‘Up your game,’ Global Affairs told as report blasts weak governance in areas of national security, intelligence

Article content

OTTAWA — Global Affairs Canada has got to “up” its “game” in terms of governance of national security and intelligence, after new report revealed a lack of direction and accountability that even spills into terrorist hostage taking situations for Canadians abroad.

Article content

The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, formed of MPs and Senators, released a scathing report of 105 pages on Friday afternoon, more than four months after it was provided to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence for their consideration.

Article content

The federal government has yet to respond to the recommendations, but a redacted copy is now available online and draws a clear portrait of GAC’s shortcomings. “The Department lacks the policy, oversight and accountability mechanisms that are the hallmarks of a mature security and intelligence organization,” reads the report.

This is the first time that GAC has ever been reviewed for its security and intelligence activity. In order to produce their report, committee members were able to receive classified briefings and materials. They also had to swear an oath or a solemn affirmation indicating they are bound to secrecy will the information obtained.

Article content

“We don’t come to those conclusions lightly,” said David McGuinty, Liberal MP and chair of the committee in an interview with the National Post.

McGuinty said the main takeaway of the report is: “GAC, you’re a principal player, you’re a main serious player in security and intelligence. You’ve got to up your game and the way you conduct security and intelligence.”

GAC, which manages a global network of over 175 missions in 110 countries, is a “core member of the security and intelligence community,” reads the report. “Many of Canada’s most significant national security threats – from terrorism and foreign interference to weapons of mass destruction – emanate from abroad or involve a foreign nexus.”

Article content

However, members of the committee are of the view that the department lacks strong governance mechanisms – such as ministerial direction, formalized policies and procedures and oversight committees – which would provide “a clear link between a minister’s authorities and the activities conducted under those authorities”.

For instance, the committee found the department has not instituted regular formalized reporting to keep the Minister of Foreign Affairs apprised of the wide range of national security and intelligence activities and their associated risks – a detail the committee finds “most concerning”.

“The absence of reporting mechanisms may limit the Minister’s understanding of the full scope of the Department’s national security and intelligence activities, (…), effectively undermining their ability to account for the activities over time,” reads the report.

Article content

But the Minister also has to provide clear guidance and direction. “It’s a two way street,” said McGuinty. “There’s both direction being provided by the Minister and also information being provided to the Minister by good public servants who are seized with security and intelligence responsibilities.”

The committee considers weak governance to also be an issue in the area of foreign policy coherence, particularly between GAC and the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, where it says the engagement remains “irregular” and “ad hoc”.

“We don’t think that the Department of National Defense is properly consulting with Global Affairs Canada and vice versa, when it comes to their activities in security and intelligence, and GAC’s activities and securities intelligence,” said McGuinty.

Article content

“So, both (…) horizontally across the system to organizations and vertically inside the department, there’s got to be more consultation, and, in the case of the Minister, have more direction, and more information provided to the Minister on a regular basis.”

The committee is especially concerned about the department’s ability to effectively respond to international critical incidents such as terrorist hostage-takings. It considers that GAC’s role is “neither leadership nor coordination, but facilitation and information sharing”.

McGuinty said the committee highlighted the issue of hostage taking because it was largely brought to it by the department itself. “Deputy ministers have been saying they know that the way in which we deal with these hostage taking incidents is inadequate.”

Article content

“There’s no decision regarding the level of effort for the government’s response to these hostage takings. So departments are left to kind of figure out well, where does this rank? Is it in the top five? Is it in the top three? Is it the top priority?”

The committee considers the problem is not simply the result of the federal Liberals’ inaction, but that of “successive governments (which) have failed to provide direction for a framework to address such critical incidents or provide specific direction on individual cases”.

The report provides recommendations to the government, including establishing a clear framework to respond to terrorist hostage takings which includes laying out principles to guide the Government’s response, identify triggers for Ministerial direction and engagement, establish leadership for whole of government responses to specific incidents.

Article content

The committee is also of the view that the Minister of Foreign Affairs work with the Minister of National Defence to put in place “proactive, regular and comprehensive consultation mechanisms” to ensure that Canada’s defence policies and military operations are aligned with its foreign policy objectives.

Finally, the committee calls on the Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide written direction to GAC on its national security and intelligence activities, including clear accountability expectations and regular reporting requirements, as well as putting in place comprehensive governance mechanisms for the department’s security and intelligence activities.