Trying to get a message across to a Parliamentary committee is a challenging and often frustrating business. Challenging because there is a rigid structure at play and lots of politics and preening. Time at Parliamentary committees is divided into bite size and strictly controlled moments. As a witness, you get a few minutes (nowadays usually five) to make an opening statement. Then the Chair parcels out questions in order to the parties, in rounds of various minutes duration (but no more than six minutes). Bite size moments, questions all over the map, bite size answers, some soap box stuff in between, occasional revelations. It’s easy to come away shaking your head.
An interesting piece. I was a military intelligence specialist and officer for 38 years. Long ago now, but many of the same strategic issues were discussed. We seem no closer to educating the public or the political level about strategic, long-term threats. Where would that awareness fit in the panoply of daily issues facing individuals and families?
This is a great introduction into how to learn about how the system works and what matters in connection with the structure of national security management in Canada. Especially your Our Commons reference is invaluable, but I like your follow-up interview as well.
I wonder how many Canadians want to understand this in detail. The picture that emerges to me is this:
1) The national security government personnel are trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability and judgment. They are leaving as few stones unturned as possible.
2) The senior personnel are tasked with choosing how to provide a safely actionably picture to the political level.
3) The political level staff either decide what the leaders and ministers see, or try to get them to see.
4) The political leadership decide on the priorities they wish to spend time on and address through their ministries with respect to national security issues.
5) The question is now what priorities those who have the best access to the political leadership have, since their priorities are the likeliest to become the polical leadership's priorities, along with the senior staffs read of the public through polls and (maybe?) public consultation.
Regarding point 5.
a) Regarding Mr. Rigby's comments (and I would ask our politcal leadership regardless of party affiliation the same thing) : Who are "Canadians"? Those who funded the campaigns? Those who arrange and get meetings with the political leadership?
My personal experience has been that information trickling up from constituents through MP's matters precious little. I have a "cherished email" from Alan Rock back in the day when I dealt with a legitimate issue which showed me where I as a member of the unwashed masses stood. (And this was regarding a matter in an area where I had some technical competence!) This may or may not be rightly so. There is a huge volume of communication produced for all kinds of reasons, whether because of individual needs or manufacturing incitement. It really depends on whether people with subject matter expertise are doing the talking?
b) In Canada, at the PMO level is mostly opaque as to its priorities and operations. There are voices saying the PMO in its recent incarnation is plainly overwhelmed and has to choose its objectives very carefully. Whether national security makes it on this list, is unclear. The question is, to whom is it a priority? How are their voices valued in the Professional or the political leadership 's hierarchy of concerns?
An interesting piece. I was a military intelligence specialist and officer for 38 years. Long ago now, but many of the same strategic issues were discussed. We seem no closer to educating the public or the political level about strategic, long-term threats. Where would that awareness fit in the panoply of daily issues facing individuals and families?
Great suggestions. Will this or any future government action those recommendations? I highly doubt it but I’m willing to be pleasantly proved wrong.
Very interesting reading! Thanks.
There should be more security committees reporting to Parliament, not just the PM.
If there was no leak we wouldn't know about the extent of Chinese govt interference in Canada.
So thank you to whoever leaked the information.
This is a great introduction into how to learn about how the system works and what matters in connection with the structure of national security management in Canada. Especially your Our Commons reference is invaluable, but I like your follow-up interview as well.
I wonder how many Canadians want to understand this in detail. The picture that emerges to me is this:
1) The national security government personnel are trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability and judgment. They are leaving as few stones unturned as possible.
2) The senior personnel are tasked with choosing how to provide a safely actionably picture to the political level.
3) The political level staff either decide what the leaders and ministers see, or try to get them to see.
4) The political leadership decide on the priorities they wish to spend time on and address through their ministries with respect to national security issues.
5) The question is now what priorities those who have the best access to the political leadership have, since their priorities are the likeliest to become the polical leadership's priorities, along with the senior staffs read of the public through polls and (maybe?) public consultation.
Regarding point 5.
a) Regarding Mr. Rigby's comments (and I would ask our politcal leadership regardless of party affiliation the same thing) : Who are "Canadians"? Those who funded the campaigns? Those who arrange and get meetings with the political leadership?
My personal experience has been that information trickling up from constituents through MP's matters precious little. I have a "cherished email" from Alan Rock back in the day when I dealt with a legitimate issue which showed me where I as a member of the unwashed masses stood. (And this was regarding a matter in an area where I had some technical competence!) This may or may not be rightly so. There is a huge volume of communication produced for all kinds of reasons, whether because of individual needs or manufacturing incitement. It really depends on whether people with subject matter expertise are doing the talking?
b) In Canada, at the PMO level is mostly opaque as to its priorities and operations. There are voices saying the PMO in its recent incarnation is plainly overwhelmed and has to choose its objectives very carefully. Whether national security makes it on this list, is unclear. The question is, to whom is it a priority? How are their voices valued in the Professional or the political leadership 's hierarchy of concerns?