Canada’s little-known spy agency comes out into the open

[Lightguns]

Honestly, this whole news story is,"Yawn....we are spying on other nations."  :facepalm:  It is like,"OMG, the army has bullets in their guns!"

 

[Nemo888]

The spying is not the issue. It is spying for transnational resource extraction corporations. A perhaps legal but truly unethical practice that is very prone to third world corruption. What if those transnational corporations start donating heavily to  a particular party and attempt to influence Canadian elections. Not to mention our international business reputation.

 

[George Wallace]

Honestly, this whole news story is,"Yawn....we are spying on other nations."  :facepalm:  It is like,"OMG, the army has bullets in their guns!"

Next we will see soldiers in the streets......with guns.....  :

Nemo888

Do you say it is OK for Brazil to spy on us, but us not to spy on them?  Surely you have a few more clues than that.

 

[GAP]

was there not some quip about two hands and a flashlight?..... :nod:

 

[Journeyman]

The documents – heavily redacted agendas – do not indicate that any international espionage was shared by CSEC officials

But I guess that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

...but the meetings were an opportunity for government agencies and companies to develop "ongoing trusting relations" that would help them exchange information "off the record", wrote an official from the Natural Resources ministry in 2010.

It's much more likely that the intelligence community/business contacts were made so that information could be passed from Canadian businesses operating in various countries TO the intelligence community, not the other way around.  After all, it's their job to collect information, from all sources.

Keith Stewart, an energy policy analyst with Greenpeace Canada....

Greenwald hinted that he will be publishing further documents on CSEC. [and is therefore chumming the waters]

..... said Jamie Kneen of MiningWatch Canada, an NGO watchdog.

  Oh, nevermind.  :  Back to  <ignore>

Surely you have a few more clues than that.

    :not-again:

 

[Robert0288]

Junk article.

 

[Nemo888]

I want a strong CSE with almost unlimited powers. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need an ethical compass to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against. The problem is not spying. That is what spies do obviously. The problems is that the link between corporations and the state are blurring.

Canada has become a very welcoming place for resource extraction companies. 75% of the world's mines are now headquartered here due to lax regulations, low corporate taxes and a  reliable banking system. A few of these companies are very unethical and take advantage of our lack of regulation. Resource extraction companies pay the maximum amount allowable in donations to political parties. Most chose one particular party. The friendly politicians can also expect multiple directorships on the boards of these companies after retiring from politics. So when in power the bulk of their election financing comes from corporations and after retirement the majority of their income comes from these directorships and not their MP pension. So in many respects it is not voters but transnational corporations that dictate public policy. In some ridings one candidate can outspend the other parties combined to get 44% of the vote and stay in power for a decade. If they could not outspend their opponents they would lose. When an important issue for their benefactors comes across their desk they are clearly in a conflict of interest and will usually side with the corporation over the electorate. The outcome of this is that voting can have very little effect on policy. This is an overwhelming problem in most of the world and that rot is setting in here now.

So when it turns out the CSE is working in conjunction with these transnational corporations who are already bypassing our democracy being worried is a good thing. When voting has little effect on policy political unrest will be the likely long term outcome. If the CSE and it's accomplices in other countries are collecting all electronic communications this could get ugly in the future. I will give an example.

A small town in BC has a coal seam too dirty to burn in Canada. So the government relaxes foreign ownership restrictions and leases the mineral rights to the Chinese. The corporation then puts fluent Mandarin as a job requirement and hires all Chinese miners to save money.(This has already happened BTW) So we have a Chinese mine in a BC town. Let's say the mine wants to save money and starts polluting the place and making people sick. The Mayor and local MP are on the payroll, use their influence and MNR is so cut back that they won't investigate. So the locals start organizing and making trouble. The CSE investigates and has a meeting with the Mayor,the mine owners and local law enforcement and identifies all those sympathetic with the antimining activists.

That is not the Canada I grew up in or want to live in.

 

[Old Sweat]

You have claimed mining companies are financing political parties to the maximum extent possible. As you have no doubt researched this extensively, could you please tell us what the maximum extent possible is in each province and territory as well as federally and provide examples? Thanks.

 

[GR66]

There are several "leaps" in your argument. 

Firstly, since 2007 reforms corporations are not allowed to make political contributions.  That means then that companies wishing to influence a party or candidate would then have to do it through contributions by individual people.  Individual contributions are capped at $1200 per year so I guess you could get a whole bunch of the executives from a company to each make the maximum individual contributions and gain influence that way.  A major hitch in that is every individual contribution over $200 is a matter of public record and can be easily be found on the Elections Canada website (http://www.elections.ca/WPAPPS/WPF/CC/SelectCandidates?act=C2&eventid=34&returntype=2&option=2).  There are people and groups (including the media) that DO check this information and report on things that appear "fishy" (as when Liberal MP Joe Volpe was found to have received significant contributions from senior executives - and their family members - from the pharmaceutical company Apotex.  Note that this was in 2006 before the individual contribution limits were dropped from $5400 to $1200).

