The Dominion - Tim Groves

Canada’s Spy Groups Divulge Secret Intelligence to Energy Companies

Miles — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:03:11 +0000

Documents raise fears that info on environmentalists, Indigenous groups and more shared with industry at biannual, secret-level, briefings.

TORONTO—The Canadian government has been orchestrating briefings that provide energy companies with classified intelligence from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP and other agencies, raising concerns that federal officials are spying on environmentalists and First Nations in order to provide information to the businesses they criticize.

The secret-level briefings have taken place twice a year since 2005, and are detailed in documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, and in publicly-available government files.

The draft agenda for one of the briefings, acquired by The Dominion, shows that the RCMP and CSIS assisted the department of Natural Resources in organizing a daylong event on November 25, 2010, at CSIS headquarters in Ottawa, and a networking reception the previous night at the Chateau Laurier.

The focus of the classified briefing was on "the geopolitics of the Arctic," but there were also presentations on topics including cyber-security, intellectual property rights and the Toronto G20 summit. Speakers at the event were from the RCMP and CSIS, as well as the Department of National Defence and Public Safety Canada. Two presenters had their names and affiliations redacted from the document.

Attendees were also given the option to review selected classified reports. However, note-taking at the event was prohibited.

Natural Resources spokesperson Jacinthe Perras stated that the classified briefings enable the owners and operators of energy infrastructure, “to plan and develop measures to protect their facilities.”

In an email to The Dominion, Perras explained that the department is mandated to “engage with partners and key stakeholders” by federal policy such as the National Strategy and Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure.

This plan is based on the concept that some infrastructure is so vital to the functioning of the country that it deserves special protection. Ten critical infrastructure sectors are identified including finance, transportation, health care and energy. For each sector a government department has been charged with fostering relationships with partners, including through the sharing of information. Natural Resources is the lead department for the energy sector.

"These forums provide excellent opportunities for energy sector stakeholders to develop ongoing trusting relations which facilitate the exchange of pertinent information 'off the record,'” writes Felix Kwamena, a director of energy infrastructure security at Natural Resources, in a 2010 summary of various governments’ efforts to protect energy installations.

But groups protesting energy projects such as the tar sands have misgiving about this cozy relationship.

“I see a worrying trend of blurring the lines between government security apparatus and the private sector,” said Keith Stewart, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada. “What we are seeing is government working at the behest of these big multinational corporations, rather than seeing themselves as a regulator of those companies in the public interest.”

“They have created this security culture where there is no separation between the federal government, and the fossil fuel sector,“ said Clayton Thomas-Muller, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, a group fighting for the rights of Indigenous people around the world and a vocal opponent of tar sands projects.

Thomas-Muller and Stewart both told The Dominion that they are concerned that groups opposing energy projects may be spied upon by intelligence agencies that report on their activities to energy companies.

“We know [Greenpeace] have been surveilled...and we also know we have had undercover officers attend our trainings,” said Stewart. “The concern for me is if they are doing this to hand over information to the private sector.”

“Natural Resources Canada does not monitor these groups nor does it provide information on them to private companies,” Perras asserted.

However, the perceived threat to energy infrastructure by organizations and First Nations opposing energy projects was revealed in an academic paper by Jeff Monaghan and Kevin Walby who exposed a CSIS document from 2008 that claims, “Multi-issue extremists [including environmental groups] and Aboriginal extremists may pursue common causes, and both groups have demonstrated the intent and the capability to carry out attacks against critical infrastructure in Canada."

“I have no doubt whatsoever that there are active files on dozens and dozens of First Nations who are quite simply asserting their rights to title over their traditional lands,” said Thomas-Muller.

He pointed to revelations that an RCMP unit was tasked with monitoring First Nations communities with the potential to engage in protests. Operating between 2007 and 2010, the unit sent their weekly report to roughly 450 recipients, including energy companies.

The Mounties say they’re just doing their job.

“The RCMP is required to produce and disseminate criminal threat assessments and other criminal intelligence related to critical infrastructure protection,” explained Greg Cox, a spokesperson for the RCMP. He maintained that “no personal information is shared,” and that “the sharing of criminal information between law enforcement and the private sector is nothing new.”

CSIS declined to comment for this story.

However, documents released to The Dominion show that a component of CSIS, the Integrated Threat Assessment Centre (ITAC), has been writing intelligence reports on environmental groups.

An August 2010 ITAC intelligence document on the 2010 World Energy Congress, which took place in Montreal the following month, notes that "companies such as Shell, Encana, Enbridge, to name a few are amongst conference participants who have been subject to demonstrations in the past."

It goes on to state that "pro-environmental groups...intend to stage what they refer to as an 'emergency forum on energy,'" specifically naming the group Mouvement Sortons le Quebec du Nucleaire, an organization challenging nuclear energy plans in the province. The document also names Climate Action Montreal, a group that held a climate camp to train activists opposed to the tar sands.

The ITAC documents were of a lower security clearance than the classified information being provided at the Natural Resources briefings.

“There should be a lot more transparency,” Stewart said. “We are not saying they need to be publicizing all of the results of their investigation, but if they are going to be working closely with the private sector and sharing that information with them and granting them security clearance, Canadians have a right to know.”
The names of the companies invited to attend the classified briefings have never been revealed. However, the former Minister of Natural Resources, Gary Lunn, boasted at the 2007 International Pipeline Security Forum that his ministry had “sponsored over 200 industry representatives in obtaining Secret Level II security clearance. This enables us to share information with industry and their associations.”

A 2006 report by Natural Resources names the industry associations with which its energy infrastructure protection division liaised. These included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which represents nearly 100 oil and gas companies including Shell and Suncor; and the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, which represents companies such as Enbridge and TransCanada and the Canadian Nuclear Association.

In addition to holding briefings, Natural Resources also distributed reports to the energy sector that contained “unclassified information and intelligence” and were shared with “approximately 300 stakeholders three to five times every week,” according to an internal review.

The classified briefings even touched on seemingly unrelated topics such as the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto. An internal RCMP email dated October 21, 2010, reveals that Natural Resources requested the RCMP provide a review of the G20 summit at a briefing taking place the following month.

“This didn't make a lot of sense to me because of course the G20 and the protest against it happened in Toronto, and the energy companies are based in Calgary. There isn’t any energy infrastructure in downtown Toronto,” said Stewart.

During the classified briefing, held November 25, 2010, RCMP Staff Sergeant John Shoemaker reported to energy companies on intelligence efforts to protect the Summit.

The G20 intelligence unit employed surveillance, monitoring and undercover infiltration of protest groups including First Nations and environmental groups. They showed a keen interest in Greenpeace’s activities. However, PowerPoint slides from Shoemaker’s presentation made no direct mention of Greenpeace or any other environmental or First Nations group, beyond listing “issue specific extremism/activism” and “Aboriginal activism” as a “public order” threat.

Although the presentation did not deal specifically with energy infrastructure, Perras said the “report helped inform the development of an all-hazards approach to critical energy infrastructure protection.”

Stewart doesn’t think that intelligence agencies should be focusing their energies on non-violent groups like Greenpeace.

“The only threat we pose is the threat to change peoples minds, and changing public opinion—and I understand why oil companies might be worried about that. I understand why government might be worried about that, but I think that is a fundamental part of democracy and they just have to learn to live with free speech,” declared Stewart.

He believes the Harper government is trying to demonize groups opposed to energy projects. He pointed to legislation that was introduced to increase the budget for the auditing of environmental organizations, a document that lists “environmental NGOs” and “Aboriginal groups” as adversaries, an increased budget for the auditing of environmental organizations, and a commentary by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, who warned that environmental groups ”threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda.”

“In terms of democracy, you need a separation of oil and state. We need to separate the private interest of corporations from [the] interest of Canadians, and we’re seeing a lot of blurring of that line,” said Stewart. “The government seems to be saying what is good for companies like Shell or Enbridge is good for Canada. We think that is an important debate in a democracy."

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher and journalist based in Toronto. He can be reached at timgrovesreports [@] gmail.com. For more information on his work and writing, click here.

