A Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service

[KevinB]

Bumpity bump…

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Paiamentarians is apparently studying Canada’s foreign intelligence collection capabilities and activities.

MPs, senators on intelligence committee scrutinize Canada's ability to spy overseas

OTTAWA — Parliamentarians are taking a hard look at Canada's overseas intelligence gathering capabilities as debate simmers over the need for a new foreign spy agency.

toronto.citynews.ca

Hopefully this pushes us in the direction of a foreign human intelligence service…

I would suggest you also need a way to do more than just HUMINT, including some things Canada doesn’t like to admit occurs in the world.
Sabotage and Assassination being things I think need to be available when needed.

 

[DBNSG]

I would suggest you also need a way to do more than just HUMINT, including some things Canada doesn’t like to admit occurs in the world.
Sabotage and Assassination being things I think need to be available when needed.

So sabotage and assassination does work in Canada every time the Leafs go on the ice

 

[brihard]

I would suggest you also need a way to do more than just HUMINT, including some things Canada doesn’t like to admit occurs in the world.
Sabotage and Assassination being things I think need to be available when needed.

If Canada wants to play in that space, legally it’s best done under the crown prerogative of national defence. Any foreign espionage agency is going to require statutory structure, and those activities aren’t something we can realistically write into law. They also aren’t actually ‘intelligence’ capabilities or activities. If those are really something Canada needs to consider doing in its national defence, I’d say stick to CANSOFCOM.

Note that this is an ‘if we must…’. I’m not ready to concede Canada should go there.

 

[KevinB]

If Canada wants to play in that space, legally it’s best done under the crown prerogative of national defence. Any foreign espionage agency is going to require statutory structure, and those activities aren’t something we can realistically write into law. They also aren’t actually ‘intelligence’ capabilities or activities. If those are really something Canada needs to consider doing in its national defence, I’d say stick to CANSOFCOM.

Note that this is an ‘if we must…’. I’m not ready to concede Canada should go there.

The reason I don’t think it’s a CANSOF role is you don’t yet have an off the books method for hiding military.
Even Assaulters at the Hill aren’t off the fully books.


You can’t send military personnel to do some of the things you may need to get done.

Spies are in a different position than soldiers.
Spies are invaders if they get caught.
Embarrassing yes, but not necessarily a war or grounds for one.

Perhaps Canadian External Security Service would be a better name.
Not solely Intelligence based then.

 

[brihard]

The reason I don’t think it’s a CANSOF role is you don’t yet have an off the books method for hiding military.
Even Assaulters at the Hill aren’t off the fully books.


You can’t send military personnel to do some of the things you may need to get done.

Spies are in a different position than soldiers.
Spies are invaders if they get caught.
Embarrassing yes, but not necessarily a war or grounds for one.

Perhaps Canadian External Security Service would be a better name.
Not solely Intelligence based then.

I think given how much of a political lift it would be to establish a clandestine foreign HUMINT capability, we should probably not let our eyes get bigger than our stomachs. Besides, I just don’t think there’s an appetite in cabinet for us as a country to engage in clandestine murder. I don’t see where it would likely serve our national interest commensurate with the risks.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We don't have "double-O-agents", but we could continue to have double-doubles.

 

[OldSolduer]

Bumpity bump…

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Paiamentarians is apparently studying Canada’s foreign intelligence collection capabilities and activities.

MPs, senators on intelligence committee scrutinize Canada's ability to spy overseas

OTTAWA — Parliamentarians are taking a hard look at Canada's overseas intelligence gathering capabilities as debate simmers over the need for a new foreign spy agency.

toronto.citynews.ca

Hopefully this pushes us in the direction of a foreign human intelligence service…

I like your optimism.

WRT sabotage and assassinations I’d tread very very carefully.
The vast majority of the people would not like this.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think given how much of a political lift it would be to establish a clandestine foreign HUMINT capability, we should probably not let our eyes get bigger than our stomachs. Besides, I just don’t think there’s an appetite in cabinet for us as a country to engage in clandestine murder. I don’t see where it would likely serve our national interest commensurate with the risks.

We were happy to teach spies

Camp X - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think given how much of a political lift it would be to establish a clandestine foreign HUMINT capability, we should probably not let our eyes get bigger than our stomachs. Besides, I just don’t think there’s an appetite in cabinet for us as a country to engage in clandestine murder. I don’t see where it would likely serve our national interest commensurate with the risks.

