(Ottawa) The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) and Public Safety Canada did not have a system to track who received and read specific intelligence about foreign interference, creating “unacceptable accountability gaps », noted the Office for the Monitoring of National Security and Intelligence Activities (OSSNR).
In a report released Monday evening, NSIRA also said CSIS’s dissemination of intelligence on foreign political interference was inconsistent over the past two general elections.
Furthermore, those who received the information did not always understand its importance or how to integrate the results into their policy analysis and decision-making.
The watchdog also said there was disagreement between intelligence units and senior officials over whether activities described in intelligence reports constituted foreign interference or legitimate diplomatic activity.
The case of China
The agency examined intelligence on China’s attempts at foreign interference in federal democratic institutions and processes from 2018 to 2023, focusing on how the information circulated within the government.
CSIS faced a fundamental dilemma regarding the flow of intelligence during the election, the agency found.
“On the one hand, information about foreign interference in elections was a priority for the government, and CSIS had geared its collection apparatus toward investigating foreign political interference,” the report said.
“On the other hand, CSIS was sensitive to the possibility that the collection and dissemination of election intelligence could itself be construed as a form of election interference. A fundamental tension reigned: any action – including the dissemination of intelligence – taken by CSIS before or during an election must not, and must not be seen to, influence that election. »
This dynamic was known within CSIS, but “is not officially addressed in policies or guidelines,” the agency concluded.
The consequences of not knowing who received what information became evident in the case of intelligence linked to China’s targeting of a sitting MP – most obviously conservative Michael Chong, although he is not named in the report.
Media and public conversations regarding this intelligence have focused on two CSIS memos, one from May 2021 and the other from July 2021, the watchdog’s report said.
In fact, none of these memos were the mechanism by which the Minister and Vice Minister of Public Security were initially supposed to be informed of China’s threatening activities against the MP and his family, the agency found.
Rather, it was prior CSIS intelligence regarding Michael Chong. CSIS sent the information to a recipient list that included the deputy minister and the minister. Public Safety confirmed to NSIRA that at least one piece of information was provided to the minister before May 2021, probably as part of a weekly reading program.
“However, the ministry was ‘unable’ to account for it,” the report said. “This is an unacceptable situation.”
Recommendations
The watchdog recommended “that, as a basic accountability mechanism, CSIS and Public Safety should rigorously track and document who received and who reads the information.”
The report says officials and the national security and intelligence adviser sometimes disagree on whether intelligence assessments should be shared with the political executive, resulting in two memos not being not reached politicians, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
NSIRA recommended that the role of the security advisor, particularly with regard to decisions regarding the flow of information, be specified in the law.
Under a federal protocol introduced by the Liberals in 2019, a public announcement would be made if a group of bureaucrats determined that an incident – or a collection of incidents – threatened Canada’s ability to hold free and fair elections.
No such announcements were made regarding the 2019 or 2021 general elections. In both elections, the Liberals were re-elected to government with minority mandates while the Conservatives formed the official opposition.
The intelligence watchdog agency’s findings follow a recent periodic report from a federal investigative panel that said China’s foreign interference did not affect the overall results of the 2019 general election and 2021.
In her report, Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue said that while it is possible that results in a small number of ridings were affected by the interference, this cannot be said with certainty.