Oilspy

Mining Companies Feel Heat in the Ring of Fire

taramichelle — Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:25:16 +0000

Assembly of First Nations backs evictions from northern Ontario

TORONTO—In late July, hundreds of First Nations chiefs from across the country backed a moratorium on mining and development in an area of Northern Ontario known as the "Ring of Fire." They also called for the eviction of companies operating in the mineral rich area, which has been described as "Ontario's oil sands".

The province has called the Ring of Fire "one of the most promising mineral development opportunities in Ontario in almost a century." The area contains the largest chromite deposits in North America, as well as gold, nickel, copper, platinum and palladium. Opening the area to development has become a major focus for the Dalton McGuinty government.

The moratorium demand and eviction notices were voted on by the hundreds of First Nations chiefs gathered in Toronto for the Assembly of First Nations' (AFN) Annual General Assembly. The AFN is the largest First Nations advocacy organization in the Canada.

"It is solidarity," said Sonny Gagnon the Chief of Aroland First Nation, whose community would be impacted by the development. "We need the support. If and when we need to go on the land to enforce the evictions notice…we will have 633 First Nations that will be behind us."

Over 20 mining companies have claims in the Ring of Fire; however a major impediment to these projects is that there is currently no ground access to area. Several companies are now competing to build road or rail access.

Proposals from two of these companies, Noront Resourses and Cliffs Natural Resources, have entered the province's Environmental Assessment stage. This has lead First Nations to believe that the projects are moving ahead without obtaining their "free, prior and informed consent," as laid out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In late June, the Matawa First Nations Council, which is made up of nine first nations communities, announced an “immediate moratorium on all mining exploration and development…unless, and until, Ontario and Canada come to a government-to-government table with a mandate to negotiate fundamental questions of First Nations jurisdiction…and real resource benefits and revenue sharing for our First Nation.”

"We hope that the Matawa Tribal Council communities will reconsider this action and come to the table to discuss their concerns with us," said Andrew Morrison, a spokes person for the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, in an email to the Toronto Media Coop.

"We recognize that there are differing views and positions on First Nations’ jurisdiction and rights. Those differing views do not diminish Ontario’s commitment to working constructively with First Nations and industry to achieve practical outcomes and results," explained Morrison. "Through good will, mutual respect, and ongoing dialogue we are confident that we can resolve these concerns in a positive, productive and meaningful way."

Chief Gagnon sees the province's dealings with First Nations very differently. "They just seem to want to come into my community, stand on a podium and preach to our people as to how they are going to develop this land. No, no, no. We have got to have dialogue."

He believes that for First Nations to be treated as equal partners they need to be provided with the resources to hire lawyers, geologist and other consultants that the government and mining companies are able to afford.

Cliffs Natural Resources and Noront Resources were among the companies that were issued eviction notice in late June 2012. Both companies refused to respond to a request to comment in this article.

Gagnon said that an action plan to enforce eviction notices was being developed, but would not reveal any of the details.

Tim Groves is a toronto based researcher and journalist, to get email updates on his stories fill out this form.

Chief Sonny Gagnon of Aroland First Nation

Two-Tiered Justice

taramichelle — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:24:53 +0000

Action ahead of rally to support security certificate detainee Mohammad Mahjoub

TORONTO—On the morning of Saturday, June 16th, several posters were illegally mounted on the walls and fences outside of a Toronto prison, Toronto West Detention Centre. The posters concerned Mohammad Mahjoub, a former detainee at the facility who has spent nearly twelve years in detention and on house arrest despite never having been charged with any offense.

In June of 2000, Mr. Mahjoub was arrest on a security certificate— a controversial mechanism which allows the Canadian government to detain and deport non-citizens living in Canada without charging them with a crime. The Government claims that Mahjoub is a threat to national security and have tried to link him to terrorism.

Mr. Mahjoub and his supporters deny this claim, asserting that the government has not presented any evidence that Mahjoub is a threat or pressed charges against him. They see Security Certificates as illegitimate and arbitrary. Issuing one only requires the signature of the Minister of Public Safety and can be based on secret information.

"It is a system of two-tiered justice, because Security Certificates can only be issued against non-citizens," said Syed Hussan, an organizer with the Justice for Mahjoub Network, adding, "The federal court has strangely ruled that in these cases the presumption of innocence does not apply."

Photos of the posters that were mounted at the jail were spread on Facebook by the Justice for Mahjoub Network, however they did not claim responsibility for putting them up.

"These posters were put up by allies who wanted the officers who jailed and tortured Mahjoub for 6 years to know that they were still being watched. It was also put up so that passers-by knew that Canada was jailing people without charge."

One of the posters that was pasted at the Toronto West Detention Centre was a large cut-out photo of Mahjoub and read: "Mahjoub Spent 6 Years behind these fences. He's spent 12 years in detention in Canada and he's NEVER been charged. Enough! Justice for Mahjoub Now!"
Other posters promoted a rally in support of Mahjoub that is being held on Tuesday June 26th in front of the CSIS building in downtown Toronto and marching to the federal courthouse.

"The rally marks the 12th anniversary of Mahjoub's arrest: a man who has been used to create a climate of fear in Canada against Muslims and immigrants. Marching with him is a show of solidarity against racism and Islamophobia and shows the lies that CSIS and Immigration Canada have created," explained Hussan. "This man's life has been destroyed for no reason."

Although the rally focuses primarily on the case of Mahjoub it will also be demanding the immediate release of the two other men currently being held under Security Certificates, as well as protesting the broader "anti-immigrant" policies of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper.

The rally will also demand justice, apology, reparations and citizenship for all five men who have been victimized by the Security Certificates regime and accountability for all officials responsible.

Tim Groves is a researcher and journalist based in Toronto. This article originally appeared on the Toronto Media Co-op.

Postering Action for Mahjoub

Canadian Bomb Spending Soars

Tim McSorley — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:01:19 +0000

CanBomb8d.jpg

Plan to Pipe Tar Sands to East Coast Protested

dawn — Fri, 25 May 2012 09:59:40 +0000

Activists interrupt National Energy Board's hearing on Enbridge's proposal to reverse flow of Line 9 pipe

TORONTO—Environmental justice protestors temporarily shut down a hearing into a proposal to have tar sand oil piped through Ontario. The hearing took place place in London, Ontario, on Wednesday.

The three day hearing, held by the National Energy Board (NEB), is examining a proposal by Enbridge to reverse the flow of an existing pipeline (Line 9), which currently carries imported overseas oil west. Enbridge wants to instead use the pipeline to bring oil east. However activists are concerned that this will allow Enbridge to bring tar sands to the east coast for export to Europe.

After entering the hearing, protestors employed the People's Mic, where the crowd would echo back whatever was said by a spokesperson in order to project their voices. After a few minutes of the People's Mic commencing, most other attendees at the hearing exited the room. The NEB hearing was shut down for approximately an hour.

The spokesperson who led the Peoples Mic was arrested and then removed from the room. She was later released with a ticket for trespass.

The protestors raised concerns about the environmental impacts of the Alberta tar sands, the possibility of a spill in Ontario and the lack of prior and informed consent being sought from First Nations in Ontario.

"Six Nations rights already have been violated in this review process," stated Wes Elliot, a resident of Six Nations in a press release. "Free, prior, and informed consent is not a factor in these hearings."

Line 9 cuts through the Haldimand Tract, land which was deeded to Six Nations in 1784.

"We also must object to the illegitimate and anti-democratic conduct of the officials who are fast-tracking this review," said Elliot in the release.

Following the protest, demonstrators held what they dubbed an unofficial "People's Hearing on the Tar Sands Pipeline."

"The current framework of the National Energy Board hearings does not allow us to draw connections between tar sands extraction, toxic refineries and upgraders, and various other downstream consequences," said Taylor Flook a member of Occupy Toronto who attended the event in London. "The People's Hearing was arranged as a more open forum, where anyone can share any of their concerns about relevant issues."

"The tar sands industry is attempting to build as many pipelines as they can," said Flook. "We should not accept the fast-tracking of these projects," she said. "No tar sands operations should proceed without the consent of everyone who may be impacted."

As the extraction of tar sands from Alberta has increased, a series of new pipeline projects have emerged to bring the dirty oil to refineries and ports across Canada and the US.

The Harper government has loudly endorsed these projects. But following a series of protests against TransCanada's XL pipeline, which would send tar sands oil south, President Obama delayed approval for a section of the project that goes through the United States until after US elections, which will take place in November.

