Spy agency says it 'improperly' shared Canadians' data with international partners
Social Sharing
One of Canada's intelligence agencies says it "improperly" shared information about Canadians that it had obtained "incidentally" with international partners.
The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) shared some details about the incident after the intelligence commissioner — the quasi-judicial position that reviews the cyber spy agency's activities — flagged the case in his annual report tabled in Parliament earlier this week.
CSE spokesperson Janny Bender Asselin told CBC News that last year the agency had to notify the defence minister "of an incident where CSE improperly shared information."
"CSE identified an activity where, between 2020 and 2023, we shared some information with international partners without properly removing Canadian information that had been acquired incidentally when targeting valid foreign intelligence targets," she said.
"CSE acted quickly to contain the issue."
The CSE is considered one of Canada's intelligence crown jewels, responsible for intercepting and analyzing foreign electronic communications, launching cyber operations and defending the government's networks and critical infrastructure from attacks.
Asselin said that included seeking assurances from CSE's trusted partners that the shared information was deleted.
"We continue to update our policies and procedures to prevent reoccurrence," she said.
CSE did not say how many Canadians were impacted or to which countries the information was shared, citing operational security.
Details were shared with Intelligence Commissioner Simon Noël, who raised it in his recently published report.
The commissioner is part of the chain of approval before CSE and its sister agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), can go ahead with certain intelligence-gathering and cybersecurity activities.
CSE first needs to seek permission from the minister of defence — known as ministerial authorization — if the proposed action would otherwise break the law or potentially infringe on the privacy interests of Canadians.
Under the law, ministerial authorizations must prove the activities are reasonable, necessary and that measures are in place to protect Canadians' privacy.
The intelligence commissioner then provides a layer of oversight and either signs off on the mission, approves with conditions or denies the request outright.
Noël also makes sure CSE remains compliant after receiving the green light and sticks to what was approved — which was not the case in this information-sharing matter.
The commissioner's report doesn't include many details, citing national security.
CSE says data shared between 2020 and 2023
The case will be included in CSE's own annual report, which is expected later this month, said Asselin.
Noël's report said he urged the intelligence agency to be as transparent about the incident as possible.
It doesn't appear the individuals involved were alerted, although CSE said it reported the incident to its oversight and review bodies, including the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
"The disclosure of this incident involving CSE raises many serious concerns," said Matt Malone, director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.
The University of Ottawa professor said the findings justify many of the fears raised by civil society groups about the potential for inappropriate information in the Liberal government's cybersecurity bill. The first iteration of the bill died when the House prorogued earlier this year, and it was reintroduced by Prime Minister Mark Carney's government as Bill C-8.
If passed, federally regulated industries would have to report cybersecurity incidents to CSE, meaning it would be in possession of more information.
"All of this bodes very poorly for the state of privacy protection in Canada," Malone said.
"Three of the eight government bills introduced so far in this Parliament are extremely privacy-corrosive."
In 2024, the information commissioner received 13 ministerial authorizations for review — seven relating to CSE activities and six relating to CSIS activities. He approved the activities in 11 authorizations, approved the activities with conditions in one authorization and partially approved the activities in the other authorization.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
42 minutes ago
- CTV News
3-year-old boy dies after being struck by vehicle in Bedford, N.S.
