Should Canada build a human-focused, foreign intelligence service?
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Calgary Herald
8 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Trump could crush Canada's softwood exports. Here's how a new crisis could play out
Article content WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade relationship has dealt with ups and downs, disputes and resolutions, for decades. Anxiety for Canadian exporters is reaching a fever pitch again as the U.S. threatens to more than double softwood lumber duties and add even steeper tariffs under a national security investigation. Article content Canadian foresters, mills, and governments that enjoy taxes, economic spinoffs and stumpage fees from Crown land will feel the pain if they lose too much access to the massive U.S. market. But larger producers have been preparing for just this kind of contingency and have cleverly hedged their bets, building capacity in the U.S., where they can sell as much as they want to Americans, tariff-free. Article content Article content Article content Canadian firms will soon receive word from the U.S. Commerce Department's Sixth Administrative Review (AR6) of U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, with the rate expected to jump from around 14 per cent to roughly 34 per cent. For Canfor, the Vancouver-based lumber giant selected as a mandatory respondent in the AR6 review, it will be even worse. Its duties are calculated based on its own shipments and prices, not an industry average, like it is for other companies. Article content Article content Then there's the threat of tariffs from President Donald Trump's ongoing national security investigation of Canadian lumber imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which he ordered in March and is due late this year. Currently, lumber shipments are exempted from Trump's baseline tariffs, because they're covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal (USMCA), but that could soon change based on the findings of the 232 probe. Article content Article content National Post breaks down the position of the two countries, what the impacts could be, and how Canadian producers are trying to mitigate the potential damage of punitive trade barriers. Article content Article content What American producers want Article content The U.S. Lumber Coalition is playing for keeps. It backs higher anti-dumping duties and tariffs for what it sees as a subsidized domestic industry. It claims Canadian producers don't pay market rates for stumpage because their forests are publicly owned and provincial governments set the stumpage rates, while U.S. producers face higher market rates. But it doesn't stop there: the U.S. coalition also wants to see Canada's U.S. market share significantly chopped. Article content Miller isn't shy about the goals: 'A countrywide quota with no exemptions and no carveouts, and a single-digit market share' for Canadian lumber. Article content Today, Canada has a 25 per cent market share, with exports of 12 billion feet of softwood lumber to the U.S. each year, according to the coalition. Softwood lumber accounts for about 7.5 per cent of Canadian exports; in 2023, the U.S. was the destination for 68 per cent of those forestry products. The whole industry is worth about $33.4 billion in sales annually and employs more than 200,000 workers across Canada, according to a report this year from RBC.
Vancouver Sun
9 hours ago
- Vancouver Sun
Trump could crush Canada's softwood exports. Here's how a new crisis could play out
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Canada-U.S. softwood lumber trade relationship has dealt with ups and downs, disputes and resolutions, for decades . Anxiety for Canadian exporters is reaching a fever pitch again as the U.S. threatens to more than double softwood lumber duties and add even steeper tariffs under a national security investigation. Canadian foresters, mills, and governments that enjoy taxes, economic spinoffs and stumpage fees from Crown land will feel the pain if they lose too much access to the massive U.S. market. But larger producers have been preparing for just this kind of contingency and have cleverly hedged their bets, building capacity in the U.S., where they can sell as much as they want to Americans, tariff-free. Canadian firms will soon receive word from the U.S. Commerce Department's Sixth Administrative Review (AR6) of U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber exports, with the rate expected to jump from around 14 per cent to roughly 34 per cent. For Canfor, the Vancouver-based lumber giant selected as a mandatory respondent in the AR6 review, it will be even worse. Its duties are calculated based on its own shipments and prices, not an industry average, like it is for other companies. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'Canfor's rate will be 45 per cent, plus or minus a per cent,' said Andrew Miller, chairman of Oregon-based Stimson Lumber and chair of the U.S. Lumber Coalition. 