It would be difficult for a company to exert influence over a sitting parliamentarian in the way you suggest.  Not impossible, but there is considerable transparency in the process which would make it difficult to escape the spotlight, especially for a member that appears to be doing something that is contrary to the wishes of the people he/she represents.

Secondly you suggest that politicians are bought off with directorships which exceed their MPs pensions.  While I'm certain that a great many former politicians do not "retire" when they leave politics, I'd like to see some kind of back-up to your claims that they receive directorship payments that exceed their pensions and that these directorships can be tied in anyway to their voting record while active in politics.  Those are some pretty serious allegations of corruption and I'd hope that you have some hard information to back up such a claim.

Lastly you take this whole thing into the realm of grand conspiracy.  The whole of government...parliamentarians from across the country as well as senior bureaucrats from a ministry all collude to change foreign ownership restrictions to benefit a specific mining interest in a small BC community.  Another whole group of people from municipal, provincial and federal politicians and civil servants then collude to allow a foreign company to not only ignore legal health and environmental requirements but to also actively cover up the fact that they are doing so to prevent an investigation.  The national intelligence agencies then work together with local law enforcement to illegally supress those individuals that are trying to bring to light all of this unlawful behaviour. 

Wow...and I thought the Kennedy assassination plot was hard to keep quiet!  Perhaps Netflix should stop showing episodes of the X-Files.

 

[George Wallace]

WOW!

You really have made some wildass claims here.  Like Old Sweat, I am curious as to where you came up with all these claims.

Just a few points though:

I want a strong CSE with almost unlimited powers. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need an ethical compass to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against. The problem is not spying. That is what spies do obviously. The problems is that the link between corporations and the state are blurring.

CSEC is bound by the Law.  They do not operate outside of the Law.  (Nor does CSIS.) 
 

Canada has become a very welcoming place for resource extraction companies. 75% of the world's mines are now headquartered here due to lax regulations, low corporate taxes and a  reliable banking system. A few of these companies are very unethical and take advantage of our lack of regulation. Resource extraction companies pay the maximum amount allowable in donations to political parties. Most chose one particular party. The friendly politicians can also expect multiple directorships on the boards of these companies after retiring from politics. So when in power the bulk of their election financing comes from corporations and after retirement the majority of their income comes from these directorships and not their MP pension. So in many respects it is not voters but transnational corporations that dictate public policy. In some ridings one candidate can outspend the other parties combined to get 44% of the vote and stay in power for a decade. If they could not outspend their opponents they would lose. When an important issue for their benefactors comes across their desk they are clearly in a conflict of interest and will usually side with the corporation over the electorate. The outcome of this is that voting can have very little effect on policy. This is an overwhelming problem in most of the world and that rot is setting in here now.

Some pretty wildass claims there.  Old Sweat as already asked for some enlightenment as to your research, so I will await your reply to his questions.

So when it turns out the CSE is working in conjunction with these transnational corporations who are already bypassing our democracy being worried is a good thing. When voting has little effect on policy political unrest will be the likely long term outcome. If the CSE and it's accomplices in other countries are collecting all electronic communications this could get ugly in the future. I will give an example.

A small town in BC has a coal seam too dirty to burn in Canada. So the government relaxes foreign ownership restrictions and leases the mineral rights to the Chinese. The corporation then puts fluent Mandarin as a job requirement and hires all Chinese miners to save money.(This has already happened BTW) So we have a Chinese mine in a BC town. Let's say the mine wants to save money and starts polluting the place and making people sick. The Mayor and local MP are on the payroll, use their influence and MNR is so cut back that they won't investigate. So the locals start organizing and making trouble. The CSE investigates and has a meeting with the Mayor,the mine owners and local law enforcement and identifies all those sympathetic with the antimining activists.

I smell a Conspiracy Theorist here.  Are you really sure of your facts and not reading more into something than there really is?  I have some very serious doubts about several of your claims here.

And yes; this is not the Canada I grew up in either.  It has grown and changed with the times.  Some changes have been for the better and some not.  That is life.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I want a strong CSE with almost unlimited powers. With those powers comes great responsibility. Since many of the things they do will be outside the law they need an ethical compass to keep them from becoming like the spies from the countries they were set up to protect us against .....

You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have all kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.

Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.

 

[Edward Campbell]

CSEC's powers are, actually, quite limited, as they should be.

The ethics of its leadership and management are the same as those of the most senior ranks of the Canadian civil service ... which is to say of a high standard. The highest? I don't really know; they, top level civil servants are, after all, human. For every hundred David Dodges or Kevin Lynches we, certainly find an occasional Chuck Guité.*

The business of intelligence gathering is, of necessity, murky ~ it is, or should be, conducted in the shadows.

