department, 1 person, called #1, outside of gov't, reports to the PM. not to MP's. this person is hired to run, create, and control committees.

Military role. a anti terrorist unit, trained with the same tactics and skills as the SAS train with and have used for many terrorist situations.
the unit would have to be sizable, but broken in to small units, with less skills then them, but more so then most of the MIL to back them with heavier power. reports to Mil who reports to #1

federal level CSIS, a task force for only terrorist, gathers outside info... like CIA. even works with CIA?

RCMP task force.... reports to #1 takes collective info of all provinces, works closely with CSIS

Provincial police, each province would have a terrorist task force, that is lead by FBI types, a group with sub groups in major cities. reports to RCMP task force head, who reports to #1

CCG get big guns lol

add thoughts, and remember, i came up with this with little info on what is set up, and it's 4am...lol


----------



## Kal (13 Jul 2005)

so where does the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) fit in this.


----------



## dutchie (13 Jul 2005)

Don't foget armed transit cops with an Anti-Terror TF armed properly and avalable 24/7 within minutes of all subway stops/major bus routes.

This will all happen once someone blows up a dozen or so Canadians on a subway somewhere, but not before then. Hope I'm not on that subway.....


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> *i admit i don't know much about the system in place,* but with all the talk from the people in the big seats, i don't believe they are doing enough.
> 
> Military role.* a anti terrorist unit, trained with the same tactics and skills as the SAS train with and have used for many terrorist situations.*
> the unit would have to be sizable, but broken in to small units, with less skills then them, but more so then most of the MIL to back them with heavier power. reports to Mil who reports to #1
> ...



Canada already has a unit along the same lines as the SAS it is JTF-2. CSIS is a federal level intel group that works in intelligance gather and even work inconjuction with the CIA and international intelligance bureaus


----------



## Manimal (13 Jul 2005)

LOL, what's CES?
don't know. like i said, it's the tired ramblings on the night shift.
is the JTF2 up the SAS standards? maybe in training, but SAS have so many years of practice, the training they do is INSANE, comparable to the SEALS for sure.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

Manimal:

You should stop typing now, since it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.  BTW, CSE = "Communications Security Establishment".  They have a website - try Google.

This thread is dangerously close to evolving (yet again) into one of "those" JTF-2 threads... :


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

JTF-2 is trained just like the SAS. OPSEC does not allow us to be told what type of training that is done.

Most of JTF AFAIK come from with in the cbt arms and are highly trained.

McNutt


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jul 2005)

CAN ANYONE SAVE THIS THREAD??

I would appreciate it.....


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

I'll try

Should Canada create a Department of Homeland Defence.

How should it be set up?

McNutt


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

A Department of National Security should include:

RCMP
CCG
CSE
CSIS
CBSA
PSEPC

Some thoughts on this topic have already been raised in the Caost Guard thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32547.0.html


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

Do we want all these organizations under one hand?  I know Edward has raised the point a few times (WRT Intelligence establishments) about preventing incestuous relationship between vital but separate state security apparatii.

Is a "Security Czar" the answer?


----------



## Manimal (13 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Manimal:
> 
> You should stop typing now, since it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.   BTW, CSE = "Communications Security Establishment".   They have a website - try Google.
> 
> This thread is dangerously close to evolving (yet again) into one of "those" JTF-2 threads... :



i fully admitted in the two posts i put here that i don't know what exactly these agagencieso, or how they work. i'm trying to take this beyond a JTF 2 thread, they how ever would be a part of national department. what it comes down too, should there be a department, and how should it be structured. look back over the FBI under Hoover, it was dirty, but it got the job done.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

You did indeed admit your lack of knowledge, then proceeded to comment on (and compare) the training of various special forces units.  There are very few people in Canada who (IMHO) are qualified to do that - even serving CF members.

I'm no old hand on this site, but even I have seen threads rapidly degenerate into nonsense as soon as special forces are mentioned.

Enough from me - back to your discussion at hand.