Because we like to think we only do 'peacekeeping' spy work...

 

[Halifax Tar]

The vast majority of the people would not like this.

The vast majority of the people should have no idea, if its done well.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

 

[brihard]

The vast majority of the people should have no idea, if its done well.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Sure. But clandestinely murdering people isn’t generally an intelligence capability, even though for some of the world’s major players they have evolved such a capability out of the fusion of covert intelligence gathering and SOF vets. We could reasonably expect that a new foreign intelligence service would be exactly that- intelligence collection.

Clandestine paramilitary stuff is on a whole different level, and you need to be prepared for high costs and heavy consequences if you play in that game and muck it up at all. I also think that the opportunity cost in bodies, training, and logistical support would come at considerable expense to more fruitful intelligence gathering.

Just my two cents though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sure. But clandestinely murdering people isn’t generally an intelligence capability, even though for some of the world’s major players they have evolved such a capability out of the fusion of covert intelligence gathering and SOF vets. We could reasonably expect that a new foreign intelligence service would be exactly that- intelligence collection.

Clandestine paramilitary stuff is on a whole different level, and you need to be prepared for high costs and heavy consequences if you play in that game and muck it up at all. I also think that the opportunity cost in bodies, training, and logistical support would come at considerable expense to more fruitful intelligence gathering.

Just my two cents though.

I think this is one of those "what does Canada want to be when it grows up?" questions.

Do we accept that the world is still a competitive and often brutal place, where states pursue their interests through every tool available? Or do we continue pretending that diplomacy, international law, and good intentions are enough to protect our prosperity and sovereignty?

Whether we like it or not, these things happen. Major powers routinely operate in the grey zone between peace and war. They recruit agents, steal technology, influence politicians, manipulate public opinion, and occasionally eliminate individuals they view as threats to their interests. The methods may be hidden, but the competition is very real.

Canada often seems uncomfortable acknowledging this reality. We prefer to see ourselves as a nation of diplomacy and consensus. Those are admirable values, but values alone do not deter hostile actors. There are states and organizations in the world that respect strength, capability, and consequences far more than they respect statements of concern.

The question is not whether Canada should become reckless or abandon its principles. The question is whether Canada is mature enough to recognize that our allies conduct intelligence operations, covert actions, and other activities in the shadows because the threats they face are real.

Peace is not maintained simply because everyone agrees to be peaceful. More often, peace is maintained because those who would disrupt it know that someone is watching, someone is capable of responding, and someone is willing to act.

The real question is whether Canada wants to remain naïve about the darker realities of international affairs, or whether it wants to acknowledge that the stability and prosperity we enjoy are often protected by difficult, uncomfortable work carried out far from public view. A country that refuses to recognize those realities risks becoming dependent on others to do that work on its behalf.

 

[brihard]

I think this is one of those "what does Canada want to be when it grows up?" questions.

Do we accept that the world is still a competitive and often brutal place, where states pursue their interests through every tool available? Or do we continue pretending that diplomacy, international law, and good intentions are enough to protect our prosperity and sovereignty?

Whether we like it or not, these things happen. Major powers routinely operate in the grey zone between peace and war. They recruit agents, steal technology, influence politicians, manipulate public opinion, and occasionally eliminate individuals they view as threats to their interests. The methods may be hidden, but the competition is very real.

Canada often seems uncomfortable acknowledging this reality. We prefer to see ourselves as a nation of diplomacy and consensus. Those are admirable values, but values alone do not deter hostile actors. There are states and organizations in the world that respect strength, capability, and consequences far more than they respect statements of concern.

The question is not whether Canada should become reckless or abandon its principles. The question is whether Canada is mature enough to recognize that our allies conduct intelligence operations, covert actions, and other activities in the shadows because the threats they face are real.

Peace is not maintained simply because everyone agrees to be peaceful. More often, peace is maintained because those who would disrupt it know that someone is watching, someone is capable of responding, and someone is willing to act.

The real question is whether Canada wants to remain naïve about the darker realities of international affairs, or whether it wants to acknowledge that the stability and prosperity we enjoy are often protected by difficult, uncomfortable work carried out far from public view. A country that refuses to recognize those realities risks becoming dependent on others to do that work on its behalf.

