Past, Present, and Future: The Evolution of Canadian Foreign Intelligence in a Globalized World

This is an excerpt of the full article which originally appeared in Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 2015) of the Canadian Military Journal, a publication of the National Defense and Canadian Armed Forces.

Introduction

Canadian foreign intelligence has been a topic of debate among foreign policy and security scholars since the end of the Second World War.¹ Since 1945, the most contentious issue within this discussion has been whether Canada should establish a foreign intelligence agency which collects human intelligence (HUMINT) similar to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS). To this point, Canada has not instituted such an agency, even though the idea received notoriety as recently as 2006 when the Conservatives included a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service (CFIS) in their election platform.² The second most controversial issue has taken root in the debate with respect to where a CFIS would most appropriately fit within Canada’s existing security and intelligence community. Many scholars argue that a CFIS would most appropriately be housed within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development (DFATD) as a standalone agency, with fewer stating that it could be a good idea to broaden the Canadian Security Intelligence Service’s (CSIS) mandate to include a robust foreign HUMINT collecting responsibility.³

While the subject of Canadian foreign intelligence has faced periodic review, scholars maintain that the literature focusing upon foreign intelligence in Canada is fairly limited.⁴ In addition, Commander Ted Parkinson, an Intelligence Officer in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), has stressed the need for more knowledge, understanding, and engagement on the topic of intelligence in Canada.⁵ In this way the field is relatively open to scholarly discussion. The purpose of this article is to examine Canada’s previous and current foreign intelligence capabilities, and to analyze how Canadian foreign intelligence has changed and will continue to change in the future. In doing so, the article will add to the literature on Canadian foreign intelligence, supply an outline of Canada’s foreign intelligence structure and capabilities, and provide an outlook for Canadian foreign intelligence moving forward.

Canada’s Foreign Intelligence Structure

Today, there are predominantly five organizations responsible for foreign intelligence in Canada. They are DFATD, the CAF and the Department of National Defence (DND), CSIS, the RCMP, and the Communications Security Establishment (CSE). Together, these institutions collect and assess a broad range of information, ranging from open sources (OSINT), signals intelligence (SIGINT), and, to a limited extent, HUMINT, in order to inform policymaking, protect national security, conduct criminal investigations, and advance Canadian military operations. Undoubtedly, Canada does not suffer from a total lack of foreign intelligence, which is why the debate about a CFIS has centred upon the establishment of a robust HUMINT collecting body. For this reason, it is important to examine the history and capabilities of the existing Canadian security and intelligence community before analyzing how Canadian foreign intelligence might change in the future.

John Thompson notes that while the Department of Foreign Affairs is not a foreign intelligence agency, it has “…a better claim to that role than many others.”³⁰ Daniel Livermore agrees, stating that:

[Canadian] diplomats gather information from friendly interlocutors inside a variety of centres of power and influence abroad. In doing so, they do not simply duplicate open-source media reports. Rather, they specialize in interpreting a number of high priority themes based on privileged contacts with real decision-makers.³¹

In this manner, Livermore points out that Canada’s expansive diplomatic network collects highly sensitive intelligence, and then filters that information into the government’s decision making process.³² Richard Kott explains that Foreign Affairs Canada had a Foreign Intelligence Bureau responsible for collecting, analyzing, and distributing information across Canada’s security and intelligence community until 1993.³³ Afterwards, the Department established a Security and Intelligence Bureau, which “…supports policy and operational decisions and advises the Minister [of Foreign Affairs] on intelligence activities.”³⁴ One case of DFATD’s role in intelligence collection occurred during the early Cold War in Cuba. Don Munton, author of The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Concise History, writes that “…diplomats based at the Canadian embassy in Havana conducted espionage in Castro’s Cuba during the 1960s and early 1970s.”³⁵ During that time, Canadians collected information, both overtly and covertly, through OSINT and HUMINT operations.³⁶ Additionally, until 1972, Canada conducted intelligence operations in Cuba for the United States, since the Americans had broken diplomatic ties with Cuba in 1961.³⁷ American requests for Canadian foreign intelligence were especially heavy during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, and after 1963, “Canadian efforts moved even more into clandestine collection of the sort usually carried out by trained intelligence operatives, most notably on Soviet military and communications installations.”³⁸ Thus, Canada is not a complete stranger to the world of foreign HUMINT collection. While it halted covert intelligence operations in Cuba in the early-1970s, DFATD continues to play one of the larger roles in collecting and assessing foreign intelligence in the Canadian security and intelligence community.