Opposition by First Nations and environmentalists to Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which would bring oil from Alberta to the BC coast for shipment overseas, has garnered attention across Canada.

Protestors worry the Line 9 Reversal could be rushed through before there is time to build awareness and opposition to the pipeline. But they say many of the concerns with the Northern Gateway Pipeline also apply to the Line 9 reversal.

The Line 9 approval process is taking place in two phases. The London hearing deals with bringing oil from Sarnia, Ontario, to Westover, Ontario. The second phase regards oil transport from Westover to Montreal, Quebec.

Tim Groves is an investigative journalist and regular contributor to the Toronto Media Co-op, where the original version of this article appeared.

Protest against Line 9 reversal

Sonic Weapon Rushed Through for G20

stephlaw — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 10:48:09 +0000

Calling LRAD ‘communications device’ allowed cops to skirt rules

TORONTO—The police have tried to convince the public that its Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRAD), purchased for the G8 and G20 summits, were strictly communications devices—that they weren’t to be used as weapons. But internal police intelligence reports suggest otherwise.

Outside of public messaging, the police have in fact referred to the devices as weapons, according to documents obtained by The Dominion.

“Whether you call it a weapon or a communications device, it can be used in situations where it can cause people significant hearing loss, significant pain,” said Abby Deshman, a Program Director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA).“They can be used as weapons; they have been used as weapons in the past.”

The CCLA believes that the government should have properly tested and regulated the LRAD before putting it into use—and this would have happened if the LRAD had been designated a weapon.

The CCLA is now calling on the government to institute stronger rules on their use based on testing conducted since the summits.

Manufactured by LRAD Corporation, the devices can play recorded MP3s or be spoken into through a microphone, and they also have a built-in alert function that emits high-pitched tones.

“This non-lethal weapon can produce permanent ear damage,” reads a May 31, 2010 intelligence brief created by the G20 Joint Intelligence Group (JIG). This group consisted of the Toronto Police, Ontario Provincial Police, RCMP and Peel Region police. JIG intelligence reports were sent to various security partners, government departments and, in some cases, international and corporate partners.

A week later, the JIG issued a correction, inline with the official police messaging, stating that the LRAD “is in fact a communications device.”

Toronto Police did not respond to a request for comment on the difference between the internal documents and the public messaging about the LRAD.

A 2010 briefing note created prior to the G20 by a media relations officer with the Toronto Police detailed the police’s official position. According to the note, the LRAD is a “tool to send emergency notifications, directions for evacuations, etc.” It added that the tool will “allow police to communicate to large crowds in various languages.”

This note described the LRAD very differently from a JIG report created shortly after the September 2009 Pittsburg G20 summit.

The older report described the devices as “sound cannons” to “engage unlawful protestors,” originally developed for military purposes and was “employed against Iraqi insurgents and Somali pirates.”

The Pittsburg G20 summit was the first place these devices were used by the police, rather than by the military. “Police used the device to emit a high-pitch sound that forced demonstrators to cover their ears and withdraw,” reads the report.

“There were no reports of demonstrators attending the hospital,” the report also noted.

Despite this claim, a bystander alleging permanent hearing damage due to the LRAD is suing the city of Pittsburgh, according to a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union dated September 21, 2011.
Karen Piper, the plaintiff in this suit, was subjected to the high pitch sound of a nearby LRAD for several minutes during the protest. She got no warning before the alert started, according to the release.

“Piper immediately suffered intense pain as mucus discharged from her ear. She became nauseous and dizzy and developed a severe headache,” read the press release. “Since then, Piper has suffered from tinnitus (ringing of the ears), barotrauma, left ear pain and fluid drainage, dizziness and nausea. She still suffers from permanent nerve damage.”

Concerned about how the LRAD would be used at Toronto’s G20 Summit, the CCLA took the matter to court. A ruling was made on June 23, 2010. No injunction on the use of LRADs was granted, but a judge did order greater restriction on their use.

“Part of the reason that the LRADs were bought or deployed in a hurry was that one-time funding was available from the federal government in order to police for the G20,” said Deshman.

Using federal funds, the Toronto Police acquired four LRADs in preparation for the G8 and G20 summits. Three were the portable “100X” model and one was a larger “300X” model, which can be mounted on a vehicle or boat. On top of that, the OPP also acquired three LRADs of their own.

Alphonse MacNeil, the RCMP officer in charge of all G20 policing, approved the purchase of these LRADs. However, when it was revealed by the Globe and Mail that the RCMP does not approve of the LRAD being used for crowd control or in urban settings, pressure was placed on MacNeil by the Ministry of Public Safety to justify his actions.

“Public Safety are on me about why I supported the purchase of the LRAD for TPS and OPP,” wrote MacNeil in an internal email.

In response, MacNeil received a briefing note on the LRAD, which said that the Toronto Police Service had developed a set of guidelines for appropriate use, and that the force had already used the tool to execute a warrant. It also pointed to the Pittsburg G20 and the Vancouver Olympics as examples of other events where the LRAD had been used.

The document explained that in addition to delivering audio recordings the “alert functions can be used if necessary.” It noted that the manufacturer recommends never using it for more than two-to-five seconds. It also explained that in order to use the LRAD, police commanders on the ground would need permission from an off-site Incident Commander.

CCLA’s Deshman said the police and other law enforcement officers have to be “extremely careful” about using new technologies like the LRAD.

“We can’t just take manufacturers’ assertions about when a device is appropriate and when it should be used, because they have an interest in selling the device,” Deshman said. “What we need is our government to strongly and independently test these things.”

While the LRAD was used by Toronto Police to amplify an eviction notice at Occupy Toronto in November 2011, it wasn’t used during the G20 protests, despite the chaos on the streets of Toronto.

The CCLA was still concerned and, after the summit, pressed to have the LRAD

regulated as a weapon. The province undertook a study on the matter and a report was issued in November 2011.
The report was based on a review of literature and field tests of the device. It established the disagreement on whether the LRAD is a weapon but did not take a definitive stance on the matter. It did, however, recommend changes that could be made in how the LRAD is regulated.

The report also noted that police operating the device may also be at risk of ear damage, recommending that operators of the 300X model stand at least two meteres behind the device.

“The report indicated that the existing limits on when LRAD can be used need to be updated,” said Deshman, “so we called on the government to implement that immediately. We haven’t yet received a response.”

In recent years, police forces in Canada have been acquiring another new device, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). These miniature robotic helicopters can fit in the trunk of a car and be flown by remote control to conduct aerial surveillance. They have been deployed to assist in homicide investigations, search and rescue and to view traffic accidents from above.

The RCMP, OPP and several local police forces across Canada have acquired these devices from Canadian companies that manufacture them: Waterloo-based Aeryon and Saskatoon-based DraganFly. In August 2011, the New York Times reported that an Aeryon’s Scout model UAV was donated to Libyan rebels by an anonymous donor.

A more advanced UAV, the Predator Drone, was used by a local sheriff in North Dakota. The aircraft is normally used to patrol the US-Canada border, but in this instance was used to assist the sheriff to spy on a family and their land.

A version of the Predator Drone armed with missiles is used by both the US Air Force and the CIA. These drones are reportedly used to carry out targeted assassinations in countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“We are increasingly seeing police interest in purchasing new technologies, technologies that often have been developed in context such as military use,” said Deshman. “I think this is a trend we will continue to see as technology develops.”

Deshman points to the Taser as an example of a device that was introduced without sufficient regulations or testing. There were 26 taser-related deaths in Canada between 2003 and 2008, including the high-profile death of Robert Dziekanski. National attention on Tasers, particularly after police Tasered and killed Dziekanski at the Vancouver International Airport in 2007, led to deeper scrutiny of the device and its regulation.

Deshman said Canada should learn from this lesson.

“It was probably the worst possible way for them to introduce a new technology,” said Deshman. “What we should be doing is having a lot of public discussion about new technologies, about the benefits and drawbacks.”

Tim Groves is a freelance journalist and investigative researcher based in Toronto.

LRAD - Sonic weapon

RCMP Spied on Protesting First Nations

Miles — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:19:33 +0000

Intelligence unit collaborated with partners in energy and private sector

TORONTO—The federal government created a wide-ranging surveillance network in early 2007 to monitor protests by First Nations, including those that would garner national attention or target “critical infrastructure” like highways, railways and pipelines, according to RCMP documents obtained through access to information requests.