A three-year-old boy was hit by a vehicle on Brownstone Way in Bedford, N.S., Friday, June 20, 2025. He died in hospital. (Jim Kvammen/CTV Atlantic) A three-year-old boy has died after being struck by a vehicle in Bedford, N.S. Halifax Regional Police responded to the scene Friday around 7:50 p.m. Police said the vehicle-pedestrian collision happened on Brownstone Way. According to police, the boy was crossing the street when he was hit. He was rushed to hospital, where he died as a result of his injuries. 'Halifax Regional Police extend heartfelt condolences to the boy's family,' said police in a news release Friday. 'Police also extend thanks to the witnesses and bystanders who remained at the scene through the evening.' Police said the investigation is ongoing and no charges have been laid at this time. For more Nova Scotia news, visit our dedicated provincial page
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
If Canada is seeking an ideal nation-building project, it should invest in First Nations infrastructure
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. At a time of growing global uncertainty – amid trade disruptions, rising inflation, climate change and international instability – Canada is looking for ways to strengthen its economy, create good jobs and build lasting resilience. Investing in First Nations infrastructure directly supports these national priorities and represents one of our greatest collective nation-building opportunities. Every person in Canada deserves clean water to drink, reliable infrastructure to support their families and a strong foundation to build a future. Yet for far too many First Nations, these basic needs remain out of reach owing to generations of underinvestment. According to the Assembly of First Nations' report "Closing the Infrastructure Gap," an estimated $349.2-billion is needed to bring First Nations infrastructure in line with the rest of Canada by 2030. Delays would only increase the cost and limit the potential returns. And there would be significant returns. Additional research, supported by the Conference Board of Canada, shows that improving First Nations infrastructure would generate $635-billion in economic output, boost GDP by $308.9-billion, and create 330,000 jobs annually across Canada over seven years. Prime Minister Mark Carney has even acknowledged the 'potential economic opportunity' of closing the infrastructure gap. On the campaign trail, Mr. Carney argued that doing so would, on its own, have a larger positive impact on Canada's economy than the negative effects of Donald Trump's tariffs, underscoring both the urgency and the scale of this opportunity. New federal legislation would cut internal trade barriers, advance 'nation-building' projects Beyond the economic data, these investments would also mean that children could sleep safely in their own homes, enjoy clean water in every community, use reliable transportation to access high-quality healthcare and education services, and take advantage of connectivity that allows young people to fully participate in Canada's economy. This would be nation-building in the fullest sense. First Nations are not waiting. Across the country, First Nations are already leading major nation-building projects, from the Clear Sky Connections broadband project linking 63 Manitoba First Nations, to new water systems in Listuguj Mi'gmaq territory, to the Squamish Nation's Sen̓áḵw housing project in Vancouver. These projects meet urgent needs while driving growth, clean energy, and digital connectivity that benefit the entire country. They show what's possible when communities have the resources to build. But to fully close the infrastructure gap nationwide, sustained federal investment is essential. Opinion: Canada needs to attract private investment in infrastructure – and Indigenous communities hold the key As governments put forward legislative proposals to advance major infrastructure projects, proposals that come at the expense of First Nations rights are not the path forward. Any development must respect inherent and treaty rights as recognized and affirmed by the Constitution, and must reflect the Crown's duty to consult and obtain free, prior, and informed consent, as affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Today marks National Indigenous Peoples Day and the four-year anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Yet instead of advancing reconciliation, Canada is pushing legislation like Bill C-5 without hearing from First Nations rights holders. At this week's AFN National Virtual Forum, leaders raised serious concerns about the bill's impact on First Nations rights. Chiefs called for that same urgency to be directed toward the infrastructure our communities actually need – homes, schools, clean water, roads and internet. Chartrand on Bill C-5: 'We do have to have consent from Indigenous rights holders' Fast-tracking development while sidelining rights-holders doesn't advance reconciliation – it undermines it. Attempts to override rights and exclude First Nations from decision-making reflect a narrow and incomplete vision of nation-building, and risk sidelining one of Canada's most transformative opportunities for shared prosperity. The path forward is not to build first and address rights later. True national interest requires full participation and consent of First Nations rights-holders from the start. Canada must prioritize sustained investments in First Nations-led infrastructure that strengthen community resilience and contribute directly to Canada's economic, climate and long-term sustainability priorities. By any measure, investments in First Nations infrastructure meet the definition of national interest. The government's own proposed framework includes priorities like economic growth, resilience and clean growth, all of which would be directly advanced by such investments. If Canada is serious about building a stronger, more secure and more prosperous future, let's start with fast-tracking the construction of new homes, modern schools and clean water systems in First Nation communities. Let's fast-track internet access, all-season roads and community infrastructure that has long been neglected. Let's work in true partnership, through full consultation, shared legislative development, and recognition that Canada's future is tied to the success of its First Peoples. That is how you build a country – by ensuring the foundations are strong for everyone. The future of Canada depends on it.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Reconciliation is not a return to the past – it's creating something new together
