Iwona Mooney

CSIS DDG (Ret.)

To have or not to have?  In recent years there has been much speculation on the pros and cons of whether Canada should have a separate Foreign Intelligence organization, or should this responsibility be allocated to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), or perhaps housed within another government ministry.  As a former intelligence professional with a passion for current events, international politics, I try to stay atop relevant information as it becomes available. I use the word “try”.  So many weigh in with opinions and arguments, whether it be an informed source or a member of the public who feels they have the solution.  I am from neither camp. I am writing from “my heart”, from experience, and from years of reading about and researching intelligence agencies, as well as following ongoing intelligence issues as impacted and/or influenced by various global conflicts.

Even though espionage is considered to be the second-oldest profession in the world, today in 2025, no intelligence organization can function using traditional spy craft of the 1900s.  Post-World War II, the race for the atomic bomb, the heroic efforts of Igor Gouzenko to get “the West” to come to grip with the true realties of the now former U.S.S.R., and the devastating work of the Cambridge Five brought to a head the need to rethink how an intelligence entity deals with new security threats. The end of the Cold War era accelerated security intelligence priorities in areas unheard of before. Terrorism, international and domestic, is probably what comes to mind.  Yet there are so many new variants of threats that have emerged and will continue to evolve.  Cyber threats to governments, businesses and to individuals, are rampant.  Transnational repression is a type of foreign interference that can be subtle ranging to violence.  Regional conflicts based on religious and/or ethnic issues, which have been around for eons, do not seem to wane.  They just move around the globe with waves of migration from continent to continent.  And there are other issues, such as climate change, sabotage and counter proliferation.

What has changed?  Attitudes, younger generations dissatisfaction with the current situation, religious factions having greater influences over the less fortunate, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few with the exponential rise of the oligarch / billionaire category.  How does this all fit into the dialogue of whether Canada should or should not have its own separate foreign intelligence agency?

In 1984, CSIS was established primarily as a defensive intelligence organization to protect Canada’s national security interests as mandated by The CSIS Act.  It collects information through human interaction, ergo – HUMINT – human intelligence.  Its sister organization, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) is SIGINT-based, signals intelligence obtained through “ears in the skies”.  Both organizations operate within Canada’s borders, but, yes, there is a BUT.  These borders are a hindrance of sorts.  Canada has been relying on the sharing of intelligence through its partnership within the Five Eyes alliance – United Kingdom, United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well as other countries.  Some do have foreign intelligence agency capabilities; others deal with such collections as their laws allow.  Recent events have strained some of these partnerships, putting Canada at a disadvantage. 

The CSIS Act has been amended, the last being Bill C-70 (June 2024) to align its powers better to deal with the increase in, and changes within the current threat environment.  However, it did not provide CSIS with a distinct, separate “foreign intelligence capability” that would allow intelligence operatives to work abroad.  Federal court warrants can provide CSIS with the authority to conduct specific investigations abroad.  These changes are a step in the right direction.

In 2003 the former Liberal Member of Parliament (Nepean) David Pratt tabled a private member’s bill – C-409, An Act to establish the Canadian Foreign intelligence Agency.  As with the majority of private members’ bills, it did not pass. The idea was put forth and continues to have supporters and detractors.  The security intelligence environment is an ever-evolving one and if Canada is to participate in a level playing field, perhaps the time has come for serious consideration to be given to the conundrum of whether Canada should or should not have a foreign intelligence agency of its own. 

On the one hand, increasing substantially the funds to CSIS that would allow it to develop a “Foreign Intelligence Branch” within its organizational structure would seem to be the easier path to take.  However, it begs the question of sustainability, of integrating it into the strategic operational environment without jeopardizing the “agents” who would choose to work abroad.  Would these agents rotate in/out of the Service in order to “round” out their careers?  Where would their operational mandates emanate from?  These are just a few of the challenges that CSIS would face should it be given the foreign intelligence agency responsibility. 

There are sound reasons why our allies have separate foreign intelligence services:  The British have MI6, the Americans the CIA, Israel the Mossad, Germany the BND, France the DGSE, Australia the ASIS.  Then there is Russia with the SVR, and China the MSS. Some are smaller in stature and others, like the CIA or MI6 are legendary in their own right. 

Canada needs to focus on the WHY there may be need to have a permanent, separate foreign intelligence agency.  Will it enhance its stature within the intelligence community?  Will it allow Canada to focus specifically on those areas abroad where information cannot be otherwise gathered than through deploying agents?  And how long will it take Canada to get such an agency up and running at full speed.  Certainly, it is not an overnight exercise.  Probably more like five if not more years before it would be fully operational.  Does Canada have an appropriate human resources pool to hire suitable candidates, or does the initial round come from within CSIS and other Canadian intelligence-related entities?  Once the WHY is answered then the rest should fall into place.  A bill to enact a Canadian Foreign Intelligence Agency is already drafted, albeit would require updating.  Changes in today’s world security environment show that Canada needs to be part of the playing field, not just a spectator on the sidelines.  Some of these changes impact directly on Canada and going to the source of the “threat” to try and mitigate it may be the only way Canada will be able to deal with said threat.  Our partners may not be of much assistance if they do not have a vested interest.  To quote Lewis Carroll’s opening line in his poem, The Walrus and the Carpenter - “The time has come,” the Walrus said, “to talk of many things” – to have or not to have a separate foreign intelligence entity.