Should Canada build a spy service to collect foreign intelligence about human sources?
It is a question that it is worth being asked, since the country is exposed to an increasingly unstable relationship with its neighbor from the neighbor, from which Canada has long rely on finding the most important intelligence.
Stephanie Carvin, a former national security analyst of the Federal Government, says that it is “something that we should consider” or at least lead a debate about it-and she is not alone to stand up for Canada to assess how his efforts in foreign intelligence can increase.
However, the development of such a service would require considerable resources and political buy-in to advance.
“This is not something you don’t do,” said Carvin, Associate Professor of International Affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa.
Why should we want that?
In view of the unpredictability of the intentions of US President Donald Trump towards Canada, it is fair to be concerned about the effects on the information on the information that Washington could share with Ottawa.
Apart from the fact that all foreign intelligence collected by other parties did not necessarily happen with the Canadian interest.
So there are already limits for what Canada has direct control in relation to foreign secret services.
Doesn’t Canada intelligence gather?
Yes, but not necessarily like a committed, human foreign intelligence service.
The existing Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) gathers intelligence, but its efforts are geared towards safety threats that Kanada is confronted with. The Canadian military also collects the secret services in terms of defense threats.
There is also the communication security company (CSE), the country’s cyber intelligence agency, which collects foreign intelligence, but more on electronic means than by human sources.
Foreign Affairs Canada has a small program known as Global Security Reporting Program (GSRP), which includes diplomats, but openly collect information. It is a relatively small program in which around 30 people are involved. It is not a secret service agency.
What about the five eyes?
Canada has been part of the Five Eyes Intelligence-Sharing network together with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand for decades.
It was an advantageous agreement for these members – enclosed Canada.
“We consume more Intel than we produce,” said Phil Gurski, former CSIS and CSE analyst.
But in February, the Financial Times reported that Peter Navarro, a high -ranking consultant of Trump, put the idea of getting Canada out of the network – although he later made the claim.
“We would never endanger our national security with allies like Canada,” Navarro told reporters.
The story nevertheless expressed concerns that the willingness of the Americans to share important information could be guaranteed less in the future – although some say that it is unlikely that Canada could be booted out of the five eyes.
The current one23:05Could the United States push Canada from the five -eye spy network?
The White House has denied reports that the United States is trying to throw Canada out of the five eyes, the spy alcohol, which both countries share with Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand. We look at the critical role that the USA play in global intelligence and whether it is still a reliable partner.
Former CSIS analyst Jessica Davis said that the parts of Intel are typically driven by “interests and operational stock exchanges” under the five eyes, with the USA and Canada having more overlaps about certain topics such as common threats to the border.
“The United States can’t really throw us out,” she told CBC Radio, The current one Last month it would be disadvantageous for the wider group.
While Gurski agrees, there is “no mechanism” to remove a partner of five eyes, he admits that if Canada loses access, “somehow would have to fill this gap.”
Do our allies do that?
Yes, and as Gurski emphasizes, Canada is the only member of the five eyes without a human foreigner intelligence service.
The United Kingdom’s Secret Intelligence Service, also known as MI6, has been operated for more than a century.
In the United States, the central intelligence agency was created after the Second World War.
Down under is the Australian intelligence service (ASIS) since 1952 “tacitly protects Australia and its way of life”. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS), which plays both national security and the role of the foreign secret service, was founded a few years later.
Both Germany and France have their own foreign intelligence agencies, while the European Union was asked to create their own.
Has this idea already appeared?
Yes, but it has never won root.
“This is a problem that appears every 10 years or something,” said Carvin.
For example, the conservatives proposed to develop such a service as part of their election platform in 2006.
But the proposed Canadian secret service agency never became prime minister after winning this election, and Stephen Harper became prime minister during the following two mandates of his party.
No such service was also developed under the former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In 2023, his then national security advisor Jody Thomas said that at that time it was “not on the political agenda”.
Wouldn’t that be difficult to do?
It would probably take years for the establishment of a legal framework for you, an organization of the ground up and the training of the spies that would serve would be set up.
In 2006, the former CSIs director Reid Morden estimated that it would take about 10 years for sufficient employees to be trained to meet the needs of such a service. And at that time he made the price in the neighborhood of $ 200 million.
Gurski and Carvin agree that it would not happen quickly.
“One from the ground is just a non -starter,” said Gurski, “because it would take so long to achieve.
Are there any other options?
Gurski says that he thinks – and for him the answer extends the range of CSIs outside of Canada through legislation.
It would also mean transforming CSIs into an organization that would carry out both foreign and security intelligence. Gurski points out that there are other organizations in the world that both do, with New Zealand’s NZSIS an example. The Netherlands also have a double service.
CSIS would therefore need more resources, he says.
Similarly, he believes that Canada can do more with the tools that it now has.
Is there a political will?
CBC News asked five important political parties whether they would support Canada in order to develop their own human Foreign-intelligence service.
The Block Québécois said the concept was worth studying, although it could not say whether such a step would be necessary. It suggested that Canada could try to deepen his partnerships with France and other allies who are not part of the five eyes.
The party has also mentioned that espionage takes various risks, including harmful relationships with other countries.
Elizabeth May, co-leader of the Green Party, said the party did not support a new service and said that our “existing intelligence collection apparatus” and our diplomatic connections are sufficient. But the party says it is important to maintain the five eye partnership “despite the recent threats of the American president”.
NDP spokesman Anne McGrath said Canada “must have the tools it takes to defend themselves” and support the support for the work that CSIs provides today.
“CSIs and his mandate are available to protect the Canadians from international threats, including foreign interference in our democracy,” said McGrath in a statement. “New Democrats also support a stronger foreign service that will build Canada’s connections and awareness of topics around the world.”
The conservative party did not respond to questions about an email about a human foreign service.
The liberal did not return a comment, although the liberal leader Mark Carney recently said: “We have to look for ourselves”