David A. Robertson is a Swampy Cree novelist and the author of 52 Ways to Reconcile. It will take longer to get to reconciliation if we don't fully understand what we're attempting to do. That statement might be self-evident, but it is no less relevant. When it comes to reconciliation, in my experience, I am not sure how effective our actions can be if they are actions based on a misnomer. The term reconciliation itself, within the context of this countrywide movement, in the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people, is most certainly an inaccurate description. What does reconciliation mean? It's essential to be clear: I don't want to discount Canadians' work on reconciliation. As with anything relatively new, there is a learning curve. But we have done well, although we can't rest on our laurels. We must forge ahead and look to the future, invested in the path and the length we need to walk it. Because this is a marathon, it is not a sprint. The Grandparents do not say that healing takes one generation; it takes seven. The dictionary definition indicates reconciliation is the restoration of friendly relations. That sounds nice, doesn't it? Indigenous people and non-Indigenous people want to have a friendly relationship. I have been around long enough and have been to enough places across Turtle Island to be sure of that. Is that what we're trying to do? Restore friendly relations? Restoration is returning to something. What do we want to return to? Here's a quick example of reconciliation: Two people meet, fall in love and everything is great. They move in with each other, have children, and look to the future with love and hope. But then something breaks, and the relationship falters. The couple splits. Years later, after a lot of work and healing themselves individually, they can, in turn, heal their relationship. They return to what they used to be. That is reconciliation. Here's my question: When was the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people right? It wasn't. Ever. So, there is nothing worth returning to. On one level of this journey, reconciliation is indeed proper terminology. Thanks to colonialism's historical and continuing effects, there is brokenness within Indigenous communities. The former principal at Jack River School in Kinosao Sipi (Norway House Cree Nation) once told me that you can't heal brokenness with brokenness. She meant that teachers needed to heal from their trauma, direct or passed down, before they could genuinely help the kids. Individually, in our families, and in our communities, we have work to do to heal before we can even think about the breadth of Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. Opinion: We cannot let Pope Francis's efforts toward Indigenous reconciliation die with him But when we get there in seven generations (and keep in mind, with the impacts of colonialism still prevalent across Turtle Island, that clock hasn't quite started ticking yet), we will not be returning to anything. My father passed away in December, 2019, just a couple of months before the world shut down. At the time of his death, he had been working with a group of knowledge keepers, of Grandparents, on a new term for reconciliation, considering what it really entails, the work we really need to be doing. Their focus was not on returning to anything, but rather, on starting a dialogue. I found a paper in my dad's stuff entitled Guiding Principles for Working Together to Build Restoration and Reconciliation. The first point is 'Building Relationships through Mutual Respect and Understanding – respect enhances our ability to see, hear, and value others.' 'Nothing's off the table': AFN warns of potential legal action if Bill C-5 passes You sit across from me, we share with one another, we learn about one another, and through that respectful interaction we begin to see through the preconceptions we might have of each other. We see each other as human beings, first and foremost, and through knowledge transfer, we develop empathy, understanding and respect. That is how you build a good relationship. It's a foundational practice that ensures, going forward, you have something solid to stand on. Together. You and I. Collectively, it doesn't mean that we are returning to anything. What it means is that we are building something for the first time. It means that we are building community. Do you want to know the dictionary definition of community? It is a group of people with a shared interest living together within a larger society. We don't all have to do the same thing. Not at all. You have your life, and I have mine. But within the context of what we continue to call reconciliation, we do have a shared interest: coming together, working with and for each other, for equitable opportunities where everybody has a chance at success. Because we recognize that one person's victory is the victory of the community we have built, and that success, the stuff that comes from listening and learning, from empathy and action, will lead us to a better, strong and sustainable future. Whatever we want to call what we're doing, that's the way forward.