The DND and the CAF also play a prominent role in the collection and analysis of foreign intelligence, although they have a relatively narrow mandate to conduct operations abroad. Dwight Hamilton explains the importance of Canada’s military to foreign intelligence operations during the Second World War and the Cold War. He notes that during the Second World War, the Canadian and British governments jointly established Camp X near Whitby, Ontario in order to train members of Britain’s Special Operations Executive, which was a division of British Military Intelligence.³⁹ It also worked alongside the American Office of Strategic Services, which was the predecessor to the CIA.⁴⁰ After 1945, the Canadian Forces Intelligence Branch worked with allies to share information during the Cold War as well.⁴¹ In this way, the DND/CAF have worked with the foreign intelligence agencies of allied states in order to maintain international relationships and foster information sharing between allies, which has enhanced Canada’s access to foreign intelligence. As Martin Rudner affirms, “Canada’s own efforts in the domain of foreign intelligence are significantly augmented by exchanges of intelligence with allies and partners under various international arrangements.”⁴² Yet, the DND/CAF has a responsibility to independently collect intelligence as well. For instance, J2 is Canada’s defence intelligence agency. While defence intelligence is used for military purposes, particularly during missions, J2 is responsible for providing the CAF with strategic, military and security intelligence.⁴³ Its activities include “…the provision of political, strategic and tactical intelligence to CAF commanders, the deployment of Intelligence, Geomatics and Imagery detachments for CAF operations, the dispatch of Intelligence Response Teams to support peacekeeping missions, and the provision of Counter- Intelligence force protection to operational missions.”⁴⁴ Thus, the DND/CAF has a foreign intelligence mandate, even if it is limited to supporting military activities. Like DFATD, the DND/CAF has one of the longest standing mandates to collect intelligence for Canada. However, the most robust foreign intelligence agency in Canada is the SIGINT- collecting CSE, which is operationally housed in Defence.

The CSE is Canada’s premier foreign intelligence agency, but it does not have a HUMINT function. Rather, the CSE has a mandate to collect SIGINT, which is offensive in nature, and to protect communications by the Government of Canada, which is defensive in nature.⁴⁵ As Philip Rosen notes, “the CSE has its roots in cryptographic and crypt analytical developments during World War II, especially focusing on intercepting and analyzing the communications of Germany, Vichy France, and Japan.”⁴⁶ And yet, it really came to the fore of Canadian foreign intelligence at the beginning of the Cold War when the UK/USA Security Agreement came into force between Britain, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.⁴⁷ As Martin Rudner points out, the UK/USA agreement is a partnership mechanism between allies for SIGINT collection, processing, and sharing.⁴⁸ The CSE in particular was responsible for providing intelligence to the Government of Canada, UK/USA partners, and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members about Soviet military capabilities during the Cold War.⁴⁹ The agency used and still uses a variety of methods to gather information, but Rudner highlights the fact that it utilizes Canadian foreign embassies to collect signals from host countries.⁵⁰ This detail illustrates that the CSE not only works closely with the DND, but also with DFATD to collect information abroad. While it does not have a HUMINT capability, it is Canada’s foremost foreign intelligence agency, and it can work with DFATD, the DND/CAF, and allies to gather information which can be used by the Government of Canada in its decision making. It also works alongside Canada’s other security and intelligence organizations to protect national security and to guide investigations, both at home and abroad.