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

I would imagine that CSE & CSIS could be seperated out.   CSE & CSIS would form a Canadian Intelligence Agnecy (CIA).   That would leave the DNS with the principle agencies responsible for domestic action, DND would have the principle responsibility for international actions, and the CCIA would maintain both international & domestic information responsibilities.   Alternately, Some elements of this could be inter-departmental agencies (shared by DND & DNS).


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> i'm trying to take this beyond a JTF 2 thread, they how ever would be a part of national department. what it comes down too, should there be a department, and how should it be structured.


The JTF2 rightfully has no place in this discussion.  It is an element of the CF and should remain as such.

What should be examined is the coordination between DND and a DNS.  Liaison officers should be exchanged between the departments.  Canada Command would be the ideal command to do this permanent link.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

MCG:

In fact, the LO exchange is already being done on an operational level.  What you're talking about would extend it to the strategic.  I do know, for instance, that we have LOs within the RCMP and are obviously intertwined with PSEPC.

At the operational level, we currently have LOs designated by province and located in each provincial capital.  These would likely continue with the new JTF structure.  CANADACOM could act as the strategic link at the national level.


----------



## Acorn (13 Jul 2005)

All of those orgs, including DND, have representation on the Privy Council Office intelligence section. The PCO is the "clearing house," and while it isn't the same as the Brit JIC, it performs a similar function.

CSE is under DND, and should remain there for a variety of reasons (a pool of SIGINT expertise, for one). 

CSIS is a security service, not a foreign intelligence gathering service. I think it would be a mistake to merge the two functions under CSIS, as they can often clash with each other. As much as CSIS would like to believe they could expand to carry out the foreign int collection function, it would still take them as much time as it would to create an effective independent service - around 10 years would be my guess. The benefits of creating an independent service to collect foreign int outweigh any short term advantage of trying to use exisiting CSIS officers (or other exisiting collection assets) in that role.

I also believe that the creation of a "Canadian Homeland Security Department" (beyond what we already have) is a needless addition of bureaucracy.

Acorn


----------



## Kal (13 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The JTF2 rightfully has no place in this discussion.   It is an element of the CF and should remain as such.



     So should a new unit be formed to undertake high-risk arrests, raids, and rescues, etc on the federal level if the JTF2 is not to be untilized?  Perhaps some type of high-readiness, mobile response team?  Having the JTF2 under the CF for foreign operations and this new unit under CSIS or the RCMP for domestic operations?  Am I out to lunch, or is it reasonable, or am I jusy ignorant that a unit exists.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

JTF-2 does both foreign and domestic operations, much like its British equivalent, and has its own system for being requested from the CF.

We're discussing structure, etc., not counter-terrorism capabilities, which have been beaten to death elsewhere on this site.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> The JTF2 rightfully has no place in this discussion.   It is an element of the CF and should remain as such.



Exactly - the JTF2 is a military unit and, according to the law, it can only be ordered by the CDS.  No civilian "uber-security" department could lawfully take "command" of the JTF2.  Any discussion of its place in a National Security Strategy falls under general military strategy within the realm of the DND.


----------



## Manimal (13 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> You did indeed admit your lack of knowledge, then proceeded to comment on (and compare) the training of various special forces units.   There are very few people in Canada who (IMHO) are qualified to do that - even serving CF members.
> 
> I'm no old hand on this site, but even I have seen threads rapidly degenerate into nonsense as soon as special forces are mentioned.
> 
> Enough from me - back to your discussion at hand.



i have NO idea what the JTF 2 is really about. and there is nothing more then wanting to have great pride in our special forces. and my question was...(i hope) are they trained to that level. i wish we had the years of experience the SAS have, and in reading about the SAS, many many times, they point out the eliteness of other forces, mainly the USMC. i think IMHO they are the best common mil body in the world...they boardline elite. i know Canada has different values and standards the the US, not to put either country down, but we are different cultures, and the time has come to take example from our brothers from the US, and england. we haven't needed special forces for a long time..... and i think maybe that was a mistake, although we haven't needed them. and to be honest, i know nothing about CSIS, or CES, or any of those other bbody'smentioned here. NO idea we had those, i thought the RCMP were the top, with a few SS around the PM. LOL, my ignorance is great. i did not mean to sound like i was putting Canada down, or any units. the gov't, i'll openly bash, but not here lol.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Jul 2005)

:

Move along now, nothing to see here - back to the discussion at hand....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

In that vein...   



