As always, Prof Wark’s analysis is valuable to those with an interest in national security. Sadly this may be a tiny minority of Parliamentarians, but I digress.
As a onetime producer and receiver of classified intelligence, the issue of declassification or communicating classified intelligence in an unclassified manner is often more challenging than presented and frequently impossible.
Example 1: CSEC or a Five Eyes ally decrypts communications between a foreign power’s Canadian representatives and its home office. The sensitive material has only been communicated through that one encrypted channel and is released or summarized. The foreign power realizes that its systems are not as secure as they had thought and stop using them, denying all five eye partners with access to that channel.
Example 2: A CSIS human source participates in a sensitive conversation with a foreign representative that reveals useful intelligence. The source is the only person other than the foreign representative present. The information is revealed and the human source is removed to their home country, tried and convicted of treason.
Both examples result in a loss of ongoing intelligence that may be of far greater value than that of the Canadian public learning of a single event as part of the Commission.
Intelligence is rather more complex than the media or the public may believe…
If too many groups/people complain about the way that this FI is being run, we should just go with a groundhog to run the next FI inquiry. Rodents have very long memories.
"Simranjeet Singh, he said, has made several reports to police in recent months about being followed or seeing cars parked in front of his home, and had participated in a rally outside the Indian consulate in recent days."
I hope they will discuss what to do about things like this, because if it was India again, we need to do more than just watch Modi have a tantrum when confronted with the facts. It's essential to keep everyone safe in Canada!
Might be the RCMP since the Sikh-related Air India bombing was the most serious terrorist act Canada has suffered. Would that make the surveillance OK? And if the RCMP were NOT doing any; might India be heard to complain? Tricky stuff eh?
No, I think the surveillance would not be ok. Every citizen in Canada has a right to privacy re: the Charter. I just don't know how else to make sure Kalastani advocates are safe in Canada, maybe SIGINT? Yes, India would def complain and prolly said it's not them. Diplomacy is very tricky, yes.
The word “privacy” does not appear in the Charter, although there are protections against unlawful search and seizure by, at least, Canadian state actors, like CSIS or the RCMP. Indeed, one of the complaints of the naughty newsmen was the alleged failure, by Minister Blair, to expeditiously authorize intrusive surveillance of some Chinse bad guy.
But for non-state actors, things are fuzzier.
Obviously, an individual sympathetic to Indian interests cannot kill someone in Canada. But it is much murkier how the law constrains someone (including both a foreign agent or local Canadian Indian sympathizer) from keeping an eye on pro-Khalistan activists who may be plotting unlawful actions in India.
And of course we cannot forget that this movement was involved in the most serious terrorist act in Canadian history: the Air India bombing, which was considered a big Canadia security failure. So, it’s tricky.
The paradox here is that India may want to effective Canadian security apparatus to ensure that things like Air India don’t happen again, but may be as skeptical as the naughty newsmen, about whether that’s the reality.
Groundhog Day is a whimsical exercise in which intelligent human beings pretend that rodent behavior will provide real-world information that citizens and governments can act upon. It’s a joke. Is that what the work of this Commission will turn out to be?
Or will it just become a forum for debating “what the public ought to know about security efforts”, rather than how best to detect and prevent foreign interference?
Or perhaps yet another platform for identity grievance mongering - now, from Sikhs, who demand a “right” to join the circus and from whose “community” emerged the biggest terrorist act in Canadian history.
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder how much “actionable information” will actually emerge from this quasi-judicial exercise; particularly when, some of the most revealing allegations – like Bill Blair sitting on a request for an investigatory authorization or Cabinet Ministers not reading their briefings – have nothing to do with the performance of CSIS or the RCMP.
Finally would even a recommendation that “Canada should be more open about the government activities?”, likely be followed by more effective FOI legislation? Don’t hold your breath.
Trust being such an important determinant in my ultimate take on the fairness, objectivity and effectiveness of the Hogue Inquiry on FI, I’m so thankful to read these credible accounts from Wesley Wark. Thank you !