Formed after the Conservatives came to power, the RCMP unit’s mandate was to collect and disseminate intelligence about situations involving First Nations that have “escalated to civil disobedience and unrest in the form of protest actions.”

According to an RCMP slideshow presentation from the spring of 2009, the intelligence unit reported weekly to approximately 450 recipients in law enforcement, government, and unnamed “industry partners” in the energy and private sector.

A RCMP spokesperson said the unit was never considered “permanent” and that last year it was “dismantled as it was determined to be no longer needed by its clients.” But the Mounties can’t say if the work is continuing in the field.

“Since the dismantling of the Aboriginal JIG [Joint Intelligence Group], the work done by the JIG is no longer performed at RCMP HQ Criminal Intelligence [CI]. However, we cannot confirm that RCMP divisions are not performing Aboriginal JIG activities under another name of program.”

An annual Strategic Intelligence Report, dated June 2009, indicates the surveillance at the time focused on eighteen “communities of concern” in five provinces across the country. These included First Nations in Ontario such as Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug (KI), Ardoch, Grassy Narrows, Six Nations and Tyendinaga, which have made headlines over the last few years for road and railway blockades and opposition to mining and logging on their territories.

The report states that the causes of unrest are “common issues” that could “seriously impact” Aboriginal peoples across the country—issues such as poverty, lack of funding for child and family services, and disputes over sovereignty, resource extraction and environmental concerns.

The so-called Aboriginal JIG that gathered the surveillance was run by the RCMP Criminal Intelligence branch and the RCMP’s National Security Criminal Investigations (NSCI), which has teams of officers in strategic locations across the country that deal with “threats to national security and criminal extremism or terrorism.”

It billed itself as a “central repository” of information about First Nations protest activities, assisted by an “extensive network of contacts throughout Canada and internationally” and an undisclosed number of field operatives acting as its “eyes and ears.”

The list of private sector businesses receiving weekly reports was chosen by the RCMP NSCI's Critical Infrastructure program, though the RCMP refused to share any of their names. Businesses also provided the intelligence unit with information about "current criminal threat environment for their facilities," according to the RCMP spokesperson.

Its yearly strategic intelligence report “identifies individuals who are causes of concern to public safety,” but any mentions of individuals were redacted in the copy obtained via access to information.

News of this RCMP surveillance comes on the heels of revelations that the Aboriginal Affairs ministry has spied on Cindy Blackstock, a long-time advocate for aboriginal children. In October it was also revealed that the Canadian military is keeping tabs on Aboriginal organizations. Alongside Aboriginal Affairs’ on-going “hot spots” surveillance, it suggests a massive, coordinated scaling-up of surveillance of Aboriginal peoples by the Harper government.

According to a previously obtained copy of a RCMP presentation to the Aboriginal Affairs Ministry in March 2007, the “vast majority” of the monitored protests and actions are “related to lands and resources,” and “most are incited by development activities on traditional territories” of First Nations.

As Canada has undergone a shift towards a more resource and especially energy based economy, industry has come increasingly into conflict with Aboriginal communities who claim rights over many of the lands exploited for mining, forestry and oil, and often oppose such development for environmental reasons.

The Mining Association of Canada has noted in a publication that “[m]ost mining activity occurs in northern and remote areas of the country, the principal areas of Aboriginal populations.”

The spectre of heightened Aboriginal protest has become a source of anxiety for government and industry.

An RCMP presentation to CSIS from April 2007 states, “There is a growing concern among high-level governmental officials and the policing community about the potential for unrest in Aboriginal communities, and an increasing sense of militancy among certain segments of the Aboriginal population.”

Recent political stand-offs have proved this concern to be prescient.

A high-profile $5.5 billion Enbridge pipeline that would carry tar sands oil to the Pacific through northern British Columbia has hit a wall of Indigenous opposition, whose “constitutional and legal position” former Cabinet minister Jim Prentice has called “very strong.” In the same province, the Tsilhqot’in Nation have to date blocked the controversial New Prosperity gold and copper mine, which would have turned a lake they consider sacred into a tailings dump.

In northern Ontario in 2008, the KI First Nation prevented Platinex from establishing a platinum mine on their traditional territory; Platinex's mining claim was eventually bought out for $5 million by the McGuinty government.

When shown the RCMP documents, KI Chief Donny Morris expressed surprise and said he and his community were "insulted", remarking that there is “nothing extreme” about protecting their territory.

Morris and five of his councillors served more than two months in jail for peacefully blocking Platinex, before an Ontario Court of Appeal released them and directed the provincial government to negotiate with the First Nation.

“Protecting the land is a mandate from the Creator that we must fulfill physically and spiritually,” he said. “There is no reason to make us into criminals just for protecting what we believe in.”

Although the Strategic Intelligence Report’s profile of KI is heavily redacted, as with all the “communities of concern,” it states that KI First Nation “remains committed to ensuring their concerns related to the impacts of mining and forestry are addressed by the Ontario government” and “possible future disputes could result in blockades and demonstrations.”

The Strategic Intelligence Report notes that environmental concerns often spark confrontations with aboriginal communities: “Mining, oil drilling, logging, garbage dumps, construction of dams, highways, and expanding the industries such as the oil sands can produce permanent impacts on the land, resources and people.”

The report makes mention of other legislation and policies that are a source of “unrest,” including the Matrimonial Real Property Initiative currently being legislated by the Conservative government, which it states “will not address the real issues faced by some Aboriginal families.”

“The documents indicate the government is aware of the harmful impacts of their policies and actions,” said Russell Diabo, an independent Aboriginal policy analyst who has seen the RCMP documents. “But when some Aboriginal communities are refusing to accept these policies, the theft of their resources or pollution of their lands, the government [is] criminalizing them rather than resolving the human rights violations which are the root of the protests."

While doing surveillance on selected First Nations, the RCMP unit also assessed the “unique opportunities for civil disobedience” in 2010.

According to the report, the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, Paralympics and torch relays, and the G20 summit in Toronto could be “leveraged by Aboriginal communities and groups who support Aboriginal issues to draw attention to outstanding issues and grievances” and to “garner national and international attention.”

These events, ongoing “unresolved issues in many Aboriginal communities, and the pattern of convergence among activists groups,” contribute to “increased uncertainty and concern” and the “potential for large numbers of protestors attending these major events, and the potential for violence and criminal acts.”

One of the central tasks of the RCMP intelligence unit was to closely monitor protests against “critical infrastructure”—blockades of highways and roads, and demonstrations, protests, or gatherings “concerning energy sector development.”

The 2009 strategic intelligence report states that it assesses acts outside the category of “legitimate dissent.”

In what may be a pitch to the private sector, the RCMP slideshow presentation states that the Aboriginal intelligence unit can "alleviate some of your workload as we can help identify trends and issues that may impact more than one community." It can also "provide information on activist groups who are promoting Aboriginal issues within your area."

“The JIG was an essential tool that helped us gather information to understand if in fact critical infrastructure was at risk in certain areas,” the RCMP spokesperson wrote in an email. “This in turn helps the RCMP attain its goal of safe homes and safe communities, which includes Aboriginal communities.”

The “communities of concern” were chosen based on such potential factors as “militants operating within the community," “threats against critical infrastructure,” “external influences like activists groups, government policies, [and] major events,” and a “history of violence.”

But the documents note that “within the last 12 months, no violent acts” occurred, and that "overall, occupations and protest in Canada associated to Aboriginal communities have experienced low levels of violence."

The yearly report lays out infrastructure in proximity to First Nations by province. Though heavily redacted, it reveals an exhaustive detailing of protests targeting road, railways, and pipelines, classifying them as "incidents."

This includes the targeting of oil sands developments such as the legal challenges of oil sands concessions on their territory undertaken by the First Nations of Fort Chipewyan and the Woodland Cree.

In their report to CSIS, the RCMP acknowledge the risks posed by the targeting of infrastructure, mentioning the Mohawk community of Tyendinaga’s high-profile blockade of the CN rail line between Toronto and Montreal in the spring of 2007: “The recent CN strike represents the extent in [sic] which a national railway blockade could effect the economy of Canada.”