'So they'll get a kick in the teeth from the next round of duties.' Then there's the threat of tariffs from President Donald Trump's ongoing national security investigation of Canadian lumber imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act , which he ordered in March and is due late this year. Currently, lumber shipments are exempted from Trump's baseline tariffs, because they're covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade deal (USMCA), but that could soon change based on the findings of the 232 probe. National Post breaks down the position of the two countries, what the impacts could be, and how Canadian producers are trying to mitigate the potential damage of punitive trade barriers. The U.S. Lumber Coalition is playing for keeps. It backs higher anti-dumping duties and tariffs for what it sees as a subsidized domestic industry. It claims Canadian producers don't pay market rates for stumpage because their forests are publicly owned and provincial governments set the stumpage rates, while U.S. producers face higher market rates. But it doesn't stop there: the U.S. coalition also wants to see Canada's U.S. market share significantly chopped. Miller isn't shy about the goals: 'A countrywide quota with no exemptions and no carveouts, and a single-digit market share' for Canadian lumber. Today, Canada has a 25 per cent market share, with exports of 12 billion feet of softwood lumber to the U.S. each year, according to the coalition. Softwood lumber accounts for about 7.5 per cent of Canadian exports; in 2023, the U.S. was the destination for 68 per cent of those forestry products . The whole industry is worth about $33.4 billion in sales annually and employs more than 200,000 workers across Canada, according to a report this year from RBC. If Trump stacked a 20 per cent tariff on top of the existing duties, driving down some of Canada's approximately 12 billion board feet of annual softwood exports to the U.S., Miller believes the U.S. industry could almost immediately replace at least two billion feet worth through quick operational changes. Incremental mill upgrades over three years could then add another three to four billion feet of production, he said. 'I really believe that within three years we would have replaced, through U.S. production of lumber, about half of what Canada currently exports to the U.S.,' he said, nodding to Trump's comments earlier this year about the U.S. not needing any Canadian lumber . The coalition is pushing for a tariff rate from the Section 232 investigation that starts at 15 to 20 per cent and goes higher from there. That, Miller explained, will incentivize U.S. sawmill owners struggling with thin margins to hire more people and invest in upgrades, bolstering U.S. production. This week, provincial leaders offered ways to settle the dispute. B.C. Premier David Eby said Canada is willing to consider a quota on exports to the U.S. for the first time , and New Brunswick Premier Susan Holt also said quotas are on the table as an option for trade negotiations. Miller, head of the American coalition, was far from impressed by Eby's comments. A quota might stabilize the market and secure jobs for Canadian workers, he said, but 'at whose expense?' His answer: 'U.S. mill workers.' '(Eby) is not serious about a settlement that is satisfactory to the coalition. He is floating a political trial balloon designed to derail the implementation of the AR6,' he said. Kurt Niquidet, president of the BC Lumber Trade Council, refused to comment on what his organization prefers by way of a solution. He said options included quotas, tariffs, or a hybrid approach. But he was clear that the industry wants Ottawa to resolve things with the U.S. quickly. 'We think that the federal government should be making this issue a priority and looking for a negotiated settlement,' he said. Niquidet argues that the U.S. already has 'housing affordability issues' and taxing or restricting Canadian lumber could only make things worse. 'If the trade measures are too punitive, it just serves to drive up the prices and the costs of lumber in the U.S.,' he said. That's why the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), the trade association based in Washington, has been leading the charge to fight the duties and potential tariffs. It has repeatedly warned the White House that tariffs would only '(slow) down the domestic residential construction industry' at a time when Trump has vowed to address the country's 'severe housing shortage and affordability crisis.' In recent years, tariffs have increased the average home price by nearly US$11,000 because of recent tariffs, according to the April 2025 NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index, when the average home sticker price is just north of US$400,000. There are also about 3.5 million Americans who work in the residential housing sector, and millions more working in commercial and industrial construction. The NAHB has actively shared its concerns as part of the Section 232 investigation process and expressed concern that the U.S. lumber supply cannot meet the needed demand on its own anytime soon. Niquidet agrees. He said claims by the U.S. industry and the president that American producers can make up for lost Canadian supply are 'just not true.' The twist in all this is that a growing number of producers in the U.S. are actually Canadian-owned. Vancouver-based West Fraser started buying and investing in U.S. sawmills back in the early 2000s to diversify its assets and shore up supplies threatened in Canada by mountain pine beetles and wildfires. Others — including Canfor, Resolute and Interfor (whose U.S. operations are bigger than its Canadian ones) — followed suit in part to avoid trade barriers, the trend only accelerating in Trump's first term, when he imposed 20 per cent tariffs on Canadian softwood exports. Today, estimates are that Canadian lumber firms control as much 40 per cent of softwood lumber production capacity in the American South. In most cases, they've kept local families and employees in place, seamlessly taking over and often modernizing while keeping afloat many sawmills that might've otherwise gone under. When asked about the paradox of Canadian firms buying up U.S. sawmills, Miller doesn't have any concerns. 