Thanks for the question, Madam Chair.
There are a few things that I would like to take a moment to briefly go over.
One is that I actually appreciate your comments about not laying blame. When public service officials appear before committee, we try—certainly, that's my mantra—to help the committee understand. You will make your decisions, and recommendations come up, which is super helpful.
Continuity is key, and continuity I think in any senior executive position—positions in the public service—is key, because as senior executives we move around a lot. It's a leadership dynamic and a skill that you have to work through. There are ways to have continuity, often referred to as “briefing binders”. People show up to new jobs and have very comprehensive binders, but I think—and what I've experienced—is that reaching out to staff and sitting down and talking with staff is one of the best ways to ensure continuity, because they're the experts. They can help you understand.
If I look back at my time in the Privy Council Office, there are three things that I have taken away that I would share with the committee in the spirit of recommendations around changes.
One is that you, as a consumer of intelligence, need to challenge the intelligence. Ms. Thomas was very helpful in helping me think about the way in which I challenge the conclusions, because intelligence is often not a complete picture. It is simply a moment in time, and that is key to understand.
I think the other thing that senior officials have shown me is that you need to seek clarity and to try to build a bigger picture of what the intelligence is showing you—or not—which kind of goes to the comment about sharing intelligence. It has to be assessed and contextualized, and you need to challenge that function and get that clarity.
The other one, which is extremely important, is that you need to inform and you need to give advice on what it means and what the options are for senior decision-makers.