Latest news with #StephanieCarvin
National Post
19-05-2025
- Politics
- National Post
22 election candidates were provided private security by the federal government
OTTAWA — The federal government provided private security for close protection or to guard the home of 22 candidates in the last federal election amid a rise in threats and intimidation towards politicians. Article content Article content Throughout the campaign, 15 candidates were granted private security service that acted as their bodyguard during campaign events or daily activities, Privy Council Office (PCO) spokesperson Daniel Savoie told National Post. Article content Article content Another two were provided home monitoring services by an unarmed guard, while five met the threshold to receive both services, Savoie said. Article content Article content This was the first federal election during which the federal government offered private security services to candidates. The program was geared toward politicians who believe their security is at risk during the campaign but where the level of threat does not meet the threshold for police protection. Article content To be eligible, candidates had to have been physically attacked, had their property targeted by protesters or vandalized, felt threatened by a 'disruptive, uninvited individual' at home, or had their personal information posted on the internet, for example. Former CSIS national security analyst Stephanie Carvin said she was surprised by how many candidates applied to receive additional private security from a program that was announced right as the election campaign began. Article content 'I'm glad that resource is there, but it's unfortunate that it's needed,' said Carvin, now an associate professor at Carleton University. Article content Article content 'Individuals who are upset with the politics or politicians are increasingly willing to physically confront the people they see as adversaries or with different point of views. Rather than challenging their ideas, they want to physically confront them,' Carvin added. Article content Article content Savoie declined to identify which candidates were granted additional security or which party they represented over concerns it could compromise their safety.
Globe and Mail
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Canada needs a foreign human intelligence service
Thomas Juneau is a professor with the University of Ottawa's Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Vincent Rigby is a former national security and intelligence adviser to the prime minister and the Slater Family Professor of Practice with McGill University's Max Bell School of Public Policy. Stephanie Carvin is an associate professor with Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. For decades, a small circle of government officials and academics have periodically debated whether Canada should establish a foreign human intelligence service. Proponents have argued that, as the only G7 member state without such a body, Canada needs to set up its own version of an American CIA or British MI6. Opponents have responded that Canada's secure position in North America and the important benefits it already derives from intelligence partnerships, such as the Five Eyes, have made the many challenges of creating a separate foreign intelligence agency unnecessary. It is time to revisit this debate. It must be acknowledged at the outset that these discussions have often been based on a false premise, i.e., that Canada does not already collect foreign intelligence. In fact, the Canadian Armed Forces do so during overseas operations, while the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) possesses a robust signals-intelligence collection program. In addition, Global Affairs Canada gathers information related to our foreign interests through its Global Security Reporting Program, while the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) collects foreign intelligence within Canada under limited circumstances and can collect security intelligence overseas. And contrary to arguments that Canada's intelligence programs are derided by our allies, our capabilities are in fact widely respected, notably with respect to cyber operations and watching over the Arctic. But now is the time to step up these efforts. To begin with, the United States is not, and is unlikely to be for the foreseeable future, a reliable ally. Recent American actions toward Canada have been hostile, and there is no guarantee that Washington will continue sharing intelligence as it has in the past. Beyond North America, a revanchist Russia, an ascendant China, and a proliferation of conflicts, from the Middle East to the Caribbean to Africa, also directly threaten Canadian interests. The slow crumbling of Canadian democracy Given this deteriorating environment, exacerbated by a predatory United States, we believe that Prime Minister Mark Carney should take two steps: create a foreign human intelligence service, and enhance current intelligence capabilities as an interim step. To be clear, any such service will fall short of being a 'Canadian CIA,' a level of ambition that is neither feasible nor desirable. But even a small agency would allow Canada to collect a greater volume of information from human sources abroad on matters vital to its interests. It would allow policy-makers to better understand the intentions and capabilities of a growing number of adversaries and take more effective action in response. It would focus on states, non-state actors such as terrorists and drug cartels, and also 'over-the-horizon' transnational threats such as pandemics and climate change. Establishing such a service will be no easy task, and will involve significant government machinery. It will come with a steep financial cost. It will require the poaching of highly specialized skills from other departments and agencies. It will raise multiple political, legal and moral issues. And it will take time – likely five to 10 years. The government will need to ensure that it proceeds carefully and deliberately, bases all its decisions on solid evidence and consults Canadians. That is why, in the meantime, Mr. Carney should significantly enhance Canada's collection and analysis of foreign intelligence. This could include providing greater resources to CSIS, the CSE, Global Affairs Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces to do more intelligence gathering and assessment abroad. It could also mean strengthening open-source intelligence capabilities throughout the national security community, as recommended by Justice Marie-Josée Hogue in her recent report on foreign interference. And Canada should diversify and deepen its partnerships outside the Five Eyes, particularly in Europe (including with France, Germany, and the Nordic countries) and in the Indo-Pacific (notably Japan and South Korea). These two steps, taken in tandem, will bring important benefits to Canada: greater strategic autonomy, greater support for our national security, including our foreign and defence policies and, above all, greater protection for Canadians. It will also enhance Canada's standing with its intelligence partners and, as a result, secure even more co-operation from them. Recent events demonstrate that Canada must do more to strengthen its security and prosperity and protect its values. These efforts will come in many shapes and sizes, but all should be aimed at making Canada more resilient and independent. Creating a foreign human intelligence service should be a top priority for the government as it embarks on this vital journey to build a Canada fit-for-purpose in the 21st century.
CBC
06-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Should Canada build a human-focused, foreign intelligence service?