'A dollar invested in a U.S. sawmill is a dollar invested in a U.S. sawmill employing U.S. citizens operating that sawmill, cutting trees and shipping them,' he said. 'We don't care who operates them. You know, it's a free market.' (However, Miller said if foreign owners ever wanted to join the U.S. Lumber Coalition, which advocates against imports, it wouldn't allow them to.) The U.S. president has also repeatedly told foreign manufacturers that if they want to escape punitive trade measures, they should invest on U.S. soil and help ramp up domestic American production. '(Trump would) take that as a big victory,' Miller said of the lumber takeovers by Canadians. 'That's what he wants,' National Post tmoran@ Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Toronto Sun
9 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
LEDREW: Canadians face 'democratic deficit' at crucial time in history
It is the fact that Canada is being run by one guy, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who calls all the shots, writes columnist Stephen LeDrew. Photo by Chris Young / The Canadian Press In Canada, we have a democratic deficit. And before you say 'so what?' realize that it is costing you a lot of money, liberties, and safety. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account First, what is the democratic deficit? It is the fact that Canada is being run by one guy, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who calls all the shots. In other democracies around the world, elected representatives are working as you read this. In France, committees of elected deputies are reviewing spending and budgets (we don't even have a budget). In Britain, MPs are in London, making trouble for the incompetent Labour government. In Washington, Members of Congress are is session, debating the issues of the day. Where are Canadian MPs? In their ridings, or on the beach. Yes, some are working with constituents, but what about holding the PM to account? They sat for four weeks in the spring, then left Ottawa, promising to return mid-September. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Who is making the decisions in the all-important battle with Trump, that will shape Canada for generations? Carney. Who is making decisions on spending? Carney. Who is making decisions on immigration? Carney. Who is making decisions on law and order matters? You guessed it: Carney. Now, as some readers will say, what about his cabinet? Except for a few strong ministers, Carney's cabinet has been reduced to a dispirited rag-tag band of MPs revelling in their good fortune of having been elevated, but with very little decision-making authority. This is not all the fault of Carney. It started with Trudeau One, and was finely-honed to its present autocracy by his son, delegating all decisions to his unelected assistants. Remember that Trudeau letter to senior government officials ordering them to accept all instructions from his close advisors as though that instruction came from Justin himself? This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But what about Parliament? Doesn't it really control the levers of government? Not since the time when it sat often, when the Opposition could hold the government to account, and the independent press ( Note: Press not given undisclosed buckets of cash by the government) would report on the success or failures of the government, for the voters to judge. Heard anything about any scandal or controversy coming out of question period lately? Not bloody likely: Parliament really doesn't matter anymore, even when it does sit. And it should, because, otherwise, we have left it up to the PM to make all the decisions. This is the man who declared in the campaign that his only assets were real estate and cash. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Liar. This is the man who has written a best-seller (oh-so-tellingly entitled Virtues ), detailing the evils of oil and gas, who once convinced major banks to withhold financing from those murderous oil and gas companies, who claimed to be four-square with that nincompoop, anti-fuel Greta Thunberg, only now to be outed as holding shares of American oil and gas companies — personally profiting from the products that he has been declaring for years were dooming mankind. Such a hypocrite! Sort of like discovering that the Church of England has been paying for its ecclesiastical robes with cash from the sale of bullets! So doesn't it seem thoughtful and accountable and responsible and democratic that we should be listening to opinions on all the important matters that are on the government's plate at the moment, so the government might have the benefit of the thoughts of not only the elected MPs, but Canadian citizens? Debate on the most consequential issues in generations that need to be decided — like what kind of Canada are we building? A self-reliant country that can stand on its own two feet? A country where law and order outweighs the tribal battles of people who now fight in our streets?What a novel idea! Government by the people. We should try it. — Stephen LeDrew is host of The Three Minute Interview and the Stephen LeDrew Show on NewsForum Toronto & GTA Editorial Cartoons Toronto & GTA Toronto Blue Jays Columnists