At some point we must, everywhere, answer the question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Our spies, including our SIGINT spies, are guards, just as much as our police and soldiers. We must rely upon them and their leaders to guard all of our rights and privileges as Canadian citizens, including our life, liberty, property and privacy. We have a commissioner, a judge, to guard them. I believe outside commissioners of that sort are a second best solution for oversight ... I would prefer to have a few Members of Parliament, fully and properly security cleared, do that job and report, periodically to Parliament.

I would also like to see an Official Secrets Act with more teeth and greater reach.

Finally: It is my belief that any one of several Western countries can and should assassinate Mr Snowden, while he is cowering in Moscow.

_____
* M. Guité became famous (infamous, I suppose) during the sponsorship scandal of the late 1990s; his role was exposed during Mr Justice Gomery's inquiry in 2004. He was convicted on five counts of defrauding the Federal Government and was sentenced to 42 months in jail.

 

[OldSolduer]

You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have all kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.

Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.

There's a quote that goes something along the lines of "first they cam for the Jews, but it wasn't me." It ends " then they came for me and there was no one"

Nazi Germany had all kinds of secret police organizations - I don't want that in Canada, thank you.

 

[Robert0288]

I would also like to see an Official Secrets Act with more teeth and greater reach.

Finally: It is my belief that any one of several Western countries can and should assassinate Mr Snowden, while he is cowering in Moscow.

The official secrets act has been morphed/changed into the security of information act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/O-5/page-1.html)

2)  I'm surprised no one's done that already.  Though to be honest, all the leaks are emerging out of The Guardian.  And who knows what kind of information may be released upon his untimely death as a dead man switch.

 

[Nemo888]

You have claimed mining companies are financing political parties to the maximum extent possible. As you have no doubt researched this extensively, could you please tell us what the maximum extent possible is in each province and territory as well as federally and provide examples? Thanks.

The easiest loophole is to donate 200$ to each riding association giving you an additional 60,500$(per person).  The way I saw it done at the local and provincial level was for the donor to hire a good campaign manager and volunteers. The candidate has plausible deniability. Some volunteers would also be paid employees of sympathetic businesses. I know of one who would hire extra employees around election time. Most of the corruption I have seen is based on long term relationships. It starts with picking up the tab for lunch and a legal donation. Often this relationship is started before a candidate has ever been elected. That proceeds to sharing political contacts and jobs for family and close friends. After things are cemented  at election time the classic envelope of cash is offered to cover miscellaneous expenses. I have seen this in relation to real estate development(with 100% certainty) and some products bought by DND(80% sure). These guys are powerful so I have no interest in being crushed by naming one. When you go to the city hall cafeteria elected officials call them 'Sir".

As far as directorships lets take the poster boy for envelopes full of cash in hotel rooms for favours, Brian Mulroney. He admitted to revenue Canada receiving 75,000$ in envelopes in NYC hotel rooms from Schreiber. Schrieiber says it ws 300,000$. Let's put this in perspective. Only a single individual was caught and he bribed the PM 300,000$ and a memo records BM being paid an additional million that was offshored. I should mention that Mulroney is on at least one advisory board of an offshore bank. If one individual was caught is it a stretch to say there were probably more envelopes of cash from other interests? If the Prime Minister is bribable that should indicate how deep the corruption has gone.

Mulroney has directorships at Barrick Gold, Quebecor Inc., Archer Daniels Midland, TrizecHahn Corp., Cendant Corp., AOL Latin America, Inc. and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal). He is a senior counselor to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, a global private equity fund in Dallas, chairman of Forbes Global (New York). He is also chairman of various international advisory boards and councils for many international companies, including Power Corp. (Montreal), Bombardier (Montreal), the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (Beijing), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (New York), Violy, Byorum and Partners (New York), VS&A Communications Partners (New York), Independent Newspapers (Dublin) and General Enterprise Management Services Limited (British Virgin Islands). 

Does that cover how corruption works in Canada well enough?

You know, there are folks out there who want agencies to have all kinds of unlimited powers to get "those people", but it really starts to suck when you end up becoming one of "those people", especially by mistake.  Then it's not so great that you have no protection under the law.

Would YOU be willing to go to jail indefinitely because an outside-the-law intelligence agency mistakenly thought you were a threat?  If you're not willing to "be that mistake" which could happen for the good of the system you suggest, maybe you shouldn't be recommending a system where others may end up in the same spot.