“The federal government is afraid of First Nations disrupting the economy in order to demand their constitutionally-protected rights to lands and resources,” said Diabo. “So when communities take action on the ground, the government is using the RCMP and security agencies politically to control and manage First Nations and ensure they acquiesce to unjust legislation and policies or imposed negotiation process.”

Documents show the Aboriginal JIG and a separate Joint Intelligence Group that was set up for the G8 and G20 summit in Huntsville and Toronto were in contact with each other up into 2010. The G8/G20 JIG, which was recently reported to have placed undercover police officers in activist groups for more than a year, was one of the largest domestic intelligence operations in Canadian history.

“Judging by the intensified surveillance initiated by the Harper government, there is every reason to believe the RCMP is continuing its spying alongside other government departments, likely under another name,” said Diabo.

Martin Lukacs is a writer and activist, and a member of the Dominion editorial collective. Tim Groves is an independent researcher and journalist in Toronto.

The original version of this article appeared in the Toronto Star.

****

The RCMP slide show presentation can also be downloaded here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74793808/Aboriginal-Jig-Ppt

The 2009 Strategic Intelligence Report can also be downloaded here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/74792393/AboriginalJIGreport2009-10

The 18 First Nations identified as "communities in concern" in 2009:
Quebec
- Barriere Lake
- Kahnawake
- Kanesatake
- Litstuguj
Ontario
-Akwasasne
- Grassy Narrow First Nation
- Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug
- Munsee-Deleware NAtion
- Shabit Obaadijwan and Ardock Algoquin First Nation
- Six Nationa of the Grand River
- Tyendinaga
Manitoba
- Peguis First Nation
- Pimicikamak
- Roseau River First Nation
Saskatchewan
- Red Pheasant First Nation
Alberta
- Community of Fort Chipewyan
- Lubicon Lake Indian Nation
- Woodland Cree First Nation

Questions? Comments? Email us at info@mediacoop.ca.

KI Leadership

Infographic: Threatening Ideologies

Moira Peters — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 05:36:25 +0000

tim-infog.11X17.new_.jpg

Tim Groves is an independent researcher and journalist in Toronto.

Questions Persist about Provocateurs at SPP Summit

Moira Peters — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:33:30 +0000

As protester is acquitted of charges from 2007 Montebello protest, questions resurface about police-incited violence

TORONTO—A Quebec court ruling in January 2011 found police acted illegally in trying to shut down a protest in Montebello, Quebec, in 2007, when they arrested two women on a downtown street. This ruling has led to renewed calls for an inquiry into another police action—one now well-known, thanks to Youtube—at that same protest: the alleged use of undercover officers to incite violence.

On August 20, 2007, the heads of state of Canada, Mexico and the US met at a summit in Montebello to discuss the proposed Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an agreement that would have harmonized trade and security measures between the three countries. A protest against the meeting took place throughout the day.

Late in the afternoon, when the number of demonstrators had dwindled, a line of riot police attempted to disperse those who remained on the streets. While most of the protesters were pushed backwards by police, activist Leila Martin and another person sat on the ground, clinging to each other, as the police swept over them. They were arrested for obstructing police, who were carrying out orders to shut down the demonstration.

Martin was offered a discharge if she pleaded guilty to the charge, whereby she would not receive any fine, jail time, or a criminal record. She was advised to take the deal by her court-appointed lawyer. She told him, “I don't actually think I am guilty and I think my freedom of assembly was violated.”

Her lawyer told her that if she pleaded not guilty he would refuse to represent her.

“You won't represent me then,” she told him.

Martin then went about the work of learning how to prepare her own defense, reading all the court cases she could find which involved charter challenges. She made sure that her charter challenge emphasized why she was protesting the SPP.

Martin did most of the research around presenting her case, and eventually acquired a lawyer, Denis Barrette, who helped her finish writing her charter challenge and represented her in court.

Martin told The Dominion that with support, it is possible to prepare one’s own charter challenge. (She said she would encourage anyone in a similar position to write to her, "and I would help them do it.")

When the matter eventually went to court, Judge Lapointe ruled the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had indeed been violated.

“The approach [of the] RCMP against the two women arrested, including the accused, is incomprehensible,” said Quebec Court Judge Real Lapointe in his January ruling, acquitting the charge brought against activist Martin.

“Police decided to end the demonstration. We will not know why. In itself it is surprising, in the presence of a largely peaceful and festive crowd who met...to express opinions and positions. This expression of their deepest beliefs is a right guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country and gives the rally itself a special character and importance.”

The RCMP and Surete du Quebec (SQ—Quebec police) chose not to comment on the ruling.

Judge Lapointe said another factor that supported the argument of the defense was testimony that during the protest police used agents provocateurs—a term used to describe the use of undercover officers to try and provoke activists into committing illegal acts.

Lapointe was referring to an incident earlier in the protest. Dave Coles, President of the Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), confronted three undercover police officers dressed in black and wearing masks over their faces. The officers were posing as Black Bloc, and one of them, who would later be identified as Sergent Jean-Francois Boucher, held a large stone in his hand. The event was caught on video.

“These three guys are cops, everybody; put the rock down, cop,” said Coles on the video. As Coles confronted the three undercover officers, Boucher shoved him. The officers also swore at Coles, and continued to push him and others gathered at the scene.

Coles and others activists, including some dressed in Black Bloc, continued to yell at the undercover officers and tried to remove their masks. Eventually the three jumped into the line of riot police, where they were handcuffed and led away.

“They are trying to create a riot so they can suck us all in to get beat up,” said Coles on the video, which went viral on Youtube and has been watched more than a half-million times.

At first the RCMP and SQ denied allegations that the men were in fact police officers. But three days after the incident, on August 23, 2007, the SQ released a statement explaining the men were indeed undercover members of their force, but denying that the officers had committed an illegal act.

The three officers, Sergeants Boucher, Joey Laflamme and Patrick Tremblay were part of an undercover team code-named “flagrant delit,” which roughly translates to “caught red-handed.” The team’s official role, according to a report by the Quebec Police Ethics Committee, was to “melt into the crowd to identify the perpetrators of crime and stop them.”

“It is wrong for a state to use its own security forces, police, provocateurs, undercover agents, to evoke violence. That's not democratic. We have a voice, we had a right to [speak], and we had a right to assemble,” Coles told The Dominion in a telephone interview.

Coles began asking for a public inquiry into the event. He wanted to know who gave the orders to use agents provocateurs. Instead of being granted an inquiry, the channel offered to him was to bring a complaint before the official body for dealing with police wrongdoing in Quebec, the Police Ethics Committee.

On May 19, 2009, the Commissioner of the Committee dismissed six of the eight complaints brought forward by the CEP. Five months later, on October 19, 2009, the Committee overturned the Commissioner’s ruling and started a new investigation, stating, “If the infiltration of police officers to stop the authors of criminal acts is acceptable, not all acts committed by [police] to this end are legitimate just because the original goal is desirable.”

The Committee released its final report on March 14th, 2011, finding that Boucher had breached the police code of conduct by swearing at and pushing Coles, but dismissed charges of inciting violence and abusing his authority. The charges against the other two officers were all dismissed.

Coles does not think the Committee was asking the right questions. He wanted to know who gave orders for undercover police to incite protesters in Montebello in 2007.

“They were able to box us into a corner,” said Coles about the way his complaint was handled by the Committee. “It was all about the conduct of three policemen rather than who gave the political orders for agent provocateurs to go in and disrupt the assembly.”

Coles said he felt encouraged by Judge Lapointe’s ruling, and he has renewed his call for an inquiry into the actions of police at Montebello—especially the use of agents provocateurs.

“What is happening more and more and more in Canada, as witnessed through the G8/G20, is that the state thinks that if they don't like what you have to say, they will go in and mess it up so that the message isn't clear,” said Coles.

No clear evidence has emerged that agent provocateurs were used at the G20 protests. However, some activists like Coles still have their suspicions.

A week after the G20 protests, on July 2, 2010, Le Devoir, a Quebec daily newspaper, ran a story entitled, “G20: la police aurait utilise des agents provocateurs”—“G20: The police reportedly used agents provocateurs.”

The article refers to a video in which “plainclothes police, disguised as protesters, some armed with batons and sticks, took cover behind a cordon of police. One of them dressed all in black with a hood over his head, as [in the style of] Black Bloc.”

