Security Intelligence Review Committee

[sean m]

Curious to what everyone's opinions were regarding the Canadian Security Intelligence Review Committee (the watch dogs of CSIS).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spy-watchers-urge-a-shorter-leash-for-csis/article1774208/page2/

The title of this article is "Spy-watchers urge a shorter leash for CSIS".  If anyone agrees, it seems that this over sight committee hinders Canada to have CSIS have a proper foreign intelligence gathering system.

Here is their website:  http://www.sirc-csars.gc.ca/abtprp/index-eng.html

If you look at the biographies of the committee members, the majority are career politicians with no on the ground experience regarding humanitarian missions of any kind or foreign affairs. They also have no background in any of the security services i.e. armed forces, RCMP etc. Various phrases used by the committee members and others seem's to bring about the idea that they have no realistic conception of what occurs outside our borders and that it is at times necessary to get "dirty" in order to safe guard our nation and interests by collecting foreign intelligence without. Of course CSIS should have some  government of public body to monitor it but not to hinder its role and objectives.

Do you think the SIRC is a hindering CSIS or do you believe it should be left as is.

 

[Edward Campbell]

CSIS is a security intelligence agency - it's primary focus is on threats to Canada, mainly from within Canada. An agency that can look at Canadians, in Canada will, naturally, raise concerns about civil rights and some form of political oversight is unavoidable. Who better to provide political oversight than experienced politicians?

 

[sean m]

That is true, but at times it seems that their sense of righteous and doing the right thing affects the way CSIS works and could be able to work. As you and everyone else with experience on here knows the world is not a friendly place and there are those who want to do harm to us. So to say that we should not have a foreign presence in the intelligence community because it besmirches our reputation and is murky business. At least have people have have knowledge and experience in the field of foreign affairs and/or history in the security services, since they would possible have better knowledge or knowledge that could relate to that of the role of CSIS. Every other country has agencies dedicated to foreign intelligence because they recognize that it is necessary for their security. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

The world is, indeed, a dangerous place - but playing fast and loose with our hard won civil liberties is one of those dangers. Many, many of or best men and women have given their very lives to protect and preserve those civil liberties; we must not toss them aside carelessly. We do need security - good security, security protected by an effective security-intelligence service - but we all ought to know that people are not perfect; the sort of zeal that we want for good soldiers and good intelligence officers can, almost always will lead to some excesses. If we really want to protect our country, and all that for which it stands, then we must protect it from the servants of the state, too.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[DBA]

Seems we forget some of the lessons of 9/11 very quickly. Too many restrictive inflexible rules on things like sharing information between agencies resulted in the failure to prevent the attack.  The result was new rules and a new agency which by most estimations has eroded civil liberties much more than some more flexible rules before 9/11 would have.

I think circumscribing what disruptive activities or other activities that CSIS is allowed to do is a bad idea. They do need external oversight so they don't get carried away or go rogue which is what CIRC provides. While it would make CIRC's job easier if there were more bright rules of "can't do X",  it would just be avoiding the question "should CSIS be allowed to do X in this specific situation?". While the answer might today always be no, in the future a situation might arise where the answer would be yes. Prevent incidents like the RCMP barn burning in Quebec but not the denial of a wiretap that occurred before it. A goal should be helping to prevent another October Crisis and the implementation of the War Measures Act and it's huge suspension of civil liberties.

 

[sean m]

I am sorry gentlemen but I do not concur with your statements. I do not think we have to worry about an agency going rogue and becoming those who deny us our liberties, we are not Burma or Egypt. Of course there will be some excesses as you say Mr. Campbell  and Mr. DBA but at some point in time wouldn't it  be recognized from within the agency or by the public. We are fortunate to have freedom of the press, and the press utilizes this freedom to the utmost.  I feel that we can have better than "good security"  if we have more of a foreign presence.