The RCMP and CSIS have important roles in collecting foreign intelligence for Canada as well. Before the creation of CSIS in 1984, the RCMP had the independent responsibility for gathering security intelligence in Canada. As the Distinguished Research Professor Emeritus at York University and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria Reg Whitaker notes, the RCMP worked closely with the American Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during the Cold War and exchanged information with them on an ‘as required’ basis.⁵¹ In addition, RCMP officials participated in a counterintelligence alliance with the US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand in order to exchange intelligence and to discuss matters of mutual interest.⁵² They also actively used double-agents against the Soviets throughout the 1950s and 1960s.⁵³ The use of double-agents and allied information would have netted the RCMP some foreign intelligence during the Cold War. Since 1984, however, CSIS has retained the mandate to collect security intelligence in Canada and partners with the RCMP as required. And yet, while its primary responsibility is to gather security intelligence in Canada, CSIS also has a more constrained secondary mandate to collect information about the capabilities, intentions, and activities of foreign states.⁵⁴ Even though it has a severely limited ability to operate abroad, CSIS has continually increased its covert foreign operations since its inception.⁵⁵ However, it is prohibited by law from collecting non-threat-related information, or from targeting foreign government agencies.⁵⁶ In this way, CSIS is not a robust foreign HUMINT collecting agency, even though it operates abroad on occasion to collect information pertaining to the immediate security of Canada. However, CSIS may be Canada’s most apparent embodiment of the blending between security and foreign intelligence in recent years. As John Thompson notes, “CSIS does everything in its power to protect Canadian citizens at home and abroad. This is done to such an extent that even warnings of assassination threats for ordinary civilians working overseas are dispensed on an individual basis.”⁵⁷ Moreover, CSIS is “…a perpetually evolving organization adapting as necessary to changes in the global environment.”⁵⁸ Thus, its role in foreign intelligence is likely to continue changing into the future.

The Evolution of Canadian Foreign Intelligence

The Canadian foreign intelligence community changed substantially after 2001. Specifically, Canadian intelligence agencies became more active overseas in the aftermath of 9/11.⁵⁹ Increased foreign activity is partially the result of increased funding from the Government of Canada. For example, CSIS and the CSE were given budget increases from 2001 onwards in order to improve their foreign intelligence collecting capabilities.⁶⁰ Additionally, the CSE was given the ability to “monitor communications to or from Canada specifically for the collection of foreign intelligence.”⁶¹ Likewise, CSIS has been required to more frequently operate abroad since 2001. According to former CSIS Director Ward Elcock (1994-2004), “…working covertly abroad has become an integral part of the Service’s operations.”⁶² John Thompson adds: “…as expertise has grown, CSIS’ foreign operations have expanded to tasking human sources to travel abroad, recruit foreign sources, and meet them in third countries.”⁶³ In this way, Canada has increased its foreign intelligence presence through existing agencies over the last decade. However, these agencies continue to operate with constraints placed upon their ability to collect foreign information. For instance, while CSIS can operate abroad for security intelligence purposes, it is only allowed to collect foreign intelligence with direction from the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of National Defence. Otherwise, CSIS can only provide the government with “non-threat related information that is collected incidentally during CSIS operations.”⁶⁴ The CSE has a much broader mandate to collect foreign intelligence, but it only does so through SIGINT. Nonetheless, these two agencies, alongside the rest of the intelligence community, have intensified their collaboration since 2001, especially in the realm of counter-terrorism.⁶⁵ The intensification of these agencies’ collaboration illustrates that Canada has placed a heightened importance upon intelligence in recent years. It also suggests that the government has compelled its intelligence agencies to work closely together in order to increase Canada’s foreign intelligence capacity.

