Topic: restructure of Canada national security department

[Slim]

Guys and gals

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

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

Cheers

A

Leter...

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

Please continue this excellent discussion.

Cheers all.

[mcnutt_p]

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

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

McNutt

[MCG]

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

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

[Manimal]

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

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

McNutt

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

[mcnutt_p]

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

If CSE is currently working like this disregard last.

McNutt

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

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

[mcnutt_p]

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

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

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

McNutt

[Acorn]

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

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

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

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

Acorn

[Allen]

A Department of National Security should include:

RCMP
CCG
CSE
CSIS
CBSA
PSEPC

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

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

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

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

How are illegal fisherman creating terror?

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

[edadian]

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

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

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

[MCG]

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

It seems that RCMP, CSIS, and CBSA are already under the umbrella of PSEPC, along with Correctional Sevices, the Parole Board and the Canada Firearms Centre.

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

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

RCMP and Canadian Coast Guard Begin Joint Marine Security Patrols Along Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway
July 13, 2005

OTTAWA â “ The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) are initiating joint marine security and law enforcement patrols along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. This partnership creates a major new on-water enforcement presence and fast-response capacity on these waterways.

...

This partnership will see the RCMP and CCG coordinating their efforts, resources and expertise. It will provide RCMP officers with the capacity to better disrupt and eliminate the activities of organized crime groups and to enhance national security along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. The initiative also includes the participation and cooperation of provincial and municipal police forces.

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

[mcnutt_p]

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

Ideas about arming the CCG
http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,32547.0.html

[edadian]

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

Privy Council Office and SIRC (Security Intelligence Review Committee)

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

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

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

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

Many other departments have

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

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

[Acorn]

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

Oh, I hope not!

Acorn

[Slim]

Oh, I hope not!

Acorn

I will echo Acorn on this.

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

Cheers

[Manimal]

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

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

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

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

[edadian]

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

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

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

[Acorn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Acorn

[MCG]

What sort of relation exists between PSEPC and CATSA?

[Manimal]

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

[edadian]

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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James]

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

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

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

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

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

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