Heading in to work but I’ll try to pick this back up later. There’s less of a gap between our positions than you think, and I’ll just say that the naïveté of the public about threats and foreign actions is not matched by the pros in the S&I space.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Heading in to work but I’ll try to pick this back up later. There’s less of a gap between our positions than you think, and I’ll just say that the naïveté of the public about threats and foreign actions is not matched by the pros in the S&I space.

Apologies that wasn't meant to sound argumentative.

And I do think we're probably on the same boat.

 

[OldSolduer]

Heading in to work but I’ll try to pick this back up later. There’s less of a gap between our positions than you think, and I’ll just say that the naïveté of the public about threats and foreign actions is not matched by the pros in the S&I space.

There are some people on this planet that need to be…dealt with.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Here is an interesting take on the subject by Wesley Wark:

NISCOP and Foreign Intelligence

Or, the return of ambition?

wesleywark.substack.com

 

[KevinB]

Sure. But clandestinely murdering people isn’t generally an intelligence capability, even though for some of the world’s major players they have evolved such a capability out of the fusion of covert intelligence gathering and SOF vets. We could reasonably expect that a new foreign intelligence service would be exactly that- intelligence collection.

Clandestine paramilitary stuff is on a whole different level, and you need to be prepared for high costs and heavy consequences if you play in that game and muck it up at all. I also think that the opportunity cost in bodies, training, and logistical support would come at considerable expense to more fruitful intelligence gathering.

Just my two cents though.

I’m a firm believer that it is better to have the capability, and not need it, than need the capability and not have it.

Canada has a long history of developing capabilities during crisis or war - refining them - then tossing them away.



Also I made a typo above - which I gather everyone understood - but Military Personnel caught doing nefarious things are (unless you are Russia) a huge issue, and also sort of international law issues wrt war and invasion. Non Official Cover Non Military personnel get thrown in prison (sometimes worse) - but other than nasty accusations, as they aren’t firmly linked to a Government, there isn’t any official recourse.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada got into the SOF game and has a highly respected force in that field. I don't know how good our domestic intelligence is, but I suspect by the way things play out that it works reasonably well. Building the mandate to collect overseas intelligence, by data collection, cypher intelligence and limited HUMIT would be a logical next step. I suspect the need to whack people threatening Canada or our embassies is limited and something we could request our allies to do if needed, as anyone going after Canada is likley to be a major threat to other NATO countries as well.

 

[lenaitch]

I would wonder about oversight. Our parliamentary committee system doesn't strike me as all that robust and secure; certainly not enough to deal with matters that are potentially very sensitive and possibly very un-Charter-ish.

What would be the policy goals? Do we want to protect the Canadian state or effect change elsewhere? Protect Canadian intellectual and industrial capacity? Better domestic laws and walls might do the same. Rotting in a jail for a few decades, not a few years, for helping a foreign state might help.

There are dark forces at work in the civilian criminal world. Would we be ok with our cops colouring outside of their lines?

I say all of this with a knowledge base of spook work coming from movies and TV.

 

[KevinB]

I would wonder about oversight. Our parliamentary committee system doesn't strike me as all that robust and secure; certainly not enough to deal with matters that are potentially very sensitive and possibly very un-Charter-ish.

The British manage to do it.
While apart from some glaring standouts, they do it well.

What would be the policy goals? Do we want to protect the Canadian state or effect change elsewhere?

Not mutually exclusive.

Protect Canadian intellectual and industrial capacity? Better domestic laws and walls might do the same. Rotting in a jail for a few decades, not a few years, for helping a foreign state might help.

That is something I think you need regardless.

There are dark forces at work in the civilian criminal world. Would we be ok with our cops colouring outside of their lines?

No, which is part of why the RCMP lost the role as I understand it, and CSIS formed.

Can Canada use CANSOF internally for any grey areas? @brihard
I know they can support LE and more, but I’m curious what an OIC or like could authorize.

Again, I’m not suggesting that activities for OUTCAN be used domestically.

I say all of this with a knowledge base of spook work coming from movies and TV.

I’ve known some Case Managers, some SAD folks, Mil Int folks, and others inside or adjacent to the Black Side. I’ve learned more in books and movies.