In regrard to sharing information between agencies, that can relate to the United States, maybe you have received knowledge about rivalries between CSIS and other agencies. CSIS is relatively new since it was only created in 1984, unless something went wrong between CSIS and the RCMP or CSEC. The FBI and CIA have been around much longer and have a had to interact with each other and I believe compete for government spending. Considering we have not be victims of a terrorist attack so far, it could be possible to assume that all the security services interact well.

In regard to the FLQ part, why would it be necessary to inform the public of a public wire tap when the situation required it and it helped the RCMP gather intelligence on two radical groups, the FLQ and Black Panthers. Having a proper foreign intelligence service could help to avert another crisis and the war measures act has changed to the emergencies act, which is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms

What happens if there was a terrorist attack imminent in Canada and the only way to get proper information would be to harshly interrogate a suspect with crucial information, or have to gather intelligence without the public or CIRC knowing since it was a covert operation.  How can we ever know when a situation might arise? I feel it is better to have the necessary actions functioning and prepped  so if a situation does arise. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am sorry gentlemen but I do not concur with your statements. I do not think we have to worry about an agency going rogue and becoming those who deny us our liberties, we are not Burma or Egypt. Of course there will be some excesses as you say Mr. Campbell  and Mr. DBA but at some point in time wouldn't it  be recognized from within the agency or by the public. We are fortunate to have freedom of the press, and the press utilizes this freedom to the utmost.  I feel that we can have better than "good security"  if we have more of a foreign presence.

It appears to me that you are comparing apples and oranges: review of intelligence services is not confined to domestic services.

In regrard to sharing information between agencies, that can relate to the United States, maybe you have received knowledge about rivalries between CSIS and other agencies. CSIS is relatively new since it was only created in 1984, unless something went wrong between CSIS and the RCMP or CSEC. The FBI and CIA have been around much longer and have a had to interact with each other and I believe compete for government spending. Considering we have not be victims of a terrorist attack so far, it could be possible to assume that all the security services interact well.

Not according to the (few) published reports I have seen. CSIS has been, maybe still is, reluctant to provide evidence that can be used in courts and the RCMP (routinely?) steps on CSIS toes because the line between crime and security threat is very, very fuzzy and broad, too.

In regard to the FLQ part, why would it be necessary to inform the public of a public wire tap when the situation required it and it helped the RCMP gather intelligence on two radical groups, the FLQ and Black Panthers. Having a proper foreign intelligence service could help to avert another crisis and the war measures act has changed to the emergencies act, which is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms

Wire-taps are well understood in law and we have a broad, deep and good general rule that Canadians are entitled to their personal privacy unless there is compelling evidence that the state has some even more compelling need to violate that right to privacy. We have a SIGINT service that listens to foreigners. We have alliances that share information about threats to Canada.

What happens if there was a terrorist attack imminent in Canada and the only way to get proper information would be to harshly interrogate a suspect with crucial information, or have to gather intelligence without the public or CIRC knowing since it was a covert operation.  How can we ever know when a situation might arise? I feel it is better to have the necessary actions functioning and prepped  so if a situation does arise.

This is a problem of very long standing - centuries, certainly, probably, millennia. There are some excellent accounts of the problem from the French experiences in Algeria. (See e.g. Trinquier and Roy, amongst others.) generally, as I read the evidence, torture doesn't work ~ not at least well enough to justify its use.

On a slightly different note: foreign intelligence services also require review. While the main, public thrust of domestic intelligence review may be civil rights the foreign intelligence agencies can (and do in most countries) foul up the nation's broad strategic interests.

Personally I favour foreign intelligence services - at least three, all operating independently of one another: one in DFAIT, one in DND and one in Industry Canada. They can be managed from the existing security and intelligence secretariat in the PCO, there is not need for any additional coordinating agency nor, in my opinion for any additional people in PCO. These should be SECRET intelligence services - far less should be said about them than is said now about, say, CSE or JTF-2.

 

[Journeyman]

The title of this article is "Spy-watchers urge a shorter leash for CSIS".  If anyone agrees, it seems that this over sight committee hinders Canada to have CSIS have a proper foreign intelligence gathering system.