However there is no indication in this video that the alleged plainclothed officers were provoking or inciting activists.

"As far as [using] officers dressed as Black Bloc, I will not say we didn't. I will not speak to our techniques," said Sergeant Michele Paradis, an RCMP spokesperson, when asked about police tactics during the G20. "I won't speak to the manners we will use to keep the community and the [G20] delegates safe."

Meaghan Gray, spokesperson for the Toronto Police Service, had a less ambiguous answer, saying in an email that undercover officers did not dress as Black Bloc.

In response to an access-to-information request on the "use of so-called agent provocateurs or undercover Black Bloc infiltration policies" at the G20, nine pages were released by the RCMP and made available to The Dominion. These documents mostly deal with the structure of undercover operations. In addition to these nine pages, another four pages were redacted in their entirety.

Only one page—a set of media talking points—speaks about agents provocateurs. It reads, “None of the Integrated Security Unit partners use so-called agents provocateurs,” and, “In fact, the role of police is to de-escalate tension and preserve the peace.”

“I don’t believe that. In fact, there is just no evidence that the police were trying to diffuse anything,” said Coles.

Coles said many wrongdoings at the G20 have already been exposed, but he expects many more will be revealed.

“A lot of this stuff is going to be uncovered a lot more [easily] than it was for us at Montebello,” he said. He believes the number of photos and videos taken in Toronto is what will make a difference. “I think social media is going to help us to uncover the facts and force an inquiry.”

His union, the CEP, is one of many groups, including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE), the federal New Democratic Party and Amnesty International, calling for a public inquiry into police actions at the G20.

"The suggestion that police informants may have endorsed or supported the commission of acts of vandalism is particularly concerning," said NUPGE and the CCLA in a recent report on police actions during the G20. They "believe an independent inquiry into this aspect of G20 policing is necessary to investigate the extent of undercover operations and address the limits on what police infiltrators can and cannot do while on assignment."

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher and journalist based in Toronto. He twitters @timymit.

molatov provocateur

Canada, Afghanistan, and Wikileaks

Tim McSorley — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:27:33 +0000

wikileaksweb.jpg

Gaming the Budget

Tim McSorley — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 05:08:41 +0000

Full cost of Olympic security even higher than we thought

TORONTO—The amount the Canadian military spent on its portion of securing the 2010 Vancouver Olympics was more than double the publicly stated cost of $212 million, indicate files obtained by The Dominion.

Initially, the Department of National Defence (DND) only publicly stated the much lower "incremental costs" of its Olympics operation, know as Operation Podium. Incremental costs do not include the salaries and other expenses the military says they would have spent anyways. When taking the “full costs” into account—including salaries for members of the Canadian Armed Forces—the number jumps much higher.

“The number we're going with is $212 million, that's the incremental cost,” said Lieutenant-Colonel John Blakeley. “The incremental costs are the additional costs.” He did not disclose the full cost of Operation Podium during the interview, but according to data on governmental websites, the full costs for Operation Podium reached nearly $470 million.

If the entirety of DND expenses are taken into account, the overall security budget for the Winter Games breaches the $1 billion mark, well above the government's 2002 budget of $175 million. “Incremental costs are basically the costs excluding salaries,” said Steven Staples, a military analyst and president of the Rideau Institute. He explained it is usual for the military to use the incremental cost instead of the full cost when publicly stating budget figures.

“This is an old argument back and forth—should you be using full costs? Should you be using incremental costs? We often use full costs here [at the Rideau Institute] because you can't do missions without people, but the military is trying to diminish the apparent cost. They go with incremental and they say 'well, we would have [to pay] these troops anyway,'” said Staples. “In our work we tend to use both.”

A chart published on the website of the Vice Chief of Defence Staff in March 2010 listed cost estimates for the Canadian Forces operation to secure the Olympics Games. Full DND cost was listed as $471 million in the 2009/10 fiscal year. The chart also listed the publicly stated Incremental DND cost which came to $216 million in the 2009/10 fiscal year.

Blakeley said that if the Canadian Forces were paying soldiers regardless of where they were deployed, their salaries should not be included in the cost of operations.

“I think you do need to look at the full cost,” counters Staples. “Wouldn't it be great if we could buy cars from General Motors and not pay for the labour that was involved in building [them] and only pay for the steel and rubber and plastic? But we don't. We have to pay for the whole cost.”

“Generally if you want to do more military missions, you need to recruit more troops and pay for them. That is a cost associated with doing those missions, and should be included,” said Staples. “Similarly if you weren't doing many missions I don't think you would have these troops hanging around, in fact you would let them go back into the economy just like any major company does.”

The budget for Olympic security released in February 2009 totaled $900 million. This figure only budgeted $212 million for the Department of National Defence. There was no indication that this was only the incremental cost. By including DND full costs the total reaches $1.15 billion.

It has become increasingly difficult for Canadians to keep track of the ever-changing budgets, even four months after the Games.

“I guess I believed that $900 [million] was the full number, but it changed so often I have a hard time being surprised that it's more, which is horrible because we should be outraged and shocked that it went so far over budget and that we can't believe these numbers,” said Myka Tucker-Abramson, a Vancouver resident who opposed the Games.

This revelation comes as questions arise over the cost of securing the three-day G8 and G20 summits in Huntsville and Toronto. The government originally released a $179 million security budget for the two meetings. Known as Operation Cadence, the Canadian Forces operation to secure the summits has an estimated budget of $72 million in incremental costs, as published on the website of the Vice Chief of Defence Staff. In late May the government released a new security figure of $933 million. When the full cost of Operation Cadence is taken into account, as opposed to the incremental costs, this figure is pushed to over a billion dollars.

Following public outcry and pressure from opposition parties over this massive increase, Auditor General Sheila Fraser says she will investigate the G8/G20 budget. No such investigation is being held for the cost of Olympic security.

“It seemed like the budget was limitless, that any Olympic project, be it security or infrastructure, could use as much as it wanted,” remarked Tucker-Abramson. “Given the recent cuts to public education, health centres on the Downtown East Side [of Vancouver] and all the cuts that women's centres and other vital social services have faced due to unavailable funds, the money budgeted for security was shameful.”

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher and journalist based in Toronto.

Olympic budget burning up

Funding Axe Sharpened by Foreign Policy

Moira Peters — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:49:54 +0000

Cuts to NGOs in line with Canada’s stance on Palestine

TORONTO—An internal struggle over funding human rights groups that are critical of Israel was waged behind closed doors at the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, commonly known as Rights and Democracy (R&D).

After a January 7 board meeting, that battle was thrust into the public eye.

A newly appointed member of the board, David Matas, who is also legal counsel for right-wing B'nai B'rith Canada, brought forward a motion to repudiate the funding to one Israeli and two Palestinian human rights groups.

“These organizations were all on the same side: critical of Israel,” he told The Dominion.

Remy Beauregard, President of R&D, had previously supported these grants, but at the meeting he switched his position and the vote passed unanimously, with one abstention.

That night Beauregard died of a heart attack. His widow would blame his death on stress and the “harassment” he suffered at the hands of the board. Four days after his death, nearly the entire staff of the organization wrote a letter demanding that three members of the board resign.

“Your complete misunderstanding of your role as directors of Rights and Democracy makes you unfit to remain on the board of directors," they said. The letter was addressed to the same members of the board who were pushing to have Beauregard removed as president of R&D, and who had written an unfavourable performance review of Beauregard in the Spring of 2009.

While R&D is often perceived as a non-governmental organization (NGO), the federal government funds the group and makes appointments to the Board of Directors. In November, the feds appointed Matas and Michael Van Pelt to the board. This shifted the composition of the board, weighting it in opposition of R&D’s funding to groups in Israel and Palestine.

Warren Allmand, a former president of R&D, believes the Conservatives were stacking the board.

“If you want to effect that kind of change at a place like Rights and Democracy, you look for people who have that point of view. You don't give them instructions; you know what they stand for already,” he said.

The January 7 board meeting was the first since the new government appointments. Different versions of what happened at the meeting emerged: Canadian Press called the meeting “vitriolic,” while Matas, who was at the meeting, called it “calm, polite [and] orderly,” noting the only thing that was “unusual was that two [board members] quit and walked out. ”

Matas said he believes when Beauregard voted in favour of repudiating the grants to the three human rights groups he had genuinely changed his mind.