			
				Acorn said:
			
		

> All of those orgs, including DND, have representation on the Privy Council Office intelligence section. The PCO is the "clearing house," and while it isn't the same as the Brit JIC, it performs a similar function.



But have there not been complaints in the media lately that the PCO isn't represented in the new PSEPC "command centre"?   On the int side the PCO system might function well (I don't know) but perhaps, given the carping, it doesn't on the operational side...   I've only ever see "them" in action at the provincial level, where the system worked relatively well.

I agree, though, that a "super Ministry" likely isn't the way to go.   However, we're rapidly becoming like the Americans, where there are all sorts of policing agencies that need better coordination.   PSEPC was (AFAIK) designed to do this - and I am not in a position to say whether it's been effective or not.

I also agree that a "super" civilian domestic and foreign intelligence agency wouldn't be all that productive.   Accurate or not, CSIS' public record isn't all that good and they have their hands full dealing with domestic threats.

My 2 cents...

TR


----------



## Kal (13 Jul 2005)

I am aware that the JTF2 does foreign and domestic ops, but I was replying to McG's comment and was wondering if another unit could be stood up?   The both of you Teddy and Infanteer have answered my question, that there are avenues that are used for when the abilities of this unit are needed.   Thank you.


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

Kal said:
			
		

> I am aware that the JTF2 does foreign and domestic ops, but I was replying to McG's comment and was wondering if another unit could be stood up?


There is no need for another unit.  If the JTF2 is needed for a domestic op, the CF can provide it.  This is why JTF2 need not be discussed here.  Instead, the coordination and communication between DND & a DNS to ensure the seamless support of DND assets to security/emergency ops when required.

As Teddy Ruxpin, many of these mechanisms are already in place.


----------



## Slim (13 Jul 2005)

Guys and gals

This is a good thread and I would like to see it stay open.

I'm taking down the last bit of nonesence and we can continue on as if nothing (or no one) hapened.

Cheers

A

Leter...

There done..Sorry for any bent feelings biut all too often a thread that starts out great devolves into crap when some youngster comes on and starts to go on about JTFSNIPERPATHFINDERWANNABE.

Please continue this excellent discussion.

Cheers all.


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

Why not create the department, using DND as an example. Have a department head and then under him section heads (RCMP Commissioner, CCG "Admiral" etc)

Why not create an office in Ottawa that houses a small det from each section within the department. Use the sections only as needed. Although I do like the idea of CSIS controlling in-tel investigations.

McNutt


----------



## McG (13 Jul 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> CSE is under DND, and should remain there for a variety of reasons (a pool of SIGINT expertise, for one).


I foresaw this becoming more of an inter-departmental agency (including CF pers).   Though, this might not be compatible with the NDA.


----------



## Manimal (13 Jul 2005)

mcnutt_p said:
			
		

> Why not create the department, using DND as an example. Have a department head and then under him section heads (RCMP Commissioner, CCG "Admiral" etc)
> 
> Why not create an office in Ottawa that houses a small det from each section within the department. Use the sections only as needed. Although I do like the idea of CSIS controlling in-tel investigations.
> 
> McNutt



i don't understand why, but i posted saying basically the same thing. have they Terror investigations all run under a unit of CF, have the intell gather from there, have the search and destroy under that, it used here and aboard.......


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

So you are saying attach CSE with say CSIS. Allow them to stay under Op control of DND but assist CSIS in intel gathering ops.

If CSE is currently working like this disregard last.

McNutt


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (13 Jul 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> I foresaw this becoming more of an inter-departmental agency (including CF pers).    Though, this might not be compatible with the NDA.