The article is based solely upon the 2009-2010 SIRC Annual Report, released 30 September 2010. Have you read it? Nowhere in the original document is a "shorter leash" urged upon CSIS; that is merely the writing of a 'journalist' and/or editor focused upon selling newspapers.

What SIRC actually said is (page 7): "SIRC suggests that it is time for a public discussion on what Canadians expect of their intelligence agencies and on the real risks and benefits that such work entails."

Not quite as sexy as 'CSIS is out of control and needs to be reigned in!!!," is it?

The Committee acknowledges that threats to national security have evolved since the passage of the CSIS Act, made further complex by the intelligence/law enforcement nexus inherent in the Anti-Terrorism Act, in which the "threat and legal environment means that CSIS has had to engage in activities that extend beyond traditional collection and analysis." SIRC accepts that disrupting terrorist cells in particular raises issues that "require further consideration." Again, "further consideration" is not remotely similar to "they're out of control."

If you look at the biographies of the committee members, the majority are career politicians with no on the ground experience regarding humanitarian missions of any kind or foreign affairs.

Skimming the Committee members' biographies quickly shows that only one could remotely be considered to be a politician -- and she's retired. Actually, most have backgrounds in humanitarian endeavours and/or have travelled outside the country.

Are you suggesting that the oversight committee of an intelligence organization be comprised of intelligence professionals from that organization or people closely linked with its operations? I doubt that would pass the "Globe & Mail test" for providing unbiased views.


In all, I suspect that you've taken a dated newspaper headline, not checked the source material upon which it is based, and are trying to create a solution for which there is no problem.

 

[sean m]

                                 
                    Interesting point about CSIS and the RCMP. It seems then that there will always be inter service rivalries.

You are definitively right about the issue of wire taping. It seems that CSE has more leeway in terms of collecting intelligence abroad than CSIS does even when their method  seem to stir more controversy. Why should we rely on others to collect foreign intelligence for us. Those who we might believe are our allies could be giving us fraudulent intelligence and the intelligence that is inaccurate, possible.

In terms of torture, do you think that there could be debate in reference to whether it works or not? Do you believe that at no point it is required? Of course you are right in saying that there have been many times where it has worked against those who use it.

Do you think that would be proper to have the ministry of foreign affairs as our foreign intelligence agency? The US state department is in the intelligence business but doesn't it solely analyze the intelligence obtained by other agencies. If you dont mind me saying so I feel that with this department  there would not be a service capable of collecting foreign intelligence since their role is to hose foreign dignataries if I am correct. Do you mean industrial canada intelligence service as FINTRAC.

Maybe a possible idea could be something like this, of course with plenty of changes required.

    CSIS focusing on foreign- domestic  HUMINT intelligence related to counter terrorism, counter espionage, weapons proliferation

    RCMP: focusing on criminal intelligence ( like FBI, DEA)

    CSEC: focusing on SIGINT-  could also focus on the cyber warfare aspect, like the NSA

    FINTRAC: focusing on industrial espionage as well as financial intelligence.

      DND INT: The role of DND INT could be the same as it is now


The funding for these agencies, as it is now, would be expensive, we definetly would not be on the same level as other countries such as the United states.

I feel that all of this agencies, though you may disagree since you have much more knowledge on this topic , Mr. Campbell, would be necessary since they all specialize in one or more form of intelligence gathering. Possibly it would still be possible to reduce the amount of people working at the privy office at the same time? 

 

[sean m]

These people do have history working with communities both here and abroad but it seemed to state that they would at the more bureaucratic end of things.  The SIRC paper does contradict more what the article states. Yet I believe there are other articles on the internet where the members of the committee have more plainly denied the need for foreign intelligence. I feel that the paper may refer to how it is time to discuss the idea of foreign intelligence gathering yet their own beliefs are still the same  which is that it is not necessary to have a proper foreign intelligence agency, after reading these statements from articles.  I feel that the review committee should be comprised  of those who have knowledge and experience related to the field of intelligence which they have been designated to monitor. Without a doubt we cannot have those who are connected to CSIS monitoring CSIS, yet I feel that we should not have those who are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. The article may be older but I feel the issue remains the same.

