Week 4: International Affairs and National Security Flashcards
Q. What is the Minister of Foreign Affairs responsible for?
A. The Minister is responsible for relations between the Canadian government and the other states, bureaucrats are responsible for the day-to-day smooth running of good relations with other governments, but the minister is responsible for establishing the position of the government on international issues. The minister is from time to time also charged with defining future priorities of Canadian foreign policy
Q. Why is the MFA deemed so prestigiously
A. It’s an attractive position where MFA’s travel the world and they avoid making decisions that directly impact Canadian’s day to day lives for the most part such as the Minister of Welfare has to make; it’s so prestigious that it’s often assigned either as a reward for supporting the current PM or when PM’s use it to assign their close rival in which they were competing against for party leadership insofar as to have them be content
Q. What is the MND responsible for and how must they coordinate with other bodies?
A. The MND has to make sure they’re on the same page with the Minister of Foreign Affairs because the CAF is used as a foreign policy instrument and reflects Canada’s interests abroad. The MND is responsible for DND and CAF.
Q. What is the commitment capability gap?
A. Cabinet usually assigns many policy objectives to the MND without the adequate resources necessary to carry out the tasks, this results in the MND having to manage conservative budgets while prioritizing certain policy objectives
Q. Why does Cabinet as a whole not make foreign policy decisions in practice?
A. This is because at time foreign policy issues require a quick and prompt response, there are times where a foreign policy decision cannot wait for cabinet to meet and discuss the matter, for example when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the Ministers were away from Ottawa. These sorts of decisions are often made either by the MFA or the PM. Also, the MFA sometimes but very rarely acts without notifying all of Cabinet to make foreign policy decisions
Q. Touching on the public service and Ministers; does the public service merely provide advice and monitor programs? How do they exercise power and influence in the sphere of foreign policy?
Ministers and governments while setting large scale policy directions and goals, usually only release reports that capture the current context of the international system which will inevitably change, a Minister is limited in the sense that they cannot be all across the world at all times, while those in the public service aid in these day-to-day tasks, such as what should Canada’s position be to a new law passed in the U.S., or how Canada should vote in the UNGA, this is where the influence of the public service comes in, they carry out these day-to-day tasks, and are relied upon because of their expertise, access to information and accumulated wisdom.
Q. Talk about the role of the PM, Ministers and Public Service in the Foreign Policy sphere
The PM largely has power because they can appoint whom they will, define large policy objectives and represent Canada abroad; the Ministers oversee their departments, can influence cabinet decisions and have other powers associated with their prestige; the public service carries out the day-to-day tasks, which makes them indispensable in a time where Ministers rely on their expertise and knowledge as the government can make policy objectives all they want, the Public Service helps operationalize them into actionable items/helps provide the means to achieve the ends.
Q. Explain the evolution of Canada’s autonomy in regard to foreign affairs from 1867 to 1982
A. From 1867, we are a dominion of the UK, meaning while we have some autonomy all decisions still run through the UK, any positions the UK might have with another country we do too; this changes after WW1 because after our participation and sacrifices to the world war, the new Canadian government has a new push to have an autonomous Canada where we can decide on our foreign policy stances. While the Department of External Affairs was created in 1909 they’re resources didn’t change much until WWI. The 1926 Imperial Conference establishes this autonomous Canada, again not fully intendent constitutionally until 1982. A key difference that illustrates this point is how we entered WW1 (with the King declaring our participation) and WWII where Canada itself declared its participation.
Q. Explain Canada’s golden period touching on world and domestic context, what Canada did, why did it end?
A. From the 1940s to 1960s, Canada’s foreign diplomacy golden age occurred in the post WWII context where many of the world leaders in Western Europe were depleted and Canada came in as an honest multilateral broker who had insight in Washington, London and Brussels. Canada ended up helping the formation of NATO and was very much involved in the UN. Canada has and still does have an aim of internationalism, or in other words, increasing cooperation with other countries across the world. Ottawa at the time was small, there weren’t many departments so a considerable amount of energy and resources were attributed to Foreign policy. But as the government’s portfolio continued to expand, as the Western European powers rose again, with the end of the Cold War and after 9/11, Canada’s position in the world really declined. Its decline is also traced back to Pierre, whom was skeptical about the department and made transformations that made the department like any other one that had to compete for the PM’s attention. While Chretien’s government embraced deficit reduction and cut the department’s budget in the 1990s making it even less capable.
Q. What is the difference between DND and CAF and what are their responsibilities?
A. DND is a civilian organization and its head is a civilian DM, it’s responsible for liaising with Cabinet, giving advice to the current government, science and tech, procurement, and by and large defence policy; whereas, CAF is headed by a Chief of Defence Staff who advises Cabinet on all things navy, army and air force, they have an increased presence in Ottawa, all orders run through the CDS so they have a lot of power, they’re mostly focused on CAF operations and is also appointed by the PM. As you can imagine CAF and DND need coordination, they’re responsible for different things, and the nature of having a military and civilian agency responsible for different portfolios helps to hold each other accountable. CAF is also responsible for forces deployment, recruitment and retention.
Q. Distinguish the difference between RCMP policing and matters of national security
A. When it comes to policing the RCMP is independent from government control, the Minister of PS is still answerable for their operations but not accountable; this is because the police force should be independent to carry out their operations, politicians and the government should not have a say on who gets arrested or charged, and they should not be protected if they end up doing illegal things. However, when it comes to matters of national security, those sort of larger issues that affect the country as a whole, RCMP is not intendent and the Minister of PS is fully answerable and accountable for RCMP.
Q. Explain NSICOP, NSIRA and the IC
A. The National Security and Intelligence of Parliamentarians, is a group of Parliamentarians drawn from Parliament that reports to the PM and provides Parliament redacted versions of their reports, it was created 3 years ago by the PM, and his aim was how do we get Parliamentarians some oversight power without giving them too much authority; so one way is to have these Parliamentarians be in NSICOP but not grant them immunity, so if they say anything they learned in NSICOP to Parliament, then they are subject to Canadian law and can be arrested. The National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, is the oversight body charged with overseeing the activities and operations of CSE and CSIS on a regular basis, they are a group of outside experts so they’re not partisan. The Intelligence Commissioner, is also the last piece of the layer, they’re characterized a sort of quasi-judicial review of CSE and CSIS, many of the operations these organizations conduct requires authorization so they look at things like Judicial warrants to ensure that it’s in compliance with the law. This is so if CSIS and CSE overstep, the IC can catch it. Again, what’s missing here is a full-fledged Parliamentary oversight group that can report things to Parliament have immunity and hold these organizations fully accountable as is the case in the UK.