The war in Afghanistan has also played a significant role in changing the structure and capabilities of Canada’s foreign intelligence community. For example, the DND created a new Human Intelligence Unit within the military in 2008 to gather intelligence relating to operations in Afghanistan.⁶⁶ In 2013, a CAF Intelligence Group was also created, which combined five separate intelligence units under a single command mandated to provide integrated intelligence to the DND/CAF.⁶⁷ Beyond that, CSIS has conducted operations in Afghanistan, and has worked alongside Canadian Special Operations when interviewing prison detainees in that country.⁶⁸ Thus, Canada has expanded its foreign intelligence presence in Afghanistan because it has substantial interests there. The 11 September 2001 attacks and the resulting Afghanistan conflict were key events which ultimately helped broaden Canada’s foreign intelligence capabilities. However, there are constantly evolving limits placed upon the activities that Canadian intelligence agencies can conduct abroad.

In 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada made a ruling with regard to an overseas electronic surveillance operation that CSIS wanted to conduct on ten suspects, nine of which were Canadian.⁶⁹ The court ruled that CSIS could not carry out the mission because “…while the language of the CSIS Act could be inferred as allowing the agency to operate abroad, the inference is not clear enough to support the issuing of the foreign surveillance warrants.”⁷⁰ Thus, CSIS faces new restrictions on its ability to operate overseas in the post-9/11 era as well. While it can gather information that is needed to combat direct threats to Canada, it still does not have a broad mandate, like the CIA or MI6, to engage in foreign intelligence collection to protect the interests and security of Canada and its citizens around the world. Nonetheless, CSIS is still Canada’s predominant HUMINT agency, and it has expanded its overseas presence as required in the globalized threat environment.

Former CSIS Director Richard Fadden testified to Parliament in 2010 about the CSIS role in Afghanistan. In his testimony, Fadden stressed that CSIS disrupted terrorists, safeguarded soldiers, and saved Canadian lives.⁷¹ International terrorism and Canada’s participation in Afghanistan has forced CSIS to regularly act overseas in order to protect the security of Canada and of Canadians. Moreover, since 2001, CSIS has linked security and foreign HUMINT together in what it refers to as ‘blended collection.’⁷² In this manner, globalization and the merging of security and foreign intelligence have made an impact upon the way that CSIS operates. While CSIS is not a dedicated foreign intelligence agency, it now plays a significant role in gathering information abroad. Its role in such activities may continue to expand in the coming years. As Associate Professor of History at the University of Toronto and faculty member at the Munk School of Global Affairs Wesley K. Wark points out: “In the globalized world, what couldn’t be defined as a threat to the security of Canada?”⁷³

In its 2007-2008 Public Report, CSIS stated that it had approximately 50 Foreign Officers stationed overseas in 30 countries in order to “…provide screening support to Citizenship and Immigration posts abroad, liaise and maintain relations with international partners, and collect security intelligence linked to Canada and its interests.”⁷⁴ While the agency acknowledged that these officers were declared to host countries, it also reported that it “…sends Canadian-based officers abroad to engage in intelligence activity to fulfill requirements of the CSIS Act.”⁷⁵ In 2009, CSIS not only detailed that it had been working in Afghanistan alongside the CAF, but also stated that it was involved in resolving the kidnappings of Canadian citizens abroad.⁷⁶ In 2010, the Service reported that it had enhanced its capacity to collect information overseas, and that in addition to working in Afghanistan, it was working in the Pakistan region as well to support Canada’s mission there.⁷⁷ In 2011, CSIS claimed that even though the combat mission had ended in Afghanistan, it was going to continue operations there in order to protect Canadian security and interests.⁷⁸ While the exact nature of CSIS operations in the Middle East is unclear, the agency has undoubtedly become more active overseas since 2001. While it continues to be constrained by its mandate in the field of foreign intelligence, it will likely continue to expand its presence abroad alongside intelligence community partners.