 

[Edward Campbell]

                                 
                    Interesting point about CSIS and the RCMP. It seems then that there will always be inter service rivalries.

You are definitively right about the issue of wire taping. It seems that CSE has more leeway in terms of collecting intelligence abroad than CSIS does even when their method  seem to stir more controversy. Why should we rely on others to collect foreign intelligence for us. Those who we might believe are our allies could be giving us fraudulent intelligence and the intelligence that is inaccurate, possible.

In terms of torture, do you think that there could be debate in reference to whether it works or not? Do you believe that at no point it is required? Of course you are right in saying that there have been many times where it has worked against those who use it.

Do you think that would be proper to have the ministry of foreign affairs as our foreign intelligence agency? The US state department is in the intelligence business but doesn't it solely analyze the intelligence obtained by other agencies. If you dont mind me saying so I feel that with this department  there would not be a service capable of collecting foreign intelligence since their role is to hose foreign dignataries if I am correct. Do you mean industrial canada intelligence service as FINTRAC.

Maybe a possible idea could be something like this, of course with plenty of changes required.

    CSIS focusing on foreign- domestic  HUMINT intelligence related to counter terrorism, counter espionage, weapons proliferation

    RCMP: focusing on criminal intelligence ( like FBI, DEA)

    CSEC: focusing on SIGINT-  could also focus on the cyber warfare aspect, like the NSA

    FINTRAC: focusing on industrial espionage as well as financial intelligence.

      DND INT: The role of DND INT could be the same as it is now


The funding for these agencies, as it is now, would be expensive, we definetly would not be on the same level as other countries such as the United states.

I feel that all of this agencies, though you may disagree since you have much more knowledge on this topic , Mr. Campbell, would be necessary since they all specialize in one or more form of intelligence gathering. Possibly it would still be possible to reduce the amount of people working at the privy office at the same time?

Please don't make assumptions about CSEC.

For the rest: "dunno." I know you are interested in the intelligence business but it seems, to me to be rather like the Toa ~ those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk.

 

[dapaterson]

Seems we forget some of the lessons of 9/11 very quickly.

"Let's roll" is the only lesson we needed from 9/11.  Security does not come from high school dropouts ordering old ladies to surrender knitting needles while they walk barefoot through a metal detector.  It comes from citizens fighting back and defeating the attackers as they did on Flight 93, not sitting as sheep and condeming others to die as they did on the other three flights.  The self-inflicted wounds of security theatre post 9/11 have done more damage to Western society than 19 guys with box cutters ever did.

I think circumscribing what disruptive activities or other activities that CSIS is allowed to do is a bad idea.

Ever see a burning barn?  If not, just ask the RCMP to demonstrate for you - they'll blame the FLQ and everyone will be happy.  Unless you happen to own the barn in question, of course.

I am sorry gentlemen but I do not concur with your statements. I do not think we have to worry about an agency going rogue and becoming those who deny us our liberties, we are not Burma or Egypt. Of course there will be some excesses as you say Mr. Campbell  and Mr. DBA but at some point in time wouldn't it  be recognized from within the agency or by the public. We are fortunate to have freedom of the press, and the press utilizes this freedom to the utmost.  I feel that we can have better than "good security"  if we have more of a foreign presence.

See above re: burning barns.  You may wish to review the history of the FLQ and the RCMP infiltrators and instigators.  The RCMP has never cleaned house willingly; it has always required significant external pressure to make even the slightest change.  Don't believe me?  Go visit an airport and wave a stapler in a threatening manner.

