The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has acknowledged that its historical investigations of Indigenous individuals have contributed to a persistent atmosphere of distrust. However, officials within the agency assert that efforts are being made to rectify past mistakes.
During a recent meeting with CBC Indigenous at the agency’s Ottawa headquarters, two CSIS representatives, who requested anonymity, emphasized the shift away from the previous “Native extremism” program. This program, which labeled Indigenous activists as domestic extremists and potential terrorists during widespread investigations in the 1990s, is no longer reflective of the current operational approach, according to the officials.
Declassified documents have revealed the extent of intrusive surveillance conducted on Indigenous communities between 1988 and 1999, including involvement in the Ipperwash and Gustafsen Lake standoffs in 1995. The agency’s use of various sources and police connections during this period has been criticized by academic experts as excessive and biased.
CSIS officials highlighted a new strategy aimed at rebuilding trust and collaborating with Indigenous organizations such as the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. The agency’s outreach initiatives, particularly in the Arctic region amidst concerns of foreign interference, signify a departure from previous intelligence-focused approaches.
Despite these efforts, the response to CSIS’s outreach has been lukewarm, particularly among First Nations groups where building trust remains a challenge. Activist Katsi’tsakwas Ellen Gabriel expressed skepticism about the agency’s ability to truly reform, citing past surveillance and labeling of Indigenous individuals as evidence of ongoing distrust towards CSIS.
CSIS officials emphasized a desire for partnership with Indigenous organizations, stressing that national security concerns are no longer solely within the domain of government entities. However, concerns persist about the efficacy of engaging with national advocacy groups rather than grassroots activists who are directly impacted by security measures.
The shift in CSIS’s approach is attributed to various factors over the past decade, including governmental reconciliation efforts, significant events like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and societal reckonings with racism. Legislative actions, such as the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, have been highlighted by CSIS as progressive steps towards accountability.
Despite these developments, Gabriel pointed out the absence of formal apologies, voluntary transparency, and guarantees against potential regression into past practices. She maintains that CSIS’s actions remain unacceptable and unresolved, with no acknowledgment of the harm caused by past surveillance and stigmatization of Indigenous communities.