Should Canada build a human-focused, foreign intelligence service?

Should Canada build a spy service to gather foreign intelligence via human sources?

It’s a question worth asking as the country faces an increasingly unstable relationship with its next-door neighbour, from which Canada has long relied upon to glean key intelligence.

Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst for the federal government, says it’s “something we should consider,” or at least have a debate on — and she’s not alone in advocating for Canada to assess how it can boost its foreign-intelligence efforts.

Yet developing such a service would require significant resources and political buy-in to move forward.

“This is not something you do willy-nilly,” said Carvin, an associate professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.

Why would we want this?

Given the unpredictability of U.S. President Donald Trump’s intentions toward Canada, it’s fair to be concerned about the impact that could have on the information Washington shares with Ottawa.

Separate from that, any foreign intelligence gathered by other parties won’t have necessarily been done so with Canada’s interests in mind. 

So, there are already limits to what Canada has direct control over when it comes to foreign intelligence. 

Doesn’t Canada gather intelligence?

Yes, but not necessarily in the way that a dedicated, human foreign-intelligence service could.

The existing Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) gathers intelligence, but its efforts are geared toward security threats that Canada is facing. The Canadian military, likewise, gathers intelligence on defence-related threats.

There’s also the Communications Security Establishment (CSE), the country’s cyber-intelligence agency, which collects foreign intelligence but through electronic means, rather than human sources.

Foreign Affairs Canada has a small program known as the Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP), which involves diplomats gathering information, but overtly so. It is a relatively small program, involving roughly 30 people. It is not an intelligence agency.

What about the Five Eyes?

Canada has been part of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network — along with the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand — for decades.

It’s been a beneficial arrangement for these members — Canada included.

“We consume more intel than we produce,” said Phil Gurski, a former CSIS and CSE analyst.

Yet the Financial Times reported in February that Peter Navarro, a senior Trump adviser, floated the idea of kicking Canada out of the network — though he later denied the allegation.

“We would never, ever jeopardize our national security — ever — with allies like Canada,” Navarro told reporters.

The story nonetheless raised concerns that the Americans’ willingness to share vital information could be less guaranteed in future — though some say it’s unlikely that Canada could be booted from the Five Eyes.

Former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis said the sharing of intel among the Five Eyes is typically driven by “interests and operational exchanges,” with the U.S. and Canada having more strongly overlapping concerns on certain issues, like common threats on the border.

“The United States can’t really kick us out,” she told CBC Radio’s The Current last month, noting that doing so would be detrimental to the wider group.

While Gurski concurs there’s “no mechanism” to remove a Five Eyes partner, he acknowledges that if Canada lost access, “we’d have to fill that gap somehow.”

Do our allies do this?

Yes, and as Gurski points out, Canada is the only member of the Five Eyes without a human foreign-intelligence service.

The United Kingdom’s Secret intelligence Service, also known as MI6, has operated for more than a century.

In the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, came into being after the Second World War.

Down Under, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS) has been “quietly protecting Australia and its way of life” since 1952. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), which has both a national security and foreign intelligence role, was established a few years later.

Both Germany and France have their own foreign intelligence services, while the European Union has been urged to create its own.

Has this idea come up before?

Yes, but it has never taken root.

“This is an issue that comes up every 10 years or so,” said Carvin.

The Conservatives, for instance, proposed developing such a service as part of their election platform in 2006.

But the proposed Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency never came to be after they won that election and Stephen Harper became prime minister, nor during his party’s subsequent two mandates. 

No such service was developed under former prime minister Justin Trudeau either. In 2023, his then-national security adviser Jody Thomas said it was “not on the policy agenda” at the time.

Wouldn’t this be hard to do?

It would likely take years to bring into existence, given the tasks of setting up a legal framework for it, building an organization from scratch and training up the spies that would serve.

In 2006, former CSIS director Reid Morden estimated it would take roughly 10 years to get enough staff trained to meet the needs of such a service. And he put the price tag, at that time, in the neighbourhood of $200 million.

Gurski and Carvin both agree it wouldn’t happen quickly.

“Creating one from scratch is simply a non-starter,” said Gurski, “because it would take so long” to achieve.

Are there other options?

Gurski says he thinks so — and to him, the answer is expanding CSIS’s reach outside Canada’s borders via legislation.

It would also mean turning CSIS into an organization that would do both foreign and security intelligence. Gurski points out there are other organizations in the world that do both, with New Zealand’s NZSIS being one example. The Netherlands also has a dual service.

CSIS would need more resources, as a result, he says.

Carvin, similarly, says he believes that Canada can do more with the tools it has in place now.

Is there political will?

CBC News asked five major political parties whether they would support Canada developing its own human foreign-intelligence service.

The Bloc Québécois said the concept is worthy of study, though it could not say if such a step would be necessary. It suggested that Canada could look to deepening its partnerships with France and other allies that are not part of the Five Eyes. 

The party also raised the point that espionage carries various risks, including damaging relations with other countries.

Green Party Co-Leader Elizabeth May said the party does not support launching a new service, saying that our “existing intelligence gathering apparatus” and our diplomatic links are sufficient. But the party says it is critical to maintain the Five Eyes partnership “despite the recent threats from the American president.”

NDP spokesperson Anne McGrath said Canada “must have the tools it needs to defend ourselves,” voicing support for the work that CSIS does today.

“CSIS and its mandate are in place to keep Canadians safe from international threats, including foreign interference in our democracy,” McGrath said in a statement. “New Democrats also support a stronger foreign service, which will build Canada’s connections and awareness to issues around the world.”

The Conservative party did not respond to emailed questions about the issue of a human foreign-intelligence service.

The Liberals did not return a comment either, though Liberal Leader Mark Carney recently said “we have to look out for ourselves,” amid the shifting security priorities of the neighbouring U.S.