As always, Prof Wark’s analysis is valuable to those with an interest in national security. Sadly this may be a tiny minority of Parliamentarians, but I digress.
As a onetime producer and receiver of classified intelligence, the issue of declassification or communicating classified intelligence in an unclassified manner is often more challenging than presented and frequently impossible.
Example 1: CSEC or a Five Eyes ally decrypts communications between a foreign power’s Canadian representatives and its home office. The sensitive material has only been communicated through that one encrypted channel and is released or summarized. The foreign power realizes that its systems are not as secure as they had thought and stop using them, denying all five eye partners with access to that channel.
Example 2: A CSIS human source participates in a sensitive conversation with a foreign representative that reveals useful intelligence. The source is the only person other than the foreign representative present. The information is revealed and the human source is removed to their home country, tried and convicted of treason.
Both examples result in a loss of ongoing intelligence that may be of far greater value than that of the Canadian public learning of a single event as part of the Commission.
Intelligence is rather more complex than the media or the public may believe…
If too many groups/people complain about the way that this FI is being run, we should just go with a groundhog to run the next FI inquiry. Rodents have very long memories.
"Simranjeet Singh, he said, has made several reports to police in recent months about being followed or seeing cars parked in front of his home, and had participated in a rally outside the Indian consulate in recent days."
https://globalnews.ca/news/10267038/b-c-sikh-activists-home-targeted-in-early-morning-shooting/
I hope they will discuss what to do about things like this, because if it was India again, we need to do more than just watch Modi have a tantrum when confronted with the facts. It's essential to keep everyone safe in Canada!
Might be the RCMP since the Sikh-related Air India bombing was the most serious terrorist act Canada has suffered. Would that make the surveillance OK? And if the RCMP were NOT doing any; might India be heard to complain? Tricky stuff eh?
No, I think the surveillance would not be ok. Every citizen in Canada has a right to privacy re: the Charter. I just don't know how else to make sure Kalastani advocates are safe in Canada, maybe SIGINT? Yes, India would def complain and prolly said it's not them. Diplomacy is very tricky, yes.
The word “privacy” does not appear in the Charter, although there are protections against unlawful search and seizure by, at least, Canadian state actors, like CSIS or the RCMP. Indeed, one of the complaints of the naughty newsmen was the alleged failure, by Minister Blair, to expeditiously authorize intrusive surveillance of some Chinse bad guy.
But for non-state actors, things are fuzzier.
Obviously, an individual sympathetic to Indian interests cannot kill someone in Canada. But it is much murkier how the law constrains someone (including both a foreign agent or local Canadian Indian sympathizer) from keeping an eye on pro-Khalistan activists who may be plotting unlawful actions in India.
And of course we cannot forget that this movement was involved in the most serious terrorist act in Canadian history: the Air India bombing, which was considered a big Canadia security failure. So, it’s tricky.
The paradox here is that India may want to effective Canadian security apparatus to ensure that things like Air India don’t happen again, but may be as skeptical as the naughty newsmen, about whether that’s the reality.
Groundhog Day is a whimsical exercise in which intelligent human beings pretend that rodent behavior will provide real-world information that citizens and governments can act upon. It’s a joke. Is that what the work of this Commission will turn out to be?
Or will it just become a forum for debating “what the public ought to know about security efforts”, rather than how best to detect and prevent foreign interference?
Or perhaps yet another platform for identity grievance mongering - now, from Sikhs, who demand a “right” to join the circus and from whose “community” emerged the biggest terrorist act in Canadian history.
Frankly, I am beginning to wonder how much “actionable information” will actually emerge from this quasi-judicial exercise; particularly when, some of the most revealing allegations – like Bill Blair sitting on a request for an investigatory authorization or Cabinet Ministers not reading their briefings – have nothing to do with the performance of CSIS or the RCMP.
Finally would even a recommendation that “Canada should be more open about the government activities?”, likely be followed by more effective FOI legislation? Don’t hold your breath.
Trust being such an important determinant in my ultimate take on the fairness, objectivity and effectiveness of the Hogue Inquiry on FI, I’m so thankful to read these credible accounts from Wesley Wark. Thank you !