Is that not what PSEPC is supposed to do?   I do remember that OCIPEP (the precursor to PSEPC) was removed from the DND umbrella for precisely this reason...

mcnutt_p:   your idea sounds much like they've tried to do in the US (without the departmental responsibility for agencies).   The problem you run into is that many agencies (RCMP for example) have legislative responsibilities that prevent them from reporting to a "Homeland Security" minister and other responsibilities besides homeland defence.   The span of control for such a ministry would be horrific...   Take the CCG - they could be stopping terrorists one day, but doing fishery protection the next, and search and rescue the next...

No, a coordinating agency is the way to go, as MCG suggests, including an intelligence side divorced from the PCO (IMHO).

Edit:  For info, CSE is legislatively prevented from collecting domestic intelligence.


----------



## mcnutt_p (13 Jul 2005)

Manimal said:
			
		

> i don't understand why, but i posted saying basically the same thing. have they Terror investigations all run under a unit of CF, have the intell gather from there, have the search and destroy under that, it used here and aboard.......



I am not saying to create a unit under the CF. I was say to create department to take care or all matters of homeland security.

This department would not just be used for "terror investigation" it would be used for all intel gathering, fishing interdiction, border protection, and any other operations tasked to it, as needed

McNutt


----------



## Acorn (13 Jul 2005)

As mentioned there are legislative limits to how some of these organisations can act. CSE and CSIS are pretty-well mutually exclusive - one (CSE) is a SIGINT org prohibited from domestic int collection, and the other is a domestic security org with limited foreign collection capability. Where they can, they certainly cooperate, but it would be a mistake to put them together.

As I understand the role of PCO on the int side, it acts as a committee to fuse the int from various orgs into a "common picture" to present to decision makers in the PMO. The goal is to avoid conflicting reporting, which is/was an issue in the US, where the CIA, NSA, FBI and DIA may well have differing interpretations of the same source. Given that those US orgs all had/have independent access to the Executive, it could create confusion.

Teddy makes a good point: PCO doesn't have an "act" function. It is essentially an All Source Intelligence Centre writ large. I think I understand your point about an agency divorced from PCO.

While I think that there could be some rationalization of what currently exists in Canada, I don't see the creation of a mega-bureaucracy as the solution. It may speed up the reaction time, but at what cost? Neither do we need to start expanding the powers of existing departments 'till they overlap to the point of duplication.

Acorn


----------



## Allen (13 Jul 2005)

> A Department of National Security should include:
> 
> RCMP
> CCG
> ...



AFAIK, PSEPC _is_ supposed to be our equivalent of a Dept. of Nat'l Sec. 

It seems that RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA are already under the umbrella of PSEPC, along with Correctional Sevices, the Parole Board and the Canada Firearms Centre (is this the infamous gun registry?). 

At least that's the impression I get from this web page from the official site:http://www.psepc.gc.ca/about/overview_e.asp

Does this mean that the heads of these 6 agencies report to the Minister of PSEP?



> How are illegal fisherman creating terror?



Simple: They cause Canadians to flee in terror from their wretched, fishy B.O.


----------



## edadian (14 Jul 2005)

An overarching intelligence department has been tried in several countries, almost always with disastrous results. The most famous one was broken up in 1991 for trying to overthrow the President...yes I am talking of the KGB. We do not want to give one minister to much power and we don't want to create a police state.

Part of the roll of intelligence and security agencies is to keep an eye out for the abuses of other agencies. A working committee of agency heads and inter-agency work groups for specific assignments would be the best way of going.

What Canada needs to focus on now is creation of a foreign spy service in Foreign Affairs separate from the current Security Intelligence Bureau. This would help identify terror cells abroad and their connections in Canada. This agency should have the ability to call in JTF2 for specific assignments the way MI6 calls in the SAS.


----------



## McG (14 Jul 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> AFAIK, PSEPC _is_ supposed to be our equivalent of a Dept. of Nat'l Sec.
> 
> It seems that RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA are already under the umbrella of PSEPC, along with Correctional Sevices, the Parole Board and the Canada Firearms Centre.


