Foreign interference review by Spy Watchdog reveals “Unacceptable Gaps” in Accountability

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service and Public Safety Canada lacked a system for tracking who received and read specific intelligence on foreign interference, leading to “unacceptable gaps in accountability,” as found by the national spy watchdog.

A report released on May 27 by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency also noted inconsistencies in CSIS’s dissemination of intelligence on political foreign interference during the last two general elections.

Furthermore, recipients of the intelligence did not always grasp its significance or know how to incorporate the findings into their policy analysis and decision-making processes.

The watchdog highlighted disagreements between intelligence units and senior public servants regarding whether activities mentioned in intelligence briefs constituted foreign interference or legitimate diplomatic actions.

The review focused on intelligence related to attempted foreign interference by China in federal democratic institutions and processes from 2018 to 2023, examining how this information flowed within the government.

CSIS faced a dilemma in circulating intelligence during elections, according to the review agency.

“One the one hand, information about foreign interference in elections was a government priority, and CSIS had focused on investigating political foreign interference,” the report stated.

“However, there was sensitivity around the possibility that collecting and sharing intelligence about elections could be viewed as a form of election interference. This created a dilemma where any action by CSIS before or during an election should not be seen to influence the outcome.”

While this tension was recognized within CSIS, it was not formally addressed in policy or guidelines, according to the review agency.

The ramifications of not knowing who received specific information became apparent in the case of intelligence related to China’s targeting of a sitting MP—in this case, Conservative Michael Chong, though not named in the report.

The media and public attention on this intelligence focused on two CSIS memos from May and July 2021, but these were not the primary means of informing the minister and deputy minister of public safety about China’s threat activities against the MP and his family, the agency revealed.

Prior intelligence related to Mr. Chong was distributed by CSIS to recipients that included the deputy minister and the minister. Public Safety acknowledged that at least one piece of information was provided to the minister before May 2021, likely as part of a weekly reading package, but the department was unable to verify this.

This situation was deemed unacceptable by the report.

The intelligence review agency recommended that CSIS and Public Safety rigorously track and document who receives and reads intelligence products as a basic accountability measure.

There were instances where public servants and the national security and intelligence adviser disagreed on whether intelligence assessments should be shared with political executives, resulting in some products not reaching politicians like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The watchdog suggested that the role of the security adviser, especially in decisions about circulating intelligence, should be legally defined.

According to a federal protocol established by the Liberals in 2019, a public announcement would be made if a panel of bureaucrats determined that incidents posed a threat to Canada’s ability to conduct free and fair elections.

However, no such announcement was made for the 2019 or 2021 general elections, where the Liberals maintained government with minority mandates and the Conservatives became the official Opposition.

The findings from the intelligence review agency coincide with an interim report from a federal commission of inquiry stating that Chinese interference did not impact the overall outcomes of the 2019 and 2021 general elections.

Commissioner Marie-Josée Hogue mentioned that while a few ridings could have been influenced by meddling, this cannot be conclusively confirmed.

By Jim Bronskill