# Spy Agency



## big bad john (16 Feb 2005)

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


----------



## rw4th (16 Feb 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.


----------



## big bad john (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## rw4th (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## big bad john (16 Feb 2005)

To me MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Feb 2005)

As far as I know CSIS's mandate is for Domestic Ops only.

GW


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2005)

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...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## CBH99 (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## WATCHDOG-81 (16 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## 291er (17 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## big bad john (17 Feb 2005)

Thank you...always nice to know who is who and what games they are playing.


----------



## Franko (17 Feb 2005)

291er said:
			
		

> We don't have much of a HUMINT capacity anymore....



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

Regards


----------



## S McKee (17 Feb 2005)

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!


----------



## 291er (17 Feb 2005)

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...


----------



## CBH99 (18 Feb 2005)

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?


----------



## HollywoodHitman (18 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## rw4th (18 Feb 2005)

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.


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (25 Feb 2005)

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...


----------



## JasonH (25 Feb 2005)

Did they get there budget increased?


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (25 Feb 2005)

They got some more money after 9-11...but that was a while ago...the funding was meant for a 5 year time frame I think...in any case, there have been government studies done on the costs of establishing a foreign intelligence gathering capacity...and its surprisingly not that much...so there's no better time than now to do this...I think the biggest problem is that alot of politicians will be opposed to Canada spying on other countries and what not...the biggest obstacle as always is the political stuff...


----------



## Acorn (27 Feb 2005)

Why do some people use ellipses instead of periods or commas when they write in the internet?

Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?

I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional.

Acorn


----------



## rw4th (28 Feb 2005)

I believe the separation of foreign and security intelligence services have to do with the mandate and â Å“rulesâ ? surrounding each type of organization. Security intelligence organizations usually have strict operating parameters that they must adhere to, in part to protect our right to privacy. Foreign intelligence organizations typically do not have these types of limitations.


----------



## Acorn (28 Feb 2005)

That's one major reason, and a good enough reason why we should stick with it in and of itself.

Acorn


----------



## ReadyAyeReady (5 Mar 2005)

Acorn:

1)"Why do some people use ellipses instead of periods or commas when they write in the internet?"

I'm sorry, I'll refrain from doing so in the future.  I tend to write the way I think, in spurts.

2)"Anyway, there are some issues involved when it comes to the difference between collecting foreign intelligence, and security intelligence. There are also issues of compartmentation (I know, you'll say, that was the problem with 9-11). I think it should be instructive that most nations that have foreign intelligence services maintain them separate from their security services. Are we so arrogant to believe we can do things differently?"

Point taken.  I should clarify my position however.  What I mean is that I think it would be wise if we established a foreign intelligence capacity within CSIS so as to avoid the rivalry, bureaucratic in-fighting etc. that exists in the situation of the FBI/CIA for example.  Now I am not saying we should create some super intelligence organization that just runs amok.  I mean that within CSIS there should be a secutiy intelligence division and a foreign intelligence division.  This would be useful in the event that coordination needs to take place, or information sharing needs to occur.  I've heard of numerous times where CSIS has had a heck of a time getting info and cooperation from the RCMP for example.   And we all know about the relations between the CIA and the FBI.   If both branches are working in the same building, under the same umbrealla I think it would generate a better intelligence process.  

I understand that securtiy intelligence and foreiign intelligence are two different beasts, but you have to admit that there is alot of overlap as well.  Of course there are benefits and disadvantages with every system, but I think the more problems would arise if we started to create more agencies, for a number of reasons I will not get into.  Again, let me emphasize that I am not saying that we just have some general intelligence gathering agency that has a bunch of multi-purpose agents who work on both securtiy intelligence and foreign intelligence, I mean having an agency with 2 branches or something along those lines.  Besides, if we were to establish a foreign intelligence agency, where do you think most of its personnel would come from?  When CSIS was created, the majority of its intial employees were drawn from its predecessor, the disbanded RCMP security service.  IMO, a Canadian foreign int agency wold probably be drawing on the knowledge of CSIS throughout its creation and afterwards.

2-"I'm not going to get into methods, sources or the way certain agencies operate, but hope you'll accept it when I claim that regardless of how we implement a foreign int service (be it based on CSIS or a new independent agency) it will take many years to become truly functional."

I have to disagree with you on this point.  History as always is instructional in this respect. In WWII, both the allies and the axis were able to build up extensive and very effective HUMINT networks in relatively short periods of time.  Take for example the OSS in the US, which was built up from scratch in just 18 months, and became a pretty succesfull organization with a vast network of sources and agents.  What it boils down to is not a lack of expertise or anything along those lines, what is needed is political will and political backing, and motivated government officials that are committed to the task, who are willing to make tough decisions, and who are capable of generating the resources needed to implement the undertaking.  And thats what I think is lacking in Canada.  Like I said in an earlier post, the biggest obstacle to creating a foreing intelligence agency in Cannada is that it is a politically touchy issue.  The idea of a Foreign Int agency leaves a bad bad taste in alot of Canadians' mouths and that's why politicians are loathe to delve to deeply into the subject.  I wish there were more David Pratts and Colin Kenneys out there!  

Contrary to what you say, IMO I think that Canada has alot of advantages that would make it alot easier for us to creat a foreign int capacity.  One of the most imporant is our extremely diverse and mulicultural society.  Because we don't subscribe to the US melting pot mentality, our multicultural society is in itself is an untapped resource.  If we took advantage of things like that we could truly create an amazing intelligence capacity.  The resources are there, in our civilian pop, in our universities, in CSIS, in the CF, in the government...what we are missing is politcians who do not understand the issues and who are afraid to get their hands dirty.  Some food for thought anyway...

I appreciate your input Acorn.  You are after all someone who is in the business.  I, on the other hand, am a smarmy grad student who has yet to get my feet wet.  So I would understand if you take my arguments as maybe too academic.  I am just trying to contribute to the debate!


----------

