The establishment of a Cabinet Committee called the National Security Council potentially represents one of the most significant changes to political leadership on national security issues in modern Canadian history. It involves an important experiment in governance for Canada, but one that is commonplace among our Five Eyes partners.
Why is this experiment important? Because the function of the new NSC is to ensure that a comprehensive intelligence picture on strategic threats to Canada’s national security will be presented to the select Cabinet Ministers that comprise the membership of the committee, chaired by the Prime Minister. The NSC is designed to overcome the siloed nature of the Canadian intelligence system, and the fact that different intelligence collection and assessment units report to different Ministers. It underscores the fact that the PM is in charge of national security and accountable. It is also designed, crucially, to ensure that intelligence actually gets to senior decision-makers in a way designed to assist them in formulating policy-responses.
If you are shocked that it might take the creation of a NSC to ensure that intelligence can inform major policy decisions, well, welcome to the Canadian system and its historically weak culture of intelligence.
Having created a NSC, it is incumbent on the government to make it work, and to keep the Canadian public informed about its function.
Because public information on the NSC has been limited, I decided to put on my Paul Wells’ cloak and direct a series of questions to the media relations office at the PCO about it. I sent the questions in on November 30 and received a response on December 5.
The PCO response answered most of my questions, especially with regard to the machinery of government, which is essential to support the Committee’s work.
Below is the PCO verbatim response which indicates the role of the National Security and Intelligence Adviser as Secretary to the NSC; the creation of a secretariat to support the NSIA’s function; and the NSC process for receiving intelligence assessments and policy advice, including dissenting views.
“As Secretary to the NSC, the National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Prime Minister will be supported by the newly created National Security Council Secretariat, which is led by an Assistant Secretary to Cabinet. The NSC Secretariat will work with other government departments to ensure that NSC members receive coordinated, timely and relevant intelligence assessment and policy advice in support of NSC discussions. The analysis that will be brought forward to the Council for consideration may present dissenting views.”
As machinery this is, in my view, all good. Now it will remain to be tested, in particular the creation of a “coordinated” intelligence assessment and related “policy advice.” This will really stress-test the coordination powers of the National Security and Intelligence Adviser and her relationship with fellow Deputy Ministers with intelligence and security portfolios, themselves responsible for policy advice to their respective Ministers.
I asked PCO to confirm that a first meeting had been held and that subsequent ones were planned. They so confirmed, without giving any dates or indicating any specific schedule for NSC meetings:
“The Council convened its first meeting earlier this Fall, and is meeting regularly to discuss and provide strategic direction on key national security issues.”
So, the experiment has begun. I wish it well.
There was one question that PCO did not answer, to my regret. It was whether the NSC would provide short, public summaries of its meetings, in the fashion produced by another Cabinet body, the Incident Response Group.
Stumm on that one (but I hope they will think about it).
Professor Wark, you write, ".... welcome to the Canadian system and its historically weak culture of intelligence." I respectfully suggest a rewrite to read, "welcome to the Canadian system and its historically weak intelligence."
Yes, I know, snarky but, truly, that does seem to me an appropriate re-write. I think about the chaos revealed about the (benign) Truckers' Convoy, about (non-benign) foreign influence/interference, about (non-benign) massive money laundering and so forth so I think that snarkiness is quite appropriate - meaning no disrespect to you, Sir!
I am, generally speaking, an unrepentant sceptic about the increase in the bureaucracy in our federal government over the last few decades and, very particularly, over the last eight years. However, however ... As I look at the idea of the National Security Committee and the functional responsibility of the National Security and Intelligence Advisor ("NSIA") I see that an "secretariat" is to be created to "support" the NSIA. More bureaucracy! But, justified, I think .... as long as it truly does "support" the NSIA and does not simply become a talk shop interested only in preserving it's perquisites and existence; in other words, it must do it's job, not APPEAR to do it's job.
I am not only snarky and skeptical but cynical.
Interesting, but let me offer a thought on one important specific. As written, the review above sayd, "to ensure that NSC members receive coordinated, timely and relevant intelligence assessment and policy advice." Maybe it's just a typo, but there is no "a" before "timely." Neither is "assessment" plural which would be grammatically correct here. So the question remains, will the NSC get coordinated "assessments," or "an assessment?" If dissenting views are welcomed, I suggest its the former.