“When Beauregard went to bed the night, he died with the realization that those three grants which he had spent so much time and effort defending...were wrongly made.” He also suggested a more cynical explanation might be that “Beauregard changed his views because of the shifting composition and majority in the board.”

R&D received over $11 million from the federal government in 2009, and spends millions of dollars on grants and overseas charitable programs. The three grants at the centre of the controversy were for $10,000 each to B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group with programs in Occupied Palestinian Terriories, and to Palestinian human rights groups Al Haq, based in the West Bank, and Al Mezan, based in Gaza. These groups all write reports on human rights abuses in Israel and Palestine. B'Tselem recently won an award for its program to facilitate citizen journalism by providing video cameras for Palestinians to document rights abuses and post those videos on YouTube.

All three groups have been criticized by NGO Monitor, an organization whose purpose is to expose the “anti-Israel agendas” of other NGOs. It was originally a joint project of B’nai B'rith International and the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, but Monitor is now an independent NGO.

The repudiation of the three grants took place in the context of a series of events since the Gaza War, a conflict which began in December 2008 and lasted three weeks. During that time, over 1,000 rockets were fired into Israel and numerous airstrikes, missiles and ground troops attacked the Gaza Strip. All sides agree that 13 Israelis and over 1,000 Palestinians died.

After a ceasefire, many groups believed Gaza was suffering a humanitarian crisis. In February 2009, R&D approved the grants to B'Tselem, Al Haq, and Al Mezan. Allmand claims that before dispersing these funds the staff at R&D checked and found the groups “had also received money over the last few years from CIDA [the Canadian International Development Agency] and the Department of Foreign Affairs.”

The United Nations launched a fact-finding mission on the conflict in Gaza in April 2009, and in September it released the Goldstone Report. Human rights groups had contributed much testimony to the report, which accused Israel of war crimes.

NGO Monitor was one of many groups that criticized the report for relying on the testimony from NGOs they consider biased against Israel. Im Tirtzu, an Israeli ultra-nationalist group, recently placed a controversial ad in the Jerusalem Post which targeted the New Israel Fund (NIF), a group that fundraises in the West for human rights groups operating inside Israel, including B'Tselem.

The Israeli government is also cracking down on human rights groups. The Israeli newspaper Haartz reported in January that the Interior Ministry has stopped issuing work visas to foreign nationals who work in NGOs.

In an August 2009 story in US magazine Counterpunch, Jonathan Cook wrote, “Israel's foreign ministry...has issued instructions to all its embassies abroad to question their host governments about whether they fund such activities.”

The Israeli Embassy in Canada refused to comment on this statement.

Other shifts in the funding of Canadian NGOs have taken place. Alternatives—a left-leaning NGO based in Montreal—and KAIROS—a church-based NGO that promotes social justice—have not had their CIDA funding renewed. While Minister of International Cooperation Bev Oda claimed the groups did not meet CIDA's new priorities, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney had a different explanation.

On a trip to Israel in December he explained how the Canadian government was combating anti-Semitism.

“We have defunded organizations, most recently KAIROS, who have been taking a leading role in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions [BDS] Campaign.”

Mary Corkery, Executive Director of KAIROS, said KAIROS is not a leader of the BDS Campaign, and that the group's stance supports some ideas behind the campaign and not others.

“It needs to be taken back,” she said, referring to Kenney's remarks. “The real issue for us is that he said the way he is combating anti-Semitism is by cutting our funding.” KAIROS has asked Kenney for a retraction of his statements. So far none has been made.

“In conversations that we have had with other NGOs it has of course created a chill,” said Corkery. “There is fear of being in support of Palestinian people and groups, who essentially are struggling for land and livelihood.”

Asked which groups were feeling this pressure, she responded, “The chill is such that people don't want to be named.”

“The policy of the Canadian government in terms of Israel and Palestine has changed but there hasn't been a public discussion about that,” said Corkery, referring to the strong pro-Israel stances the Harper government has taken since being elected.

“That has definitely affected [R&D],” she said.

While the controversy at R&D swirls around funding to groups in the Middle East, it remains unclear if this signals an attempt by the Canadian government to align all international NGO funding with government policy.

“I think they are quite open about that; my understanding is that the government wants to align volunteer sector aid ... [with] defence and trade,” said Corkery.

Solidarity activists in Haiti have already seen R&D as advancing Canadian foreign policy agendas. R&D supported and legitimized the 2004 coup that overthrew Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. However, activists in solidarity with Colombia have noted R&D supports groups that denounce both President Uribe and the proposed Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Matas said he believes the dispute at R&D is specifically about the group's role in the Middle East. “Elsewhere in the world I can't see any change as a result of this controversy. ”

However, with respect to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon—which were led by foreign-funded NGOs—he acknowledged the political objectives of R&D.

“The notion that Canada might be seen to be independent of NGOs it finances through an arm's length organization has become illusory in light of the heightened suspicion of that sort of funding. The political objective of appearance of non-interference intended by the arm's length relationship is no longer attainable through a structure like Rights and Democracy,” he said.

Allmand sees the dispute at R&D as part of the Conservative Government's broader approach.

“Either by refusing or cutting funding, stacking boards, or refusing to cooperate, they’re cutting back on organizations that are supposed to be arm's length,” he said. “They're using these oganizations in partisan ways.”

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher and journalist based in Toronto.

Carmelle Wolfson provided files for this story. Wolfson is a Canadian journalist based in Israel/Palestine and an editor at The Daily Nuisance.

Funding Axe

Low-balling Security

Moira Peters — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:57:31 +0000

Toronto's Pan Am budget likely to inflate, Olympics-wise

TORONTO—While most pundits have championed Toronto’s successful bid for the 2015 Pan Am Games, critics are asking what the true cost of the Games will be. Escalating costs of security are among their main concerns.

The Pan American Games is a multi-sport event in which only countries from the Americas compete. In November 2009, the 2015 Games were awarded to Toronto and 16 surrounding municipalities, including Hamilton, St. Catharines, Oshawa and Mississauga.

“It is going to be an incredibly good event for the city and the region,” says Jagoda Pike, President of the Toronto Bid Committee. “This is second in size only to the Summer Olympics. The Winter Olympics are actually a smaller event.”

This is not good news to everyone. “You can expect to see more homelessness; you can expect to see people displaced,” says Christopher Shaw, author of the book Five Ring Circus, which documents the social and economic impacts of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver.

“They’re going to start ramping up their security apparatus.”

The current budget for the Pan Am Games calls for $1.4 billion, plus an additional billion to pay for the Athletes’ Village. “For sure the number is vastly higher; they just don't want to tell people that,” says Shaw.

He points to the Vancouver Olympics as an example of a similar sporting event whose budget has vastly expanded. The original budget for the Vancouver Games was $660 million, but that number has since escalated to $6 billion. If the budget for the Pan Am Games were to similarly escalate, the Ontario Government has agreed to cover additional costs.

Toronto's Bid Book reveals some details of the security plan for 2015:

• Security will be directed by an Integrated Security Unit (ISU), led by the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), incorporating at least nine other police forces, including the RCMP and Toronto Police;

• A Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) will be established to “proactively detect and prevent criminal activity, including acts of terrorism and violent or destructive activist behaviour;”

• 2,000 security volunteers will be recruited;

• “State-of-the-art security and monitoring technology” will be acquired to “protect Games venues, participants and spectators;”

• “Approximately 1,000 highly-trained professional police and law enforcement [officers]” will be deployed at “peak days during the 2015 Games,” as well as “1,500 private security personnel.” The Bid Book also states, “While not anticipated, resources from the Canadian Forces could be utilized if necessary.”

“They are hallucinating; they are lying to you through their teeth,” said Shaw upon hearing the number of officers to be deployed. He compares these figures to the 15,000 police officers, military and private security being deployed to the Vancouver Olympics, questioning why a similar event would require much less security.

“It is a different kind of an event,” says Pike. “You don't get the same level of participation from heads of state, so you don't end up with the complexity and the cost of securing for that kind of attendance.”

Pike said she could not comment on the details of the security measures, and referred all questions to the OPP. The OPP did not respond to a request to be interviewed for this story.