Should Canada build a spy service to gather foreign intelligence via human sources? It's a question worth asking as the country faces an increasingly unstable relationship with its next-door neighbour, from which Canada has long relied upon to glean key intelligence. Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst for the federal government, says it's "something we should consider," or at least have a debate on — and she's not alone in advocating for Canada to assess how it can boost its foreign-intelligence efforts. Yet developing such a service would require significant resources and political buy-in to move forward. "This is not something you do willy-nilly," said Carvin, an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. Why would we want this? Given the unpredictability of U.S. President Donald Trump's intentions toward Canada, it's fair to be concerned about the impact that could have on the information Washington shares with Ottawa. Separate from that, any foreign intelligence gathered by other parties won't have necessarily been done so with Canada's interests in mind. So, there are already limits to what Canada has direct control over when it comes to foreign intelligence. Doesn't Canada gather intelligence? Yes, but not necessarily in the way that a dedicated, human foreign-intelligence service could. The existing Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) gathers intelligence, but its efforts are geared toward security threats that Canada is facing. The Canadian military, likewise, gathers intelligence on defence-related threats. There's also the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the country's cyber-intelligence agency, which collects foreign intelligence but through electronic means, rather than human sources. Foreign Affairs Canada has a small program known as the Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP), which involves diplomats gathering information, but overtly so. It is a relatively small program, involving roughly 30 people. It is not an intelligence agency. What about the Five Eyes? Canada has been part of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network — along with the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand — for decades. It's been a beneficial arrangement for these members — Canada included. "We consume more intel than we produce," said Phil Gurski, a former CSIS and CSE analyst. Yet the Financial Times reported in February that Peter Navarro, a senior Trump adviser, floated the idea of kicking Canada out of the network — though he later denied the allegation. "We would never, ever jeopardize our national security — ever — with allies like Canada," Navarro told reporters. The story nonetheless raised concerns that the Americans' willingness to share vital information could be less guaranteed in future — though some say it's unlikely that Canada could be booted from the Five Eyes. Former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis said the sharing of intel among the Five Eyes is typically driven by "interests and operational exchanges," with the U.S. and Canada having more strongly overlapping concerns on certain issues, like common threats on the border. "The United States can't really kick us out," she told CBC Radio's The Current last month, noting that doing so would be detrimental to the wider group. While Gurski concurs there's "no mechanism" to remove a Five Eyes partner, he acknowledges that if Canada lost access, "we'd have to fill that gap somehow." Do our allies do this? Yes, and as Gurski points out, Canada is the only member of the Five Eyes without a human foreign-intelligence service. The United Kingdom's Secret intelligence Service, also known as MI6, has operated for more than a century. In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, came into being after the Second World War. Down Under, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) has been "quietly protecting Australia and its way of life" since 1952. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), which has both a national security and foreign intelligence role, was established a few years later. Both Germany and France have their own foreign intelligence services, while the European Union has been urged to create its own. Has this idea come up before? Yes, but it has never taken root. "This is an issue that comes up every 10 years or so," said Carvin. The Conservatives, for instance, proposed developing such a service as part of their election platform in 2006. But the proposed Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency never came to be after they won that election and Stephen Harper became prime minister, nor during his party's subsequent two mandates. No such service was developed under former prime minister Justin Trudeau either. In 2023, his then-national security adviser Jody Thomas said it was "not on the policy agenda" at the time. Wouldn't this be hard to do? It would likely take years to bring into existence, given the tasks of setting up a legal framework for it, building an organization from scratch and training up the spies that would serve. In 2006, former CSIS director Reid Morden estimated it would take roughly 10 years to get enough staff trained to meet the needs of such a service. And he put the price tag, at that time, in the neighbourhood of $200 million. Gurski and Carvin both agree it wouldn't happen quickly. "Creating one from scratch is simply a non-starter," said Gurski, "because it would take so long" to achieve. Are there other options? Gurski says he thinks so — and to him, the answer is expanding CSIS's reach outside Canada's borders via legislation. It would also mean turning CSIS into an organization that would do both foreign and security intelligence. Gurski points out there are other organizations in the world that do both, with New Zealand's NZSIS being one example. The Netherlands also has a dual service. CSIS would need more resources, as a result, he says. Carvin, similarly, says he believes that Canada can do more with the tools it has in place now. Is there political will? CBC News asked five major political parties whether they would support Canada developing its own human foreign-intelligence service. The Bloc Québécois said the concept is worthy of study, though it could not say if such a step would be necessary. It suggested that Canada could look to deepening its partnerships with France and other allies that are not part of the Five Eyes. The party also raised the point that espionage carries various risks, including damaging relations with other countries. Green Party Co-Leader Elizabeth May said the party does not support launching a new service, saying that our "existing intelligence gathering apparatus" and our diplomatic links are sufficient. But the party says it is critical to maintain the Five Eyes partnership "despite the recent threats from the American president." NDP spokesperson Anne McGrath said Canada "must have the tools it needs to defend ourselves," voicing support for the work that CSIS does today. "CSIS and its mandate are in place to keep Canadians safe from international threats, including foreign interference in our democracy," McGrath said in a statement. "New Democrats also support a stronger foreign service, which will build Canada's connections and awareness to issues around the world." The Conservative party did not respond to emailed questions about the issue of a human foreign-intelligence service. The Liberals did not return a comment either, though Liberal Leader Mark Carney recently said "we have to look out for ourselves," amid the shifting security priorities of the neighbouring U.S.
