Ipsos to analyze 20,200-plus responses to defence policy review
Participants offer mixed reviews of recently concluded public consultations, with some praising the openness, while others framed the proceedings as 'muddled.'
MARCO VIGLIOTTI
Hill Times
17 Aug 2016
The government has contracted an outside research firm to study and summarize the more than 20,000 submissions it received this spring and summer for its defence policy review.
Participants are offering mixed reviews for the government’s recently concluded public consultations on defence policy, with some praising the discussions for their openness and transparency, while others framed the proceedings as “muddled” and confusing.
National Defence wrapped up public consultations on the future of Canadian defence policy earlier this month, drawing some 20,200 submissions through its online portal and attracting more than 4,700 participants to submit comments and votes via an online discussion forum, according to ministry figures.
The department also hosted several roundtable meetings with invitees, including groups representing defence manufacturers and the aerospace industry.
MPs were also encouraged to host their own town halls to discuss defence policy with their constituents and submit the responses to the ministry.
A defence department spokesperson says the government has retained an outside research and polling firm to study the results and summarize the findings.
Evan Koronewski said Ipsos, a contractor on the government’s standing-offer list for stakeholder and citizen engagement and consultations activities, received the contract to conduct the roundtable meetings, and manage the online submission portal.
The company is responsible for analyzing all data received through the roundtables and portal, and preparing summary reports for department policy experts for further study, he said in an emailed statement.
For the roundtables, Ipsos will prepare a report summarizing the events into key themes by Ipsos personnel present at each event, drawing on a combination of notes and recordings where available and validated by session facilitators.
In terms of the online consultations, Ipsos will prepare a report again summarizing discussion and submissions into key thematic areas, with the assistance of text-analytics software as well as manual coding by experienced analysts, Mr. Koronewski said.
The company will then prepare an initial report for ministry staff summarizing its findings from the roundtables and online consultations, while department policy experts will incorporate these findings into the formal defence policy paper in early 2017, he explained.
The ministry’s internal analysis, he noted, is expected to be completed by the end of the year.
The department rather than Ipsos is handling and processing the information collected through the MP town halls.
In addition to department staff, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan (Vancouver South, B.C.) has established an advisory panel to support him during the policy review process.
The panel members are: Louise Arbour, a former Supreme Court justice and former UN high commissioner for human rights; ex-Liberal foreign affairs and defence minister Bill Graham; Ray Henault, former chief of the defence staff and past chair of the NATO military committee; and Margaret Purdy, who previously served as an associate deputy minister of national defence.
Mr. Koronewski said the department had examined “lessons learned and best practices from our closest allies” in determining an appropriate length of the review process. Australia and New Zealand, for instance, have recently worked on their own reviews.
When asked about how much the department is paying Ipsos for its work, Mr. Koronewski said it was too early to reveal because work is ongoing. “National Defence will make the final cost known once the final report is made available to the public,” he said.
The overall cost of the defence policy review also won’t be available for the “next little while,” he said, because the process is ongoing, though all expenses will be pulled from the department’s existing budget.
Opposition wary of predetermined results
Opposition critics have repeatedly expressed skepticism about how informative these consultations will prove to be.
Conservative defence critic James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, Man.) said constituents he has spoken with are concerned the Liberals have already plotted out their plans for defence policy.
“What I’m hearing is people are concerned that this is predetermined, that the government is going to go ahead and make decisions regardless of what may come through the policy review, or [that] the defence policy review…will support the things that they’re already doing,” he said in an interview earlier this summer.
NDP defence critic Randall Garrison (Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke, B.C.) raised similar concerns about the consultations, questioning whether what he saw as a nebulous and disorganized structure would allow the government to effectively dismiss views that run counter to its own preference.
“They know what they already want to do and [with the consultations] you can pick selectively from what you’ve heard across the country if there isn’t any way to systemize the information,” he told The Hill Times last month.
While the political response is predictably divided along partisan lines, non-aligned participants also appear to be divided on the merits of the consultations.
Tony Battista, CEO of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, a security-focused think-tank, argued that while public consultations can prove very useful, the process introduced by the government is “muddled” and confusing.
For example, he slammed the process the Liberals used to recruit speakers for the roundtable meetings as “opaque,” saying certain participants and groups were brought in because of their expertise but others seemingly called upon to create the “appearance of a multitude of viewpoints irrespective of their…submissions.”
A spokesperson for Irving Shipbuilding, a major defence contractor, however, congratulated the government for embarking on the sweeping review “in an open and transparent way,” Sean Lewis said in an emailed statement.
Jim Quick, president of CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, a sector lobby group, also praised the government for engaging with stakeholders about the future of the country’s defence policy, hailing the consultations as informative and helpful.
“I felt it went very well,” he said in an interview, noting that the review focused on the entirety of defence policy rather than simply procurement as some may have thought.
“They’re not interested in just the industry’s view, they’re interested in the views of all Canadians.”
AIAC participated in a formal roundtable discussion headed by Minister Sajjan, whom Mr. Quick described as “extremely engaging,” attentive, and “very informed.”
“We felt we were listened to and that we were given the opportunity to help the government find solutions,” he said of the consultations.
Magellan Aerospace, a Canadian manufacturer that serves both civilian and military customers, submitted a document as part of the consultation process that mostly focused on defence procurement issues, according to Scott McCrady, the company’s corporate program director for the F-35 program.
Of the 10 questions in the consultation questionnaire circulated by the government, he said only one hit the “sweet spot” in terms of Magellan’s main focus, while some others were also relevant, though the remainder went beyond what the company wanted to discuss.
Despite the broad focus, Mr. McCrady congratulated the government for seeking feedback from industry.
“The fact that the dialogue is even happening…is a good thing,” he said.