For instance, the RCMP has increasingly played a role, albeit limited, in Canada’s foreign intelligence activities. Through its International Operations Branch, the Mounties deploy Liaison Officers to countries around the world in order to facilitate criminal investigations which have Canadian connections and to exchange information with foreign law enforcement agencies.⁷⁹ It also houses an International Affairs and Policy Development Branch, which ensures that “…decision-making, policies and operations abroad are intelligence-led, coordinated and strategic in a rapidly changing world, and consistent with the RCMP strategic goal of ensuring a ‘safe and secure Canada’.”⁸⁰ While the RCMP is only allowed to operate in foreign countries with the approval of host governments, it nonetheless conducts criminal investigations and collects criminal intelligence in order to protect Canada and its interests. It also has a responsibility to maintain information exchange programs with foreign law enforcement agencies, and it helps assess intelligence gathered overseas for consumption by RCMP officials, intelligence community partners, and the Government of Canada. The Algeria Gas Plant case in 2013 highlighted the RCMP’s role abroad. Such a case could also play a factor in the expansion of Canadian foreign intelligence in the years to come.

In early 2013, 32 terrorists from al-Qaeda-linked groups in Africa seized control of a Statoil/British Petroleum gas plant in Algeria. Two of the terrorists who stormed the facility were Canadian citizens, and one was later identified as a leader of the group.⁸¹ After taking control of the plant, the terrorists “strapped foreigners to explosives and threatened to execute their captives and blow up the facility.”⁸² In the end, 29 terrorists and 40 gas plant workers were killed in the four-day ordeal.⁸³ In the aftermath of the attack, a team of RCMP officers was deployed to Algeria to investigate and confirm any Canadian involvement in the plot.⁸⁴ Such an example illustrates the role of the RCMP in Canadian foreign intelligence efforts. While it does not operate abroad in order to collect true foreign intelligence, it has a responsibility to investigate crimes committed by Canadians overseas. In doing so, it relays information back to Canadian officials, which can then be used for various purposes. The Algeria Gas Plant case may demonstrate a possible avenue for the expansion of Canadian foreign intelligence moving forward. This possibility is bolstered by the fact that the Algeria case is not the only recent event in which Canadians were involved in international terrorism or foreign conflicts.

In September 2013 it was reported that former ‘Toronto 18’ member Ali Mohamed Dirie had left prison and had subsequently left Canada with a false passport in order to fight alongside extremists in Syria.⁸⁵ While in Syria, Dirie was killed.⁸⁶ Cases such as these may cause Canadian intelligence agencies to enhance their foreign operations in the years to come. Currently, the intelligence community acts with limited capacity overseas, and HUMINT efforts have mostly been restricted to operations in Afghanistan. However, Canadians have become involved in various conflicts with different groups abroad in the recent past. Thus, an agency like CSIS may adjust its foreign intelligence activities to include operations in other areas in order to gather information important for protecting Canadian security and interests. While the responsibilities of dedicated foreign intelligence agencies certainly go beyond international terrorism, such prevalent cases in the Canadian context may allow CSIS to begin conducting more HUMINT operations overseas. Such a development would seem like the next logical step for an agency and a community which has increasingly looked to expand its foreign intelligence capabilities in the years since 9/11.

Conclusion

While other western countries created foreign HUMINT agencies during or immediately following the Second World War, Canada never followed suit. It has instead relied upon several departments and agencies, as well as agreements with allied states, to collect foreign intelligence. To increase its access to the HUMINT gathered by allies, Canada places emphasis upon collecting SIGINT through the CSE. It also allows many of its intelligence gathering institutions to operate abroad in a limited fashion. While most information comes through open sources, signals, and criminal investigations, more sensitive intelligence is also gathered for defence and security intelligence purposes.

Since 9/11, Canada’s security and intelligence agencies have become more active overseas. In addition to the CSE increasing its SIGINT collecting capabilities, CSIS, the DND/CAF, and the RCMP have enhanced their foreign intelligence presence as well. The evolving nature of the international and domestic threat environment has precipitated such change. Key events such as the 9/11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan have served as platforms for CSIS and others to begin operating abroad on a more frequent basis. As foreign and security intelligence have become overlapped in a globalized world, CSIS has also begun collecting ‘blended intelligence’ in order to protect Canadian security and interests. Restructuring and updating the intelligence community has allowed Canada more access to foreign information. Collaboration and globalization are now important concepts in the Canadian intelligence community. Yet, the institutions still face strict constraints on their ability to operate overseas.