Yes, that is PSEPC.   However, it has only been around since 04 Apr of this year so I threw it in my list expecting that it would not be well known.  http://www.psepc.gc.ca/publications/news/2005/20050404_e.asp

However, without the Coast Guard under this organization, PSEPC cannot fill the full spectrum of public safety, national security, and emergency preparedness that it should.




> *RCMP and Canadian Coast Guard Begin Joint Marine Security Patrols Along Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway*
> _July 13, 2005 _
> 
> OTTAWA â â€œ The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) are initiating joint marine security and law enforcement patrols along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. This partnership creates a major new on-water enforcement presence and fast-response capacity on these waterways.
> ...


http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/newsrel/2005/hq-ac66_e.htm


----------



## mcnutt_p (14 Jul 2005)

Why not add the NAVRES to the patrols. It would allow for a larger joint operation and to see how others work. For example put CCG personal on naval ships and vis-versa. This would not only give the CCG working knowledge of armed operations.

Ideas about arming the CCG
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/32547.0.html


----------



## edadian (14 Jul 2005)

A Canadian Intelligence Primer. Here are some of the agencies gathering intelligence in our country and their oversight.

Privy Council Office and SIRC (Security Intelligence Review Committee)

DND - J2 and CSE both call on rest of CF as needed

PSEPC - CSIS and RCMP - NSIS for counter terrorism and counter intelligence - Criminal Intelligence Service - etc.

Industry Canada - Business Intelligence Express, Competetive Intelligence E-monitor, Security and Cryptography

Foriegn Affairs - Security Intellignec Bureau for over seas mission protection and hopefully a foriegn intelligence agency

Many other departments have 

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/docs/images/pub_si_org_e.jpg this an old chart I found online.

http://circ.jmellon.com/ is the Canadian Intelligence Resource Centre and full of information


----------



## Acorn (14 Jul 2005)

edadian said:
			
		

> Foriegn Affairs - Security Intellignec Bureau for over seas mission protection and *hopefully a foriegn intelligence agency*


Oh, I hope not!

Acorn


----------



## Slim (14 Jul 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Oh, I hope not!
> 
> Acorn



I will echo Acorn on this.

F.A. are most deffinetely not the best agency to be doing that. Their orientation is entirely different and they are not suited in the least for the oversight role.

Cheers


----------



## Manimal (14 Jul 2005)

i want to ask something else that is related to this topic. part of the US plan to protect it's citizens was the patriot act. many felt this gave the govt too much access to personal rights and freedoms. let them step over the lines a little more.
how do you feel about the govt getting more access to internal spying. i'm not sure how far they should go, but gain access to info is needed to crack down and pervent terror in this country. phone taps, email and computer spying stuff, increase raids and searches. how far should they go to protect us? 

personal i don't have anything to hide, so other then the sense of violation..... but i would accept a little more control, if it gave a sense of protection

exited:
Gen Hillier speech
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050714/ca_pr_on_na/terror_hillier

he wants more done over there, what about within?
i think he's dead on though...


----------



## edadian (15 Jul 2005)

I put a foriegn intelligence service under foriegn affairs because that is the standard place for such an agency. It is ussually based over seas under the cover of our diplomatic missions.

MI6 and SVR both answer to their foriegn ministers because one of the key purposes of this type of agency is political intelligence. You don't want key information on a trade negotiation lost because some agency at the defence department failed to recognise its importance or value.

I'm all for J2 getting reinforced for more counter-terror capabilities with more foriegn agents and the ability to infiltrate terror cells at home and abroad.


----------



## Acorn (15 Jul 2005)

edadian said:
			
		

> I put a foriegn intelligence service under foriegn affairs because that is the standard place for such an agency. It is ussually based over seas under the cover of our diplomatic missions.
> 
> MI6 and SVR both answer to their foriegn ministers because one of the key purposes of this type of agency is political intelligence. You don't want key information on a trade negotiation lost because some agency at the defence department failed to recognise its importance or value.
> 
> I'm all for J2 getting reinforced for more counter-terror capabilities with more foriegn agents and the ability to infiltrate terror cells at home and abroad.



