4. EXPERIENCIA EN LA COMPAÑÍA “DANZA Y DISCAPACIDAD”
4.2. Influencia de la danza en el desarrollo de los alumnos
4.2.2. Aspectos Cognitivos
general (the second most powerful law enforcement offi- cer in the country) and the SIRC. The SIRC is composed of five people who are selected following consultations with the prime minister and the leaders of all the qualified opposition parties in the House of Commons. The SIRC also conducts a review of CSIS activities and operations each year and reports its finding to the ministers of de- fense and foreign affairs, and to Parliament. By reporting to Parliament, the fullest public disclosure of the SIRC reports are ensured.
A caveat to the full and open disclosure of informa- tion, however, is the denial of cabinet documents to both the inspector general and the SIRC. Thus, some informa- tion about CSIS operations is kept secret.
The covert nature of some of Canada’s intelligence and security network has been contentious from the es- tablishment of CSIS. Much of the debate surrounding the formation of CSIS centered on its mandate. The idea that the country’s security force would have full authorization to deal with “subversion” and “foreign influenced activi- ties” struck some critics as too broad and hazy a frame of reference. Civil libertarians, in particular, argued that the lack of precision in the mandate could allow CSIS to legally infringe on the civil right of Canadians.
The regulatory and monitoring processes seek to minimize these civil rights issues. In response to a legal challenge, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled in 1987 that the Canadian Security Intelligence Act does not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The powers of CSIS.
The security and intelligence functions of CSIS apply only within the borders of Canada. Foreign intelligence, including offensive operations in other coun- tries, is not part of the mandate of CSIS.The federal government guides the powers that CSIS wields. Thus, the direction of the agency can change. This has occurred as the global tensions between the Eastern Europe and the West have declined, and as terrorists operations have escalated. CSIS is now concerned prima- rily with preserving the national security from disruption from within the country than from beyond Canada’s bor- ders. Operationally, the solicitor general, a member of the governing party who is the overseer of CSIS, provides government direction.
Intelligence information is gathered from a wide va- riety of sources, both public and privileged. Public sources include newspapers, trade journals, periodicals, academic journals, radio and television broadcasts in Canada and abroad, and via official government documents. Privileged sources include the interception of telecommu- nications.
The information that is collected is analyzed by the field staff who collect it and by personnel at CSIS head- quarters. The information can be combined with other information to provide a national picture of the signifi- cance of the suspected security threat. The final step is the
release of the analysis to the concerned government departments.
One of the main analysis reports is known as a threat assessment. Different departments use the threat assess- ment to determine responses. For example, the RCMP can use a threat assessment to gauge the degree of security provided to a visiting dignitaries and to prominent Canadi- ans traveling abroad. As another example, the Depart- ment of Foreign Affairs and International Trade will use a threat assessment report to provide the proper security to Canadian business and governmental missions in foreign countries. Transport Canada also uses the assessment to issue warnings to the general public about travel.
As of late 2003, the primary role of CSIS is the safety of Canadians from security threats. This includes terrorist activity. As such, much of the information that CSIS col- lects on terrorist activities is shared with security and enforcement agencies in other countries including the United States.
❚
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G :
BOOKS:
Cleroux, Richard. Official Secrets: The Story behind the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.Toronto: McGraw- Hill Ryerson,1990.
Hewitt, Steven. Spying 101: The RCMP’s Secret Activities at Canadian Universities.Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2002.
Starnes, John. Closely Guarded: A Life in Canadian Secu-
rity and Intelligence.Toronto: University of Toronto
Press,2001.
PERIODICALS:
Farson, S.A. “Is Canadian Intelligence Being Re-Invented?”
Canadian Foreign Policy no. 6 (1999): 49–83.
ELECTRONIC:
Canadian Security Intelligence Service. “A Historical Per- spective on CSIS.” Government of Canada. Novem- ber 01, 2001. <http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/backgrnd/ back5_e.html> (06 December 2002).
Library of Parliament. “The Canadian Security Intelligence Service.” Parliamentary Research Branch. January 24, 2000. <http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/ PRBpubs/8427-e.htm> (06 December 2002).
Canine Substance Detection
❚ J U D Y T H S A S S O O N
Canine substance detection involves the use of specially trained dogs, commonly golden or Labrador retrievers, for the detection of illegal substances. Dogs of this kind are now being used in various different situations, such as
Canine Substance Detection
John Long and his bomb-sniffing dog Coby check luggage as they go through a drill at Lackland Air Force base in San Antonio, Texas, in February 2002. AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS.
workplaces, airports and schools, to detect weapons, con- traband, narcotic drugs, abused medication, alcohol, fire- arms and explosives. The necessity for this is due, in part, to the increasing incidents of drug abuse and violence among young people and employees, along with a grow- ing need for increased security in schools and workplaces. Many schools and employers in the United States are now engaging “sniffer dogs” to improve safety and assist in the prevention of drug abuse. Supporters of this policy argue that the presence of these dogs, even if they do not immediately turn up illegal substances, provides a power- ful deterrent. There are also, however, a number of school principals and employers who are concerned about this method because they anticipate that the seizure of illegal substances would reflect badly on their institutions and companies. Nevertheless, the reality is that today narcotic drugs, alcohol, and weapons are discovered in schools and in addition account for an astonishing 70 percent of injuries at work.
Dogs trained to detect the scent of illegal substances are useful as they can utilize their acute sense of smell to penetrate many hiding places which are inaccessible to
other detection methods. A dog has about 200 million sensitive cells in its nose, compared to about five million or so in a human being, and therefore, a dog’s olfactory system is around 40 times more sensitive than that of a human. A dog’s sense of smell is made even keener by an organ in the roof of the mouth that is not found in the human olfactory system and this enables it to “taste” a smell, amplifying a weak smell into a stronger one. This sensitivity to, for example, the odor of butyric acid emitted in sweat, enables a dog to locate an object, such as a ball, belonging to its owner from several similar objects thrown by a number of different people. It also enables tracking dogs such as bloodhounds to pursue and keep pace with a fugitive for up to 100 miles. Dogs also have the ability to distinguish individual odors when other strong smells are also present. They can be trained to detect the odors of heroin, marijuana and cocaine hidden in suitcases even in the presence of strong smelling perfumes. Drug traffickers are constantly attempting to find more sophisticated ways of smuggling illegal drugs and the scenting abilities of sniffer dogs often provide the only means of locating well- hidden narcotics. Canine drug detectors have proved so