While the intelligence community has increased Canada’s access to foreign intelligence, none the members have a robust mandate to collect foreign HUMINT. This lack of capability will likely continue until the federal government decides to institute a CFIS, or to give a broad foreign intelligence mandate to CSIS. Neither of those decisions appears to be ‘on the horizon.’ Nonetheless, CSIS will continue to operate abroad as required as it has increasingly done since 2001. Other departments and agencies will also operate internationally to fulfill their mandates. Cases of Canadian connections to global terrorism may cause CSIS to begin conducting international missions on a broader scale. While terrorism is not the sole focus of a foreign intelligence service, such cases provide a logical next step for an agency and a community which has continually filled the Canadian foreign intelligence vacuum over the last half-century.

Notes

1. Ted Parkinson, “Has the Time Arrived for a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service?” in Canadian Military Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, (Summer 2006), p. 18.

2. Paul Robinson, “The viability of a Canadian foreign intelligence service,” in International Journal (Summer 2009), p. 703.

3. Reid Morden, “A Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service: A new necessity or an expensive frill?” Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Paper Series (2006), pp. 5-6.

4. Parkinson, p. 18.

5. Ibid.

6. Martin Rudner, “Contemporary Threats, Future Tasks: Canadian Intelligence and the Challenges of Global Security,” in Canada Among Nations 2002: A Fading Power, (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 141.

7. Ibid., p. 161.

8. Richard Kott, “Reinventing the Looking Glass: Developing a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service.” Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary (April 2002), p. 55.

9. Ibid., p. 57.

10. Ibid.

11. Jerome Mellon, “The Missing Agency: The Case for a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Service, 2nd Edition.” (2003), pp. 14-17.

12. Morden, p. 3.

13. Parkinson, 16-20.

14. Daniel Livermore, “Does Canada Need a Foreign Intelligence Agency?” Centre for International Policy Studies, Policy Brief No. 3. (February 2009), p. 2.

15. Ibid., pp. 2-3.

16. Robinson, pp. 709-710.

17. Ibid., p. 708.

18. Ibid., p. 713.

19. Ibid.

20. Ibid., p. 26.

21. Ibid., p. 27.

22. Morden, p. 6.

23. Ibid.

24. Livermore, p. 5.

25. Ibid.

26. Kott, p. 58.

27. Ibid., p. 70.

28. Ibid., pp. 71-72.

29. Ibid., pp. 75-76.

30. John Thompson. Chapter 9: Diplomats, in Dwight Hamilton, Inside Canadian Intelligence: Exposing the New Realities of Espionage and International Terrorism. (Toronto: Dundurn Press, 2006), p. 115.

31. Livermore, p. 2.

32. Ibid.

33. Kott, p. 13.

34. Ibid.

35. Don Munton, “Intelligence Cooperation Meets Internal Studies Theory: Explaining Canadian Operations in Castro’s Cuba,” in Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 24, No. 1, (London: Routledge, 2009), p. 119.

36. Ibid., pp. 120-124.

37. Ibid., pp. 124-130.

38. Ibid., p. 125.

39. Hamilton, Inside Canadian Intelligence…, p. 139.

40. Ibid.

41. Ibid., p. 148.

42. Rudner, p. 141.

43. Ibid., p. 152.

44. Ibid.

45. Philip Rosen, “The Communications Security Establishment – Canada’s Most Secret Intelligence Agency.” Library of Parliament – Parliamentary Information and Research Service, (Government of Canada: 1993).

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Martin Rudner, “The globalization of terrorism: Canada’s intelligence response to the post-September 11 threat environment,” in Canadian Issues, (Montreal: September 2002).

