OTTAWA — The federal government should create a clear framework to respond to terrorist hostage-takings, say MPs and senators who uncovered gaps and challenges during an in-depth review.
The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians points out several shortcomings with the current approach to these critical episodes in a report tabled Friday.
A new framework should ensure leadership for whole-of-government responses to hostage incidents and provide resources to support operational needs, the committee report says.
“The government’s response to terrorist hostage-takings suffers from important challenges.”
The findings emerged from the committee’s broader review of activities.
The report says while Global Affairs has consistently done some form of lessons-learned exercise following hostage incidents, the findings from those exercises were not being implemented.
The committee found many of the same challenges arose repeatedly, including gaps in centralized decision-making and unclear roles and responsibilities.
It says a specialized unit established by Global Affairs in 2009 to develop formal policies, protocols, and standard operating procedures had failed to do so.
The department’s role in responding to terrorist hostage-takings abroad is neither leadership nor co-ordination, but facilitation and information sharing, the committee concluded.
“At best, GAC convenes implicated departments with much greater operational roles and specific accountabilities, and works to build a coherent approach without authority to direct a whole-of-government response,” the report says.
Among the cases the committee studied was the kidnapping of Quebec resident Edith Blais in December 2018 by militants in Burkina Faso.
Over the last decade, the department has not developed the necessary policy, operational and training mechanisms for relevant government organizations to respond to such events coherently, the committee adds.
“Notwithstanding these gaps, the most significant problem is political: successive governments have failed to provide direction for a framework to address such critical incidents or provide specific direction on individual cases,” the report says.
“Together, these challenges undermine the ability of the department and its security and intelligence partners to respond effectively to terrorist hostage-takings.”
While some of these challenges arise from shortcomings at Global Affairs, many others emerge from more systemic issues, said Liberal MP David McGuinty, the committee chair.
“One of the things that we want to be very clear about is, when these critical incidents occur, we need clearer and more robust political leadership,” he said in an interview.
Overall, the committee found Global Affairs Canada is an integral part of the security and intelligence community, advancing Canada’s national security interests abroad and providing critical support to its partners in the collection of foreign intelligence within Canada.
The department has also established effective consultation mechanisms with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment, the national cyberspy service, the parliamentarians said.
However, consultation between Global Affairs and the Department of National Defence, and the Canadian Armed Forces remains largely informal and ad hoc, and both organizations have been slow to respond to the ministerial direction in this area, the report says.
In addition, the internal governance of Global Affairs’ national security and intelligence activities “is inconsistent, and in some areas completely absent.”
“For its international security programs, the department has strong governance mechanisms, including detailed policies, procedures and oversight committee structures,” the report says. “For its most sensitive intelligence activities, the opposite is true: the department lacks policies, procedures or guidance documents.”
This includes its role in requesting the collection of foreign intelligence within Canada or providing foreign policy risk assessments for CSIS and CSE activities, the report adds.
“The absence of governance for the department’s most sensitive intelligence activities creates an important gap in ministerial accountability.”
The gap raises concerns about the minister’s awareness of the risk associated with the department’s most sensitive activities on an ongoing basis, the report cautions.
The committee also recommends:
— the foreign affairs and defence ministers work to put in place comprehensive consultation mechanisms to ensure that Canada’s defence policies and military operations are aligned with its foreign policy objectives;
— the foreign affairs minister provide written direction to the department on its national security and intelligence activities, including clear accountability expectations and regular reporting requirements; and
— the foreign affairs minister implement comprehensive governance mechanisms for the department’s security and intelligence activities and for those that it supports or contributes to at partner organizations.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 4, 2022.
Jim Bronskill, The Canadian Press
Related
