Two former intelligence officials argue that Ottawa may gain more from strengthening how it analyzes intelligence than from building a new agency to collect it.
Before Ottawa commits to building a Canada foreign spy service, it should be certain the country truly needs one. That is the central message of a new study by two former Canadian intelligence officials, published in October 2026. They urge politicians weighing the idea to decide ‘with their eyes wide open.’
The paper, written by Alan Barnes and Geoff St. John, makes a pointed case. It argues that putting money into Canada’s long-neglected capacity for intelligence analysis would probably do more to help the country form its own view of world events than simply gathering more raw intelligence.
The timing matters. The federal government is preparing an update to its national security strategy, and a committee of parliamentarians is reviewing Canada’s foreign intelligence capabilities. Both processes could shape whether a dedicated foreign spy agency moves from talking point to policy.
Barnes and St. John’s Case for Analysis Over More Collection
The study separates two parts of intelligence work that are often blurred in public debate. Collection is the gathering of secret information, whether from human sources, intercepted communications or other means. Analysis is the work of making sense of that material and turning it into judgments that decision-makers can use.
According to the authors, Canada’s weaker link is the second one. Their argument is that the country’s analytical capacity has been neglected, and that strengthening it would likely give Ottawa a more independent understanding of global events than adding new streams of collected information.
Put simply, the study suggests that more secrets are of limited value if there are not enough skilled people to interpret them. A new spy agency would add collection capacity, but it would not on its own fix a shortage of analytical depth.
The authors do not, based on the reported summary of the paper, reject the idea of a foreign intelligence service outright. Their position is conditional: such an agency should be created only if decision-makers identify a genuine need it would fill, and only after weighing what it would and would not deliver.
Who Is Behind the Policy Insights Forum Paper
Both authors are former Canadian intelligence officials, giving the paper the perspective of people who have worked inside the system they are assessing. Detailed career histories for the authors were not included in the reported information about the study.
The paper is being published this month by the Policy Insights Forum, which is the research arm of the lobbying firm Samuel Associates. Readers weighing the study’s conclusions may wish to keep that affiliation in mind, as they would with any research produced by an organization connected to a lobbying business.
The specific clients or interests of Samuel Associates, and whether they have any connection to the intelligence debate, were not specified in the information available.
How Canada Handles Foreign Intelligence Today
The following is general background to help readers follow the debate; it is not drawn from the study itself.
Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Canada does not operate a dedicated agency that sends officers abroad to recruit human sources for foreign intelligence. Its main bodies are structured differently:
- Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS): Focused primarily on threats to Canada’s security, such as terrorism, espionage and foreign interference. Its ability to collect foreign intelligence for other purposes is limited and largely tied to activity within Canada.
- Communications Security Establishment (CSE): Canada’s signals intelligence agency, which collects foreign intelligence from electronic communications and also protects government networks.
- Assessment units within government: Several offices across federal departments, including within the Privy Council Office, produce analysis for ministers and senior officials.
Canada also benefits from its membership in the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. That arrangement gives Ottawa access to large volumes of material collected by allies.
That reliance on partners sits at the heart of the study’s focus on an ‘independent view.’ Intelligence shared by allies reflects their own priorities and interpretations. A country that lacks the analysts to scrutinize that material on its own terms risks seeing the world through someone else’s lens.
Why the Canada Foreign Spy Service Question Is Back in Ottawa
The idea of creating a Canadian equivalent to agencies like the CIA or Britain’s MI6 is not new. It has surfaced periodically over the years, including in past federal election platforms, and tends to return whenever global tensions rise or Canada’s relationships with major partners shift.
Two developments make the study especially timely this fall:
- A national security strategy update: Ottawa is preparing to refresh its national security strategy, a document that sets priorities for how the federal government identifies and responds to threats.
- A parliamentary review: A committee of parliamentarians is examining Canada’s foreign intelligence capabilities, a review that could produce recommendations on whether the current system is adequate.
Neither the timeline for the strategy update nor the expected completion date for the committee’s review was specified in the information available. Still, the study appears designed to feed into both discussions while they are under way.
What Deciding ‘With Eyes Wide Open’ Could Involve
The considerations below reflect commonly discussed issues in intelligence policy and are offered as general context, not as findings attributed to the study.
Building a foreign human intelligence service is a long-term undertaking. Agencies of this kind generally take years to recruit and train officers, establish networks abroad and earn the trust of allied services. Results are rarely immediate.
Questions policymakers typically weigh include:
- Cost: Setting up and running a new agency requires sustained funding, which competes with other security and public priorities.
- Purpose: Defining which intelligence gaps a new service would fill that existing bodies and allies cannot.
- Risk: Operating human sources abroad carries diplomatic and legal risks if operations are exposed.
- Oversight: Any new agency would need clear legal authority and robust review to maintain public trust.
- Talent: Both collection and analysis depend on recruiting specialists, including people with language skills and regional expertise.
The study’s emphasis on analysis speaks directly to the last of these. If skilled analysts are already in short supply, adding a new collection agency could stretch that pool further rather than relieve it.
Why an Independent Canadian View of World Events Matters
For general readers, the debate may seem remote, but it touches decisions that affect everyday life. Intelligence assessments inform how governments approach trade disputes, sanctions, defence spending, foreign interference and responses to international crises.
The study’s focus on Canada forming an independent view of world events reflects a practical concern. When a government relies heavily on partners for both information and interpretation, its choices may be shaped by priorities that are not entirely its own. Stronger domestic analysis, the authors suggest, is the more direct route to that independence.
For businesses and investors, the quality of government intelligence can also influence how Ottawa reads economic and geopolitical risks, from supply chain disruption to pressure from foreign states. A clearer national picture can lead to better-informed policy in those areas.
Whether federal decision-makers accept the study’s argument remains to be seen. With a national security strategy update in preparation and a parliamentary review in progress, the coming months should show whether Ottawa leans toward a new spy agency, deeper investment in analysis, or some combination of both.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who wrote the study?
The paper was written by Alan Barnes and Geoff St. John, two former Canadian intelligence officials.
Who published it?
It is being published in October 2026 by the Policy Insights Forum, the research arm of the lobbying firm Samuel Associates.
Does the study oppose a Canadian foreign spy agency?
Not outright. It says one should be created only if there is a real need, and that investing in intelligence analysis would likely do more to support an independent Canadian view of world events.
Why is the study relevant now?
Ottawa is preparing an update to its national security strategy, and a committee of parliamentarians is reviewing Canada’s foreign intelligence capabilities.
The Brand Magazine Newsroom covers Canadian business, markets and policy news for brand builders and entrepreneurs. Newsroom reports are produced from published public sources such as company releases and government and regulator publications, and follow our Editorial Standards.