49. Rudner, “Contemporary Threats…,” pp. 154-155.

50. Ibid., p. 149.

51. Reg Whitaker, “Spies who might have been: Canada and the myth of cold war counterintelligence,” in Intelligence and National Security, Vol. 12, No. 4, (London: Routledge, 1997), p. 28.

52. Ibid., p. 38.

53. Ibid., pp. 32-33.

54. Kott, p. 11.

55. Thompson, Chapter 2: Friends in High Places, in Hamilton, p. 26.

56. Ibid.

57. Ibid., p. 27.

58. Ibid.

59. Robinson, pp. 703-704.

60. Rudner, “The globalization…”

61. Ibid.

62. Parkinson, p. 20.

63. Thompson, Friends in High Places, p. 26.

64. CSIS, “Frequently Asked Questions: Operations Abroad,” at www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2013).

65. CSE, “Frequently Asked Questions,” at www.cse-cst.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2013).

66. The Canadian Press, “New Unit of the Canadian Forces charged with collecting intelligence,” Transcontinental Media (27 May 2008), at http://www.ngnews.ca/Living/2008-05-27/article-331865/New-unit-of-the-Canadian-Forces-charged-with-collecting-intelligence/1.

67. David Pugliese, “Canadian Forces Intelligence Group Created,” in Ottawa Citizen (19 September 2013), and DND, at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=national-defence-marks-the-establishment-of-the-canadian-forces-intelligence-group/hlrp4h7c

68. Colin Freeze, “CSIS spies must follow same rules abroad, watchdog says,” in The Globe and Mail (6 September 2012), at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/csis-spies-must-follow-same-rules-abroad-watchdog-says/article4183171/.

69. CanWest Mediaworks Publications Inc.,“Court ruling highlights need to give CSIS more power, expert says” in Canada.com (16 February 2008), at http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=265f3a15-b1ab-4963-9e2a-2ac08480769a&k=40597.

70. Ibid.

71. Colin Freeze, “Undercover CSIS agents carry guns in foreign flashpoints,” in The Globe and Mail (25 May 2010), at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/undercover-csis-agents-carry-guns-in-foreign-flashpoints/article4320423/.

72. Security Intelligence Review Committee, “Annual Report 09/10,” at www.sirc-csars.gc.ca, (Public Works and Government Services Canada, 2010), p. 15.

73. Bryn Weese, “Canada needs foreign spy service: Experts,” in Toronto Sun (7 November 2011), at http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/07/canada-needs-foreign-spy-service-experts.

74. CSIS, “Public Report 2007-2008,” at www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2008), pp. 24-25.

75. Ibid., p. 25.

76. CSIS, “Public Report 2008-2009,” at www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2009), p. 27.

77. CSIS, “Public Report 2009-2010,” at www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2010), pp. 31-32.

78. CSIS, “Public Report 2010-2011,” at www.csis-scrs.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2011), p. 15.

79. RCMP, “International Operations Branch,” at www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2010).

80. RCMP, “International Affairs and Policy Development Branch,” at www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca, (Government of Canada, 2011).

81. Stewart Bell, “Canadian was ‘clear leader’ among Islamic terrorists who killed 40 workers in Algeria gas plant attack: report,” in National Post (16 September 2013), at http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/canadian-was-a-clear-leader-among-islamist-terrorists-who-killed-11-workers-in-algeria-gas-plant-attack-report/.

82. Ibid.

83. Ibid.

84. CBC News, “RCMP officers in Algeria after deadly hostage-taking, ” in CBC (24 January 2013), at http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/16/canadian-was-a-clear-leader-among-islamist-terrorists-who-killed-11-workers-in-algeria-gas-plant-attack-report/.

85. CBC News, “‘Toronto 18’ member Ali Mohamed Dirie reportedly died in Syria,” in CBC (25 September 2013), at http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/toronto-18-member-ali-mohamed-dirie-reportedly-died-in-syria-1.1868119.

86. Ibid.