That is not the standard place at all, though you are correct that most countries base intelligence officers abroad under diplomatic cover. The CIA is not subordinate to the Department of State at all, for example, and the FCO's relationship with the SIS (or MI6 if you want) is loose. While it may make sense to have the foreign intelligence service report to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the service should not be part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

I'm not advocating that the Military take over foreign intelligence either. Such a service should be separate from domestic security intelligence (CSIS), diplomacy (FAC), law enforcement and any other department. It should report directly to Cabinet or an intelligence "clearing house" organisation like the UK's JIC.

As for J2 getting involved in what you suggest, I wouldn't recommend it at this point. In fact, I wouldn't recommend Canada getting in that game at all until a foreign intelligence service is established and functional - a long term project.

Acorn


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

What sort of relation exists between PSEPC and CATSA?


----------



## Manimal (17 Jul 2005)

on CNN tonight, they were talking about different countries prospectives on terror/anti terror. France is reported and a tough spot on terrorists, they are hunted more, held without evidences for years,(for public safety) the man in the middle is a judge who will assist the hunt down and detaining the suspects. one point made on the French system is that their spy (CIA) unit, also has power to arrest within France (FBI type power) and this system is getting the job done. if the US is saying something good about France, it must be REALLY good.


----------



## edadian (17 Jul 2005)

Manimal 
The French have been dealing with terrorism for nearly 50+ years so of course they have developed a good system. They have more experts in the field and a better reliance on human intelligence. The Italians and Germans have similar systems.

All three countries warned the US about the 9/11 cell but the people who should have listened were let go when Bush was elected. They also prevented a huge attack in Frankfurt and Brussels in August 2001 aimed at hurting the political and financial centres of the EU.


----------



## James (10 Oct 2005)

Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is an excellent discussion. I have a couple questions.

With all the agency names flying around, I'm having trouble figuring out who reports to who. I assumed CSIS reported to the Canadian government, but they're under the PSEPC now. So, do they still report to the government or do they now report to the PSEPC?

And I assume the CSE reports directly to the CDS since it's under DND, right?

Would someone be able to provide me with a link to J2?

Thanks.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (10 Oct 2005)

James said:
			
		

> Sorry to bump an old thread, but this is an excellent discussion. I have a couple questions.
> 
> With all the agency names flying around, I'm having trouble figuring out who reports to who. I assumed CSIS reported to the Canadian government, but they're under the PSEPC now. So, do they still report to the government or do they now report to the PSEPC?


  CSIS reports to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.  They're not responsible to Emergency Preparedness Canada.



> http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/en/index.asp





> And I assume the CSE reports directly to the CDS since it's under DND, right?


  Nope, it's not military.  It reports to the Minister of National Defence.



> http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/





> Would someone be able to provide me with a link to J2?



'Fraid not.  J2 is simply the staff branch responsible to the DCDS (and, by extension the CDS) for Intelligence.  It is headed by the Chief, Defence Intelligence - a General Officer.


----------



## James (11 Oct 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> CSIS reports to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.  They're not responsible to Emergency Preparedness Canada.



And that would be Anne McLelland, the Deputy Prime Minister. That raises another question. I assume for most of the information she receives, she would report it to the PM, correct? What if the information is about, lets say a possible terrorist threat. Would she report to the MND? To me that would make sense, go straight to the person who deals with defence.




> Nope, it's not military.  It reports to the Minister of National Defence.



I assumed it was military because someone said it was in the DND. Good thing I asked I guess.  ;D




> 'Fraid not.  J2 is simply the staff branch responsible to the DCDS (and, by extension the CDS) for Intelligence.  It is headed by the Chief, Defence Intelligence - a General Officer.



I thought it was an actually organization. Thank you for clarifying.


----------