In regrard to sharing information between agencies, that can relate to the United States, maybe you have received knowledge about rivalries between CSIS and other agencies. CSIS is relatively new since it was only created in 1984, unless something went wrong between CSIS and the RCMP or CSEC. The FBI and CIA have been around much longer and have a had to interact with each other and I believe compete for government spending. Considering we have not be victims of a terrorist attack so far, it could be possible to assume that all the security services interact well.

No terrorist attacks?  The Air India bombing?  The FLQ?  Fundraising for the LTTE or the Provos or any number of other groups?  Canadians dying in the WTC on 9/11?

In regard to the FLQ part, why would it be necessary to inform the public of a public wire tap when the situation required it and it helped the RCMP gather intelligence on two radical groups, the FLQ and Black Panthers. Having a proper foreign intelligence service could help to avert another crisis and the war measures act has changed to the emergencies act, which is subject to the charter of rights and freedoms

Do you genuinely think SIRC releases all its information?  That every document they review magically appears in their annual report?  There is no comprehensive list in their reports stating what calls were intercepted by what means.


Posts in this thread have clearly demonstrated that there is widespread ignorance about history, about what Canadian intelligence organizations do, what their legal frameworks are, who they work with, how they work, and what oversight means.

Baseless, factless assertions encouraging the establishment of a "24"-esque black ops foreign intelligence division which abducts, tortures and kills without knowledge or oversight by government makes one weep.


A few articles to start with:  http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/nwsrm/spchs/spch29052006-eng.asp and http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/217952



(EDIT to fix typos - I should type with adequate sleep and/or caffeine in my system)

 

[DBA]

Not sure of some of the points being made. Maybe I worded mine poorly so I will restate it:

I see danger to civil liberties at both ends. No oversight leads to major abuse incidents and restrictive rules. Overly restrictive rules lead to terrorist attacks being successful. Then it repeats. My examples were meant to illustrate this. In the US restrictive rules (created due to past abuses) prevented them from stopping the 9/11 attackers for which the response was to swing the pendulum the other way which will lead to major abuses (or already has).

The best course of action I see is to hold strong somewhere in the middle and resist the urge to move far in either direction.

 

[Delaney1986]

CSIS does and can collect Foreign Intelligence, but it has to be done within Canadian borders, and cannot be directed at Canadian/Permanent citizens or foreign companies under Canadian control (worded differently in the CSIS Act, that's how I understood it). Most of intelligence collected by CSIS is done through open sources anyway, such as the media. Since there are CSIS officers in Canadian embassies around the world, do you really think that just by living there, they aren't getting intelligence?

Also, CSIS does operate overseas and can operate anywhere in the world, as per Security Intelligence needs. For example, CSIS has worked with the Armed Forces regarding Canadians that have been kidnapped overseas. Anything that has to do with the direct security of Canada/Canadians is fair game for CSIS. I'm not saying that implementing a foreign intelligence section would be a bad thing or a good thing, but don't confuse them not having an official Foreign Intelligence section for them not operating overseas.

That being said, every agency needs checks and balances, that is the service that SIRC provides. Intelligence gathering is filled with grey area and slippery slope arguments, with those sorts of systems in place to keep CSIS in line, it also keeps them accountable. The process they have to go through just to get a wire tap approved is intense.

Also, if you check through the history of various intelligence or security services, they do not have a history of playing nice together. Especially in the United States where durisdiction and who gets the credit have hindered agencies working together and with holding information. I think our system is set up quite nicely, CSIS is still a young organization, being only a couple of years older then myself, and I certainly don't have everything figured out yet, so why should they?  ;D I see what you are trying to say, but SIRC is set up the way it is for a reason, if they put a bunch of ex-military, or ex-CSIS guys on the panel it wouldn't make them look very credible in the sense that people would assume they are biased and letting CSIS run wild. Plus, it makes the general public feel better that their rights aren't trampled on. 9/11 or no 9/11 people aren't so thrilled with giving up their rights for the greater good.

And this is the end of my rambling! 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't the Yanks manage with an oversight committee of politicians (ie. not intelligence professionals)?

