National-security adviser nixes idea of foreign-intelligence agency for Canada

Open this photo in gallery:

National-security adviser Jody Thomas on Friday rejected the idea of creating a foreign human-intelligence collection agency for Canada, a notion that’s resurfaced as part of a national debate about Michael Spavor’s allegations concerning a Global Affairs information-gathering operation abroad.

Canada has never set up an agency like the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States or MI6 in Britain. Instead, both the Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP) at Global Affairs and the Department of National Defence’s intelligence unit have arisen to fill a need for information abroad.

Ms. Thomas was speaking at a Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) event Friday on the topic: “Navigating the future of national security.” She is national-security and intelligence adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a former deputy minister of national defence.

The GSRP, a specialized unit that reports on security matters in countries such as China, has come under public scrutiny after The Globe and Mail reported last month that Mr. Spavor alleges China arrested and imprisoned him and Michael Kovrig, a diplomat who worked for the GSRP, because he unwittingly provided information to Mr. Kovrig that was shared with Canadian and Western spy services.

Ottawa maintains that GSRP officers are not covert intelligence operators and do not recruit, handle or pay sources. But it acknowledges that their reports can be shared with CSIS and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance.

Phil Gurski, a former CSIS analyst, has described GSRP as a “very amateurish way of foreign affairs trying to create a mini spy agency within the department.” The program was created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to field a special class of Canadian foreign service officers who had the task of reporting back to Ottawa on security matters. In addition, Canada has an agency that collect signals intelligence abroad, the Communications Security Establishment.

Ms. Thomas said a foreign human-intelligence collection agency is “not on the policy agenda” right now. “It may need to be,” she added, but said not at the moment.

“There’s always thought about it. But within the resource limitations that we have right now, I would rather invest in what we have and ensure that the agencies are able to do what they need to do,” she said.

“I would still rather focus on CSIS Act modernization than standing up a new agency at the cost and time it would take.”

Rights activists question safety of testifying at foreign interference inquiry

She said she wants to move ahead with plans to strengthen and enhance the measures in place and bolster defences against foreign interference. The government launched two consultations Nov. 24: one on possible changes to legislation governing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and another on proposed reforms to the Security of Information Act, Criminal Code offences and the Canada Evidence Act.

This includes a proposed offence, outlined in the consultation documents, that would target foreign interference. As the document says, it would address those knowingly or recklessly engaging in “any covert or deceptive act for the benefit of a foreign entity, knowing that it would cause harm to Canadian interests.” It would apply whether or not the underlying act is a criminal offence.

The Conservative Party under former leader Stephen Harper promised a Canadian foreign-intelligence agency as part of its 2006 election campaign platform but abandoned the idea after Mr. Harper became prime minister.

During her remarks to CIGI, Ms. Thomas said authoritarian states, “with Russia and China at the forefront,” are actively challenging Canada’s national security.

“They are working to weaken our institutions by undermining the confidence of our citizens in our democratic processes,” she said, and, more broadly, these countries are “undercutting multilateral institutions and international norms that support democracy.”

Misinformation and disinformation have become major challenges for Canada, she said, ”influencing the attitudes and beliefs of our citizens, deepening divisions, diminishing trust in our institutions.”

Ottawa is also proposing to create an offence where a person engages in conduct for the benefit of a foreign entity, where the conduct is covert or involves deception. In addition, the person intends that the conduct will influence a political or governmental process, or will influence the exercise of a democratic right or duty, in connection with Canada.

Asked about the strategic threat that the People’s Republic of China poses to Canada, Ms. Thomas described the Asian country as “self-interested, at the expense of other countries, in a way we have not previously seen, with a tool set we have not previously seen.”

She said Canada must also work with China on matters of common interest, such as lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Every department in the Canadian government has an interest in “either trying to understand what the relationship is going to be” with China or countering the threat from it, she said.

“How they operate in Canada is sometimes clumsy and very overt – the police stations – and sometimes sophisticated,” she said of Beijing, citing alleged illegal police stations operated for the Chinese government in Canada.

Last fall, Spain-based human-rights organization Safeguard Defenders said that the Chinese government was secretly operating more than 100 illegal police centres in more than 50 countries that are being used to intimidate or harass people of Chinese origin.

Ms. Thomas said a recently created National Security Council, chaired by Mr. Trudeau and comprised of seven ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland “is a game-changer” that allows more long-term strategic thinking about national security.

She said Canada’s relative isolation afforded by geography – surrounded by three oceans and within the U.S. defence umbrella – has eroded.

“We don’t have that isolation any longer.”

Editor’s note: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Phil Gursky as a senior CSIS official. He is a former CSIS analyst. The Communications Security Establishment was also incorrectly named. This version has been updated.