Bill S-7 became law on May 24, 2013. Indefinite detention on secret evidence no longer expires like in previous bills. Preventative arrest is a permanent part of Canada's legal code. This will probably bite us in the ass someday.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suggest that all those who are annoyed/scandalized/incensed/upset/dismayed (delete those not applicable) about this non-issue should read Brian Lee Crowley's excellent article in the Ottawa Citizen. To quote Mr Crowley, "Even if there is more convincing evidence than this of Canada’s spying to come, so what? I am comforted, not alarmed, that the government of Canada might want to know what our friends, competitors and enemies are doing that might affect our interests."

 

[Old Sweat]

The easiest loophole is to donate 200$ to each riding association giving you an additional 60,500$(per person).  The way I saw it done at the local and provincial level was for the donor to hire a good campaign manager and volunteers. The candidate has plausible deniability. Some volunteers would also be paid employees of sympathetic businesses. I know of one who would hire extra employees around election time. Most of the corruption I have seen is based on long term relationships. It starts with picking up the tab for lunch and a legal donation. Often this relationship is started before a candidate has ever been elected. That proceeds to sharing political contacts and jobs for family and close friends. After things are cemented  at election time the classic envelope of cash is offered to cover miscellaneous expenses. I have seen this in relation to real estate development(with 100% certainty) and some products bought by DND(80% sure). These guys are powerful so I have no interest in being crushed by naming one. When you go to the city hall cafeteria elected officials call them 'Sir".

As far as directorships lets take the poster boy for envelopes full of cash in hotel rooms for favours, Brian Mulroney. He admitted to revenue Canada receiving 75,000$ in envelopes in NYC hotel rooms from Schreiber. Schrieiber says it ws 300,000$. Let's put this in perspective. Only a single individual was caught and he bribed the PM 300,000$ and a memo records BM being paid an additional million that was offshored. I should mention that Mulroney is on at least one advisory board of an offshore bank. If one individual was caught is it a stretch to say there were probably more envelopes of cash from other interests? If the Prime Minister is bribable that should indicate how deep the corruption has gone.

Mulroney has directorships at Barrick Gold, Quebecor Inc., Archer Daniels Midland, TrizecHahn Corp., Cendant Corp., AOL Latin America, Inc. and Cognicase Inc. (Montreal). He is a senior counselor to Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst, a global private equity fund in Dallas, chairman of Forbes Global (New York). He is also chairman of various international advisory boards and councils for many international companies, including Power Corp. (Montreal), Bombardier (Montreal), the China International Trust and Investment Corp. (Beijing), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (New York), Violy, Byorum and Partners (New York), VS&A Communications Partners (New York), Independent Newspapers (Dublin) and General Enterprise Management Services Limited (British Virgin Islands). 

Does that cover how corruption works in Canada well enough?

Bill S-7 became law on May 24, 2013. Indefinite detention on secret evidence no longer expires like in previous bills. Preventative arrest is a permanent part of Canada's legal code. This will probably bite us in the *** someday.

You have raised several issues in your first paragraph, some of which may well have occurred at any level of government. It is well established for example that some advertising agenices that had benefited from large contracts gave employees paid leaves of absence to work on campaigns for previous Federal administrations. As for under the table cash, you are probably wise not to name names if you have evidence, unless of course you are talking to the police. And corruption exists and is almost impossible to stamp out. I do not see where common courtesy is an indication of corruption.

As for Mister Mulroney, the accepting the cash was stupid and unethical, but to tie that and your previous allegations to being appointed to various boards, agenices and commissions is constructing a conspiracy out of threads.

Last, have you read the "evidence" that the Guardian used to create the story? I suggest (a) you read it and it is a very short and flimsy construct, and (b) read the piece Edward suggests.

None of the "scandal" is helped by the propensity of the media to see conspiracies under every bed. You may remember the wikileaks uproar over the supposed death of four Canadians on the first day of Op Medusa by a short US bomb and the alleged cover up of the information. The actual facts did not matter to some prominent media members who shouted "cover up" in response to one bit of secondary evidence which contradicted multi primary sources.

I think you are sincere in your claims, but you should be a lot more critical before coming to a conclusion.

 

[Nemo888]

Having personally seen the level of corruption in local and provincial politics you can see why I think federal politics is most likely equally as corrupt. I suspect the only real difference is that the bribes are bigger. You think Brian Mulroney is an exception. I think he is just slightly above average.

If the CSE ever investigated this current and real threat to Canada the number of politicians in jail would completely shut down the goverment. Think of the problems in Montreal being everywhere at once. But unless the Minister or Provincial AG asks their hands are tied. Making the CSE work with the companies that bribe politicians instead of investigating them could be undermining our democratic freedoms.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Having personally seen the level of corruption in local and provincial politics

..and yet you obviously sat back on your hands and did nothing. Friggin' hypocrite.....

And now the warning, unless you have any kind of proof to offer with your accusations, I will personally close down your account here.
We are not in the business of sullying peoples name here.

 

[Scott]

Proof? That would render all of his posts useless. I wish we could track when Mike's ignore function was used.