 

[Journeyman]

Don't the Yanks manage with an oversight committee of politicians (ie. not intelligence professionals)?

There are multiple oversight committees, befitting their having multiple intelligence organizations, but yes, they tend to rely upon politicians and political appointees.

For those truly losing sleep over this topic (since I'm a fan of informed opinions), I'd suggest picking up a copy of Hans Born, Loch Johnson, and Ian Leigh (eds.), Who's Watching the Spies: Establishing Intelligence Service Accountability, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2005. In addition to several chapters on oversight theories and examples, the processes in eight countries -- including Canada -- are examined.

 

[dapaterson]

There are multiple oversight committees, befitting their having multiple intelligence organizations, but yes, they tend to rely upon politicians and political appointees.

For those truly losing sleep over this topic (since I'm a fan of informed opinions), I'd suggest picking up a copy of Hans Born, Loch Johnson, and Ian Leigh (eds.), Who's Watching the Spies: Establishing Intelligence Service Accountability, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books, 2005. In addition to several chapters on oversight theories and examples, the processes in eight countries -- including Canada -- are examined.

This is the internet - informed opinion and rational debate have no place here.

 

[Journeyman]

Hope springs eternal....

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bump with some news re: who's the new chair:

Former Tory cabinet minister Chuck Strahl has been appointed to lead the body that serves as a watchdog over Canada's spy agency.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has named Strahl as chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, effective immediately.

Strahl, 55, was a British Columbia MP from 1993 until 2011 and served in cabinet in the Agriculture, Indian Affairs and Transport portfolios.

He announced in 2005 that he was suffering from lung cancer brought on by exposure to asbestos years before.

He stayed active in government for another six years, although he did not run for re-election last year ....

The Canadian Press, 14 Jun 12

 

[GAP]

Former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl to head spy watchdog
Article Link
By: Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press

OTTAWA - Former Conservative cabinet minister Chuck Strahl is the new head of the watchdog that keeps an eye on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Strahl's immediate appointment as head of the Security Intelligence Review Committee comes seven months after the sudden resignation of his predecessor and smack in the middle of a current controversy about spy agency oversight.

Strahl, 55, was first elected to the House of Commons in 1993 and went on to hold several cabinet portfolios in Stephen Harper's cabinet, most recently serving as transport minister.

He announced in 2005 that he was suffering from lung cancer brought on by exposure to asbestos years before. Strahl stayed active in government, although he did not run for re-election last year.

The review committee's last chairman, medical doctor Arthur Porter, resigned in November amid questions about his private business dealings.

Composed of appointees — including many former politicians over the years — the committee carries out studies of various CSIS activities, reporting to Parliament annually.

It is the lone watchdog over the spy agency following the Conservatives' decision to abolish the inspector general's office, which reported to the minister, in order to save money. The inspector general issued an annual certificate stating whether CSIS had complied with the law and ministerial direction.

The government says the review committee will take over the inspector general's duties, but has not explained how it will do so. The committee generally examines past actions of the spy service, whereas the inspector general was considered the minister's "eyes and ears" on CSIS.

The review committee's latest planning report, tabled in Parliament, indicates that its staff and budget will not increase.

Porter resigned after the National Post newspaper reported that the Montreal cancer specialist had forged a business arrangement with a notorious international lobbyist.

The article revealed Porter, a native of Sierra Leone, once struck a deal with middleman Ari Ben-Menashe on a $120-million aid-for-development initiative from Russia. It would have given African Infrastructure Group, a firm owned by Dr. Porter and his family, the chance to manage infrastructure projects in his homeland.

Ben-Menashe is a controversial figure who claims involvement with Israel's spy service. His Montreal consultancy has done work for notorious Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe.

Porter said the devastating aftermath of civil war in Sierra Leone motivated him to explore options to help the country rebuild its infrastructure, adding he did not let his business interests interfere with review committee responsibilities.

But Porter said he was aware "that the media portrayal has the potential to tarnish" the review committee's credibility, prompting him to quit.
end