Canadian Government Executive - Volume 26 - Issue 05

22 / Canadian Government Executive // January/February 2021 By Mary Francoli and Jeffrey Roy Digital Governance Yet such autonomy has also called into question whether there is accountability, as the reflexive secrecy of the security appa- ratus may become reinforced and shielded from the public purview. As with any orga- nizational context, moreover, an absence of external review and fresh eyes can rein- force group think, stymie innovation, and foster dysfunction, including corruption, misspending, and systemic racism. In Canada, such governance tensions were vividly revealed by the O’Connor Commission of Inquiry which examined the treatment and harrowing ordeal of Maher Arar. The Syrian-born Canadian citizen was tortured in Syria for more than a year as a result of deportation by the United States acting on flawed information provided by Canadian authorities. Justice O’Connor’s seminal 2006 report thus called for more political and operational over- sight of Canada’s security apparatus. Canadians themselves have also ex- pressed an appetite for greater transpar- ency when it comes to national security. In 2016, a large scale, pan-Canadian consul- tation on national security surfaced wide- spread concerns regarding accountability. It, along with myriad of other studies, also signaled growing distrust in Government generally, and in organizations compris- ing Canada’s security establishment, more specifically. Such calls for reform have been gradu- ally answered. Under the 2017 National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, for example, a Com- mittee of Parliamentarians was created to provide the first-ever form of direct po- litical review of security and intelligence agencies in Canada. The National Security Act, 2017, in line with Justice O’Connor’s recommendations, outlined the creation of the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency in order to provide an independent and integrative external review body of oversight for the entire national security community. Addition- ally, in 2017, a six-point National Security Transparency Commitment focused on information, executive, and policy trans- parency was introduced building on the aforementioned public consultations. As part of the Transparency Commit- ment, Public Safety Canada also recently created a National Security Transparency Advisory Group (NS-TAG), an indepen- dent panel of former public servants and outside experts whose task is to provide advice to the Deputy Minister on matters of openness broadly defined. As NS-TAG is co-chaired by an external representative and a senior governmental official, it is not T here is no greater governmental purpose than public safety and national security. Since 9-11, the security apparatus of democratic governments has grown dramatically, giving rise to debates and controversies pertaining to the conduct of security agencies and the consequences of their actions. As the scope of security threats has widened – across both physical and virtual realms, governments are continuously challenged to innovate and adapt ac- cordingly. To what degree such adaptation can and should take place transparently has always been a vexing question – with a myriad of operational and political considerations. Na- tional security and intelligence agencies have traditionally operated in the shadows, often in necessarily secretive manners. Their operations, moreover, as with policing ser- vices, have been largely sheltered from overt political control, with boundaries meant to ensure professionalism free from politics. Transparency and Nat ional Secur i ty Into the Light