Canadian spies view new powers as way to combat foreign influence

OTTAWA—Canada’s domestic intelligence agency sees its new “threat reduction” powers as a tool to disrupt foreign influence, including during the upcoming federal election campaign.

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) told a Toronto Star/BuzzFeed News investigation that it views its “threat reduction mandate” as “another tool” for the federal government to respond to threats including “foreign influenced activity.”

The agency’s mandate allows it to take direct action to “reduce” threats to Canada’s national security and interests, rather than simply collect intelligence. It allows the agency to take a wide array of actions to disrupt threats, although more invasive actions require approval from a judge.

“While CSIS cannot discuss the precise nature of our investigations, CSIS actively investigates any threats to Canada’s democratic institutions and supports the (government’s) collective effort to respond accordingly,” wrote agency spokesperson John Townsend in a statement.

Canada’s intelligence community has already identified foreign operations targeting the country’s “democratic institutions” ahead of the Oct. 21 election. The Communications Security Establishment, Canada’s cyber defence and espionage agency, has assessed it’s “very likely” that foreign actors will attempt to intervene in the election — although not at the scale seen in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

CSIS was granted “threat reduction” powers by the former Conservative government in anti-terror reforms in 2015.

The Liberal government has reined in those powers, requiring the agency to take only “reasonable” actions “proportionate” to the threat, outlining a list of acceptable disruption activities, and seeking a warrant for any action that violates Charter rights.

For some, the threat reduction powers are seen as a tailor-made tool to combat a complex threat like foreign interventions into an election campaign — where activities may compromise Canadian national security or democratic institutions, but where it’s unlikely authorities would pursue criminal charges.

“Some of the core concerns around threat disruption is that when it’s used it might conflict with the possibility of bringing future criminal charges,” said Leah West, a Carleton professor who previously worked in national security law for the Canadian government.

“Criminal procedure is unlikely to be instigated against (foreign) threat actors … that concern falls away, and threat reduction becomes a more ideal course of action.”

But civil liberties groups have expressed concern about CSIS’s ability to disrupt threats with little public oversight — or even public knowledge — and those concerns are likely to be more pronounced when it comes to intervening during an election period.

Cara Faith Zwibel, a director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, said it’s a “fundamental concern” for her organization.

“We outside of the security (agencies) don’t really know what they’re doing,” Zwibel said.