The Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions (commonly known as PIFI) is now entering its policy consultations phase. This will be the last step before PIFI publishes its second and final report in December 2024.
Much of PIFI’s work so far, reflected in its first report released earlier this year, has focused on the past — namely, the extent of foreign interference in Canada and what the government did (or did not do) in response. The December report will turn its attention to the future. It will recommend ways for the government to protect Canada and Canadians more effectively against the real and acute threat of foreign interference that was clearly depicted during the hearings.
Canadians have been patiently waiting for the public inquiry to complete its work. Where can they now expect PIFI to focus its findings and recommendations?
After months of testimony by a staggering array of witnesses — public servants, politicians and their staff, academics, and civil society representatives — Canadians have learned much. An inescapable first conclusion must be that the Canadian national security and intelligence community is seriously overstretched. In a world of increasing instability and unpredictability, Canada is facing a proliferation of security threats, foreign interference being only one. However, the government has not provided a significant influx of new resources to national security since the immediate post-9/11 period. The gap between a rising threat level and our collective ability to respond will only widen. It is time for the government to consider new major investments in national security.
But Ottawa cannot simply throw money at the problem. Beyond resources, our national security efforts must be more focused. Testimony by bureaucrats, politicians, and staffers repeatedly gave the impression of a disjointed and incoherent intelligence community. A recently announced national security strategy review — amazingly, the first since 2004, if it comes to fruition — would represent a positive step forward. Ideally, a new policy framework would clearly identify priorities, and make difficult but necessary trade-offs. Canada’s national security policy, much like its foreign policy, tends to sprinkle its attention in many directions. Prioritizing is hard — it implies doing less in some areas and more in others — but it is critical in a world where threats are mounting and resources are limited.
A recurring theme throughout the inquiry was the need for major improvements in information sharing and governance in Canada’s security and intelligence community.
Witnesses called for a range of reforms, including raising national security literacy throughout Ottawa and policy literacy in the intelligence community; improving the flow of information within the national security community, and between the community and its main clients — senior political and bureaucratic policy-makers; and sharing information with non-traditional stakeholders, such as members of parliament, other levels of government, the private sector, and civil society.
Some witnesses also recommended a review of the position of the national security and intelligence advisor, a call recently taken up by the national security and intelligence committee of parliamentarians. These are nuts-and-bolts issues that could collectively make a huge difference.
Recent events have also clearly demonstrated why greater transparency would benefit Canada’s national security. Transparency is hard: it takes time and resources, and it exposes the government to risks, including embarrassment. That is why governments often promise greater transparency but then backtrack when hit by reality. But in the long-term, enhancing transparency should be one of democracies’ most effective tools in confronting autocracies. By engaging with Canadians in a more sustained way, politicians and intelligence agencies can raise public awareness on emerging threats, and what can be done to counter them. This helps build trust in institutions and strengthens social resilience. This should be one of the first lines of defence against threats such as foreign interference, cyber attacks, and economic espionage.
Finally, Canada’s national security requires much more serious and ongoing attention from the political level. The hearings revealed a government that deals with national security in an episodic and reactive manner, waiting for crises to develop rather than adopting proactive strategies. This has to change. The recent creation of a national security council and the announcement that the government will produce a national security strategy are positive steps, but are not a panacea. Future governments must make national security a priority given the state of the world. They must also bring Canadians with them. This will require greater transparency, but above all, leadership.
Thomas Juneau is a professor at the university of Ottawa’s graduate school of public and international affairs.
Vincent Rigby is a former national security and intelligence advisor to the prime minister and the Slater family professor of practice at McGill university’s Max Bell school of public policy.
National Post