The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) acknowledges that its past investigations of Indigenous individuals have led to enduring mistrust, but the agency is committed to reforming its practices. Two CSIS officials recently emphasized during a meeting with CBC Indigenous that the organization has moved away from its previous “Native extremism” program, which wrongly labeled Indigenous activists as domestic extremists and potential terrorists in extensive nationwide probes in the 1990s.
Declassified documents have revealed the extensive surveillance program targeting Indigenous communities between 1988 and 1999, including involvement in the Ipperwash and Gustafsen Lake standoffs in 1995. The program, criticized by academic analysts for being overreaching and biased, involved a network of sources and police connections.
CSIS officials highlighted a new collaborative approach, focusing on rebuilding trust with Indigenous organizations like the Assembly of First Nations and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. This initiative, launched in 2022 with outreach to Inuit leaders amid concerns of foreign interference in the North, marks a shift from previous intelligence-gathering tactics to information sharing.
However, the reception to these efforts has been lukewarm, particularly among First Nations groups, where trust remains a significant issue. Activist Katsi’tsakwas Ellen Gabriel remains skeptical of CSIS’s commitment to change, citing historical surveillance and interference in Indigenous affairs. She questions the agency’s motivation for engaging with national advocacy organizations rather than grassroots activists.
CSIS officials attribute this shift in approach to various factors over the past decade, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s reconciliation agenda, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and societal reckonings with racism following events like the murder of George Floyd and the discovery of unmarked graves at residential schools. They also emphasized CSIS’s alignment with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, positioning the agency as a global leader in progressive intelligence policies.
Despite these steps, Gabriel insists that CSIS has not taken full responsibility for its past actions, lacking apologies, transparency, and guarantees against regression into old practices. She maintains a stance of mistrust towards CSIS, emphasizing the agency’s historical violations of privacy and wrongful criminalization of Indigenous communities.
