Public talks by Canada’s National Security and Intelligence Adviser are rare events. When the current incumbent of the post, Jody Thomas, steps out of the shadows, attention should be paid.
Ms. Thomas is not quite two years into the job as NSIA, and it has been an eventful two years—no sooner had she occupied her digs at the PCO than the “Freedom convoy” descended on Ottawa in early 2021. Then there was the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022; the highly public controversy over the handling of Chinese foreign interference, a media road show since November 2022;, and now the deeply destabilising effects of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, and the Israeli war to destroy Hamas. All of these crises land up on the desk of the NSIA, for both the international security implications they hold as well as their impacts on Canada’s domestic security and peace.
The NSIA’s talk, held in Ottawa and streamed online, covered a lot of ground. I won’t try to summarise it here, but will provide readers with a link to the event as soon as it is posted to the Centre for International Governance (CIGI) website. CIGI organised and hosted the talk, held at the Chateau Laurier hotel , once the headquarters for some of the Government’s intelligence and policy work during World War Two.
Ms. Thomas had much to say about efforts underway to improve the governance of national security, especially to ensure that all the intelligence that Canadian agencies collect is put to good use in actionable ways to inform decision-making. New measures include a special deputy minister’s committee on intelligence response and the creation of the National Security Council of Cabinet, chaired by the PM. She made clear that the distinguishing feature of the NSC is its ability to use intelligence to inform longer-term, strategic policy thinking on major security issues. In that sense it is far from a normal Cabinet committee, dealing with decisions on a flow of asks from departments and agencies contained in memorandum to Cabinet and adjudicating financial decisions. Ms. Thomas described some of the inputs to the NSC, including intelligence assessments, policy papers and briefings by deputy ministers. She said that NSC meetings involved “robust” discussions.
The NSIA also called attention to the recently launched consultations on key pieces of national security legislation, including the CSIS Act, and to the ways that the Foreign Interference Commission will provide valuable lessons in its reports in 2024.
Another important component of her talk involved the importance of national security transparency, which she called the “challenge of the day.” It is clear that she understands the need to bring Canadians into a public discussion on national security and she believes Canadians are ready and waiting for that. She indicated her view that departments and agencies with national security and intelligence responsibilities have to get better at “writing to release” for a public audience. She highlighted the need for a declassification strategy, which proved so important for some of our allies on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine to provide public warnings on what was coming.
Ms. Thomas talked in the same vein on the value of transparency about the need to be able to talk plainly to diaspora communities that might be affected by foreign interference, to help them understand the threat and to better address their concerns, including any suspicions they might have about Canada’s own national security agencies.
Beyond principled value, the current war in the Middle East has underscored, for Ms. Thomas, the need for a more transparent conversation about national security because of the unprecedented signs of divisiveness in Canadian society that have emerged.
Perhaps in response to the recent report from the Business Council of Canada on economic security, Ms. Thomas indicated the government was listening and recognised the importance of forging better ties for information sharing and understanding of technological tools with the private sector. She called adaptation to technological change the “work of the next forever.” Nice phrase that. As a former deputy minister of the Department of Defence she acknowledged the challenges presented by government procurement systems. Did I see a weighty sigh there?
Amidst a shower of ideas there was some cold rain.
Ms. Thomas cast doubt on the value of what she called a “glossy” report on national security strategy. My tablemate, a former head of an intelligence agency, turned to me and said, ‘you can take that one off your wish list.’ But maybe not so fast. I am happy to affirm the NSIA’s concerns about a national security strategy being obsolete the moment its leaves the printers, because of ‘events, dear boy.’ She referenced the UK’s integrated review as an example, a strategy paper that had to pivot because of the Ukraine war within two years. Producing a national security strategy that isn’t fated to immediate obsolescence would be a challenge, as would keeping it “evergreen.” Making it meaningful and substantive, a challenge also. But none of these challenges are insurmountable, surely? (Our allies and many partners manage this—consider for example the unprecedented German national security strategy released earlier this year).
Rather than casting doubt on the feasibility of a national security strategy, wouldn’t it be better to consider its benefits, especially in the light of the NSIA’s affirmation of the importance of transparency? Besides providing a framework or roadmap for coordinated national security activity for government, the ultimate value of a national security strategy lies in its potential contribution to public understanding, a contribution rooted in its discussion of three things: national security threats, Canadian responses, and the upholding of Canadian democratic principles in a world torn between authoritarian adversaries and democratic systems that sometimes appear on the ropes.
OK, I may not convince the NSIA about this, but won’t give up the fight. But in the meantime there is a bridge available. If not a national security strategy, the government should prepare and provide to Parliament an annual national security threat assessment. That would be valuable in itself and would be a building block for any future national security strategy.
Any more cold rain? The NSIA fielded a question about whether Canada needed a foreign intelligence service. She did not answer flatly in the negative but said the question wasn’t on the policy agenda and that in her view it was better to focus on such legislative changes as amendments to the CSIS Act to allow for more widespread information sharing, and to invest in improving existing capabilities rather than pouring money into a new Canadian MI6. Both are good arguments, but neither are strategic. Amendments to the CSIS Act could look at transforming the Service into a full foreign intelligence agency—but they don’t. The resource question is a perennial part of the negative response, but no one has ever fully costed a small Canadian foreign intelligence service on the order of magnitude of the Australian model. The more important strategic question worthy of debate would be-what value added would it bring? I think there is a strong case to be made in a destabilised world where we can’t rely on our allies entirely. Others may disagree.
I hope Ms. Thomas and her successors will continue to take time out from what must be a brutally demanding 24-hour job to address Canadians. The value was demonstrated in this speech.
I will post the link as soon as it is available.
If you wonder why Canada’s national security strategy seems adrift, look no further than the NSIA, who seems to throw her hands up in exasperation and futility when discussing how to deal with the security challenges of the day from AI to Disinformation to Chinese foreign interference.
Of course, she does not make policy, but this government has failed miserably on national security. Canada is running out of time to adapt to the unstable and dangerous strategic picture that is emerging. We are going to need leaders who can articulate and execute an actual plan.
I think having a national security strategy is better than not having one at all. Other agencies meed to adapt to changing circumstances. I am not as enthusiastic about a foreign intelligence gathering agency. IMHO, open source information gathering by embassy officials is just as effective, and has none of the downsides of the actions of "spooks". Ms Thomas does sound like she knows what she is doing.