Internal memo flags the promise and pitfalls of expanding CSIS’s foreign spy role

OTTAWA — An internal Canadian Security Intelligence Service memo says allowing the spy agency to collect foreign intelligence overseas would capitalize on its “existing footprint and expertise,” but might also invite a host of problems.

The memo says giving CSIS the capabilities of a foreign human intelligence service — like the American CIA or Britain’s MI6 — could create governance, accountability and privacy concerns about what constitutes a threat, and about the prospect of targeting Canadians.

The Canadian Press used the Access to Information Act to obtain the memo, which was drafted by CSIS in advance of a roundtable meeting organized by academics last June.

Those invited to the three-hour roundtable at the University of Ottawa included current and former senior intelligence officials and academics with an interest in security and international affairs.

CSIS spokesperson Magali Hébert confirmed that the spy service’s director, Dan Rogers, attended the meeting.

Former national security and intelligence adviser Vincent Rigby, one of the organizers of the roundtable, said the time is right to revisit the question of expanding Canada’s foreign intelligence-gathering, given the perilous state of the world and a growing need for economic information.

“We do not have a reliable ally to the south right now,” Rigby said in an interview. “Some would even suggest that we have a hostile state actor in the United States, and so we can’t rely on them for intelligence necessarily.”

Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, attended most of the roundtable. He said he was struck by how open and — in some cases — fully supportive people at the gathering were about the idea of Canada launching a foreign intelligence service.

“The tenor of the discussion was, we should be taking this question seriously. We should be exploring it,” he said. “It was the most hopeful discussion that I’ve ever attended in all my years in thinking about this question.”

The Communications Security Establishment, Canada’s cyberspy agency, collects foreign intelligence through electronic means, while Global Affairs Canada, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces contribute some reporting, the CSIS memo notes.

CSIS is permitted to gather intelligence in Canada and abroad about security threats such as terrorism and espionage. It’s allowed to gather foreign intelligence — information about the activities, capabilities and intentions of foreign people, organizations and states — only within Canada, not overseas.

The memo says that in “an uncertain geopolitical context,” Canada’s demand for such foreign intelligence might grow.

“Canada can only learn and act so much through its current collection and authorities, and has historically relied on allied partnerships for certain foreign intelligence reporting,” the note says.

Many of Canada’s G7 and Five Eyes allies collect foreign human intelligence abroad, and take action to advance their interests, the memo adds.

It says introducing a Canadian foreign human intelligence capability abroad would position the government to advance Canada’s geopolitical, security, economic and other interests globally.

Rigby said the key step is to decide what sort of intelligence Canada might need its officers and sources to gather abroad, and how to go about it.

“Let’s have an in-depth analysis within government, a public debate, and then make a decision,” he said.

The memo identifies three main options for launching a foreign intelligence capability. Ottawa could create a dedicated new foreign human intelligence service, or develop foreign intelligence capabilities at CSIS that eventually would be transferred to a new organization, or permanently assign expanded foreign intelligence capabilities to CSIS.

A new foreign human intelligence service would have a clear mandate and accountability standards, and would fit well into foreign policy structures led by Global Affairs Canada, the memo says.

It also says a standalone agency would be very costly and setting it up would require much initial effort that would delay its operation for years. This option would also be “highly disruptive” to current security and intelligence community work, the memo says.

On the other hand, fostering foreign intelligence capabilities at CSIS with an eye to handing them off later could be accomplished through simple and “minimally disruptive” legislative amendments, while taking advantage of CSIS’s existing strengths, the memo says.

The downside of this approach would be a long, drawn-out process that would occupy much of the intelligence community’s energy “for at least the next five years,” it says.

Assigning expanded foreign intelligence capabilities to CSIS would have advantages similar to the incubation model, the memo says.

The perceived disadvantages — including concerns about governance, accountability, privacy and “mandate overlap” — appear to stem from the fact that CSIS would have to juggle its traditional security intelligence role with a new foreign intelligence one.

Each of the three options must be accompanied by resources to minimize disruption to existing mandates and work, the memo says.

Hébert said any CSIS advice on the evolution of Canada’s intelligence capabilities or its governing legislation “would be provided to the government as protected advice.”

Various proposals for a Canadian foreign intelligence service have been debated since the end of the Second World War.

A recently published paper by former intelligence analyst Alan Barnes explained how the decades-long discussion has been coloured by input from close allies, budgetary concerns and internal federal rivalries.

The debate also has touched on fears that Canada’s nice-guy, fair broker image could be tarnished by engaging in subterfuge abroad.

“That’s exactly why I think you need a public debate, and you need to clearly explain to Canadians what a foreign human intelligence service in Canada would be and what it wouldn’t be,” Rigby said.

“I don’t think that we should have a foreign intelligence service that is toppling countries in Latin America, or going around and indulging in other unsavoury acts,” he added. “We’re not trying to replicate the CIA, we’re not trying to replicate MI6. This is going to be a made-in-Canada solution.”

Mark Carney’s Liberals have not promoted the idea of a new foreign intelligence service as a means of helping Canada carve a more independent path in the world in the face of highly strained relations with the United States.

Carney said last September that a new national security policy would be released “in due course.” The government has yet to release such a strategy.

Wark said roundtable participants agreed that creating a foreign intelligence service would be a political decision.

“It will require a prime minister to lean in on this and decide this is something that Canada has to do,” he said.

Wark added that a foreign intelligence capability would not only move Canada away from dependence on the United States but help it build intelligence partnerships with other countries, providing a rationale as to “why they would want to co-operate with us.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 10, 2026.

Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press