The initial price tag on security in Vancouver was $175 million, but by current estimates that will increase to over $900 million. Shaw believes the cost of security for the Pan Am Games will similarly escalate.

Pike also refused to disclose the cost of securing the Games, saying, “It is a confidential number.”

However, she did confirm the cost of security was within the $1.4 billion budget. While The Dominion was unable to determine the exact cost of security in the Pan Am budget, most security expenses will be paid for from the $167 million allocated to Essential Services. Private security will be paid for from the $55.7 million allocated for Games services. These figures do not include the money being spent on “monitoring technology,” which will likely be part of the $707 million being spent on capital expenditures.

“This is great news,” said a post on the blog Private Security Guy. “The guarding industry is not the only sector that will benefit from the [Toronto] hosting win. Security integrators and monitoring companies in the region should find a healthy increase in RFP's [contracts to bid on] as the Games approach.”

“I think engaging in any event that has benefits will at the same time have some cost. That is always the case; nothing comes without a price,” says Pike. “However, within my view, an event of this kind ... is going to be an incredibly good event for the city.”

“The city will very rapidly get itself in a deficit position as things get more costly and/or fail,” says Shaw. “These things tend to widely escalate—not because suddenly it becomes more expensive but because they low-ball the numbers in the first place.”

Tim Groves is an investigative researcher based in Toronto.

security pan am

The Business of Intelligence

dawn — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:43:15 +0000

Corporate intelligence-gathering harkens back to COINTELPRO

TORONTO—In the US, a new model of law enforcement has emerged in which police, military, security contractors and large corporations are collaborating on intelligence gathering. Are the 2010 Olympics ushering this new paradigm into Canada?

The security committee for the 2010 Olympics Task Force, based in Washington State, is at the forefront of planning US security efforts for the games. According to The Globe and Mail this group brings together government agencies from both sides of the border, more than 100 from the US and 17 from Canada.

Documents acquired by The Dominion reveal that this committee consists of not only the US Military, Canadian Forces, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but also “Pacific Northwest Private Sector Company Volunteers.” The amount the US will spend on Olympic security has not been disclosed.

“The safety and security of the 2010 Olympics and the United States is at risk if we do not take direct action,” testified Jeffery Slotnick, a member of the committee, at a Congressional hearing on Olympics security in March 2008.

Video of the hearing showed Slotnick wearing a dark blue suit and glasses. His bald head and black moustache hinted at the decades he spent in the military. He is president of Setracon Inc., a Tacoma, Washington-based company that contracts out security personnel and trains private security, military and police.

Slotnick explained some of the reasons the US should be involved in Olympic security, including the potential for attacks or natural disasters that could impact US businesses and have significant economic costs to the region. He called for increased funding to prepare for securing the games, plans to expedite border crossings, and a greater role for the private sector in information sharing.

“[The] private sector has tremendous awareness of what is going on... the opportunity to share in both directions is key and critical,” said Slotnick, emphasizing the need for corporate involvement in intelligence gathering for the Vancouver Olympics.

“Boeing, Microsoft, [and] Starbucks ... possess significant intelligence assets. In many cases, individuals from these organizations have higher security clearances than law enforcement officials. It would be unfortunate not to capitalize on these assets...”

It is perhaps not surprising that Boeing, a defence contractor, and Microsoft, a computer technology corporation, have large intelligence and security operations. Starbucks, on the other hand, runs a global chain of coffee shops. Yet they too have a program to identify and mitigate risks to the company.

During a 2007 security conference in Colorado Springs, Starbucks revealed part of their security operation includes monitoring retail stores, roasting plants and container loading sites from a “central security facility.” Press releases from the Industrial Workers of the World, the union representing some Starbucks workers, claim the company conducts surveillance of union activities.

“Are we trying to deputize every private company to be minor league James Bonds against citizens of our own countries?” asked Mike German, reached by phone from Washington, DC.

German is a former FBI agent who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “From a security perspective this is a nightmare; I mean, you are actually giving private companies, who operate on profit margins, access to extremely valuable information.”

“I am sure the data [US] companies collect on Canadian citizens is routinely shared with their headquarters in the United States,” he said. “Is consumer information being collected in Canada that is shared across the border and [then] being brought back to [Canadian] law enforcement in violation of privacy regulations? If the answer is 'we don't know', that's a problem, and if the answer is 'we don't think so', that is still a problem. Because nobody is overseeing these intelligence activities it makes it very difficult to know the extent of the abuse.”

When asked about their involvement in 2010 security, Starbucks responded with a statement reading “...we cannot discuss specific security measures Starbucks is taking for the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games.” They explained that they are prioritizing “the safety and security of our [employees] and customers,” and are “working with and will rely on the direction of local authorities and other official sources.”

Boeing and Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.

The efforts to integrate multinational corporations into Olympic security have broad implications. The US has done much to involve the private sector in their security infrastructure. Washington State is at the forefront of blurring the lines between private and public security.

Slotnick informed the Congressional hearing that a “fusion centre” called the Washington Joint Analytical Center plays a role in coordinating intelligence with Canadian authorities. This organization has since been renamed the Washington State Fusion Center (WSFC).

Fusion centres emerged after September 11, 2001, as places for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, military, local and state police, and in some cases private sector companies, to jointly gather and respond to intelligence on terrorism and other criminal activities. Currently over 40 fusion centres exist in the US.

While fusion centres are generally not well known, criticism of them has started to emerge.

An ACLU report entitled What's Wrong with Fusion Centers? compares them to COINTELPRO, a controversial domestic intelligence program run by the FBI between 1956 and 1971.

The report outlines problems with fusion centres including: excessive secrecy, military involvement in law enforcement, corporations sharing private information on their customers and employees, and “policy shopping.”

Policy shopping is the practice of manipulating the differences between laws regulating various agencies and jurisdictions, in order to find loopholes in privacy legislation.

According to an article by the Center for Investigative Reporting, at the 2008 Republican National Convention a Minnesota fusion centre undertook data mining on protesters and requested their police partners conduct preemptive intelligence gathering.

Police then infiltrated groups, tapped information exchanges and conducted questionable searches. To justify these activities, some protesters were equated with terrorists.

The private sector is involved in the WSFC. Internal documents made available through Wikileaks show several of their intelligence analysts are contracted from security firms.

An article published at securitymanagement.com said the head of WSFC was "'adamant' about getting Washington State’s major private sector entities involved." It also revealed that Alaska Airlines, Amazon.com and Starbucks have shown interest in working with WSFC and that efforts have been made to give Boeing clearance to place a full-time analyst inside the organization.

A 2007 Washington State Preparedness Report revealed that the WSFC “...is integrated into the planning and intelligence gathering structure pertaining to... the 2010 Winter Olympics.” However, this is not the only area where the WSFC is involved in Canadian security matters.

WSFC plays a role in the Northwest Warning Alert and Response Network (NWWARN), a “regional information fusion centre” which shares intelligence between the public and private sectors, and rapidly disseminates alerts during disasters.

NWWARN originally operated exclusively in Washington State. The Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) was instrumental in expanding NWWARN into BC, Alberta, the Yukon and Saskatchewan in Canada, and Oregon, Montana, Idaho and Alaska in the US. PNWER is a forum that brings together business leaders and elected officials from these western provinces and states to impact policy decisions. Atlantica is a similar organization on the east coast, and there is talk of creating such organizations all along the Canada-US border.

These “cross-border regions” build upon free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, finding ways to harmonize policies to fit the needs of business interests without high profile changes to treaties.

NWWARN's benevolent-sounding mission to rapidly disseminate information during disasters is giving the private sector a growing role in policing, not only in the US but also in Canada. This permanent intelligence network works in a wide range of areas, but in his testimony Slotnick explained it would play an important role in Olympics intelligence gathering.

Canada has welcomed US involvement in Olympic security. In practical terms, this seems to include preemptive intelligence gathering. It is unclear to what extent multinational corporations will be involved in this, but it is undeniable that the Olympics are seeing an increased use of the fusion centre model of law enforcement in Canada.

“Obviously the Olympics are political," said German. "You have to expect that people are going to want to engage in the debate and discuss the issues that are important to them, and to treat those people as if they are criminals or terrorists is inappropriate.”

Tim Groves is a Toronto-based investigative researcher and trainer.