A new study says Canadians largely misunderstand espionage and urges policymakers to weigh the practical, legal and human risks of creating a foreign spy service.
The Story
A new study warns Canadian policymakers to approach any idea of creating a foreign espionage agency “with their eyes wide open,” arguing that espionage is frequently misunderstood and that any decision must begin with specific information needs rather than enthusiasm for having a spy service.
The paper, authored by former Canadian intelligence officials Alan Barnes and Geoff St. John, is being published this month on the website of the Policy Insights Forum, the research wing of the lobbying firm Samuel Associates. The authors say “virtually no Canadian knows how espionage is actually done,” adding that “romantic, facile notions predominate.”
The study argues that policymakers should set aside fictional portrayals of espionage and emphasizes that real operations involve clandestine collection by people undertaking hostile, undercover acts that break the laws of the country where they operate. It also distinguishes the intelligence officers working within agencies from the agents recruited abroad to obtain secrets.
To illustrate the practical challenges, the authors describe how it would generally be unrealistic for an undercover officer to infiltrate a meeting to report what was said, noting obstacles would be “insurmountable.” Instead, they describe the alternative approach as suborning individuals with access to information, such as generals, note takers, or officials who receive meeting notes.
The paper also places the discussion in the context of existing Canadian capabilities. It says the Communications Security Establishment collects foreign intelligence through electronic means, Global Affairs Canada provides diplomatic reporting, and the military gathers defence-specific intelligence. It adds that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service may gather intelligence in Canada and abroad about security threats including terrorism and espionage, and is allowed to gather foreign intelligence only within Canada, not overseas.
According to the study, Canada has regularly considered creating a service modeled on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency or Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service since the end of the Second World War. It frames the key question as what purpose a Canadian espionage agency would serve and says that question can be sidelined by broader enthusiasm for simply having such an organization.
The authors argue that no espionage agency Canada can afford could replace the large volume of raw information Canada receives from allies, estimating a Canadian agency might produce several hundred reports per year and only on selected, narrow areas of interest rather than all priorities.
The study warns that exposure of Canadian espionage operations could lead to diplomatic, political and economic repercussions, including potential expulsion of diplomats, and could become more severe if the foreign country targeted by Canadian spies is considered a friend. It also highlights physical, legal and psychological risks for agents spying for Canada, saying that an agent may face imprisonment and that the worst outcomes are possible if caught.
The paper further says risks would extend to Canadian officers, including those operating under embassy cover and those working under non-official cover, and notes that foreign governments could use the existence of a Canadian espionage agency as a pretext to arrest Canadian citizens and claim they were spies.
The study concludes that getting espionage right is difficult and requires political resolve, careful selection of strategic targets, the ability to act on intelligence, and “very carefully selected, extremely well-trained” officers. It also says there is no guarantee espionage will uncover an enemy’s deepest secrets, while describing that if it works well, the value of the information may outweigh costs and risks.
The research comes as the federal government prepares a long-awaited update of Canada’s national security strategy and as the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians examines Canada’s foreign intelligence-gathering capabilities.
← More stories