Thomas Juneau is an associate professor at the University of Ottawa’s Graduate School of Public and International Affairs. Vincent Rigby is a former national security and intelligence adviser to the Prime Minister and the Slater Family Professor of Practice at McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy.
The Canadian government’s April release of its long-delayed defence policy update was met with mixed reviews. Some commentators praised its blunt depiction of the international security environment and its emphasis on the Arctic; others criticized its failure to commit to reaching the NATO defence spending target of 2 per cent of GDP and its weak promise to merely “explore” the acquisition of major weapons systems for the Canadian Armed Forces.
One aspect of the defence policy that garnered less attention was a commitment to publish a new national security policy every four years, and to undertake defence policy reviews in the same cycle. This is good news, provided that it happens: Canada has not had a national security policy since 2004, and the world has since been transformed. It’s time to catch up with our allies and produce such strategies on a regular basis.
It is a courageous step, because these reviews will not be easy. Politicians and bureaucrats often shy away from comprehensive and integrated policy reviews, which can be messy, labour-intensive and lengthy processes. Past attempts at integrated exercises, such as the International Policy Statement of 2005, saw intense bureaucratic battles which left deep scars on those involved. Regular national security reviews will be especially complicated given the number of federal departments and agencies involved in responding to the staggering array of domestic and international threats that we face today.
It is also not clear how such reviews would fully integrate the results of a parallel defence review. (The new defence policy, surprisingly, made no mention of foreign policy reviews, which have not taken place in Canada in nearly 20 years.) The government will need to enact strong governance measures to manage such exercises while learning from the experience of countries such as Britain that have published integrated security strategies in recent years.
Five takeaways from the foreign-interference commission’s report
Outside the bureaucracy, it will be difficult to sustain the political will for regular national security policies, as governments change and adopt different priorities. There is no guarantee that a potential Conservative government, for instance, would take up the baton. The fact that elections will be held within the next 18 months makes the launch of this initiative especially perilous.
And of course, national security reviews cannot be the exclusive domain of the federal government. Today’s national security threats call for a whole-of-society response. Foreign interference, as we are witnessing now, targets all levels of government, as well as civil society, diaspora communities, and the private sector. The recently released first report of the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference stated that this activity represents a “malign” threat to Canada’s democracy, including by discouraging diaspora communities from participating in electoral processes. Countering foreign interference and other threats requires Ottawa to engage all sectors of society – which raises thorny issues around policy co-ordination and information-sharing.
But will it be worth all this effort? The answer: a resounding yes.
Comprehensive reviews of national security offer many benefits. The global and domestic threat environment is unfolding at a dizzying pace, directly affecting the security of Canadians. The government needs to regularly assess these evolving threats and identify mounting gaps in our policies and capabilities. It must then fill those gaps, whether in the form of new equipment for our armed forces, new authorities or legislation for our security agencies, or new military and civilian personnel with the appropriate skills to operate in our shifting security environment. Waiting 20 years between strategies, and relying instead on ad-hoc measures, is a recipe for failure.
Such reviews will also provide an opportunity to directly engage Canadians on a consistent basis, helping raise awareness of national security issues and build trust among the population. More than ever, governments need to be honest with Canadians about the dangerous state of the world, and the need for Canada to possess the tools to respond. This dialogue has been sorely lacking.
Finally, regular strategies signal to allies, especially the United States, that Canada takes national security seriously and will stand at their side in confronting a dangerous world. This is especially crucial at a time when our partners are increasingly frustrated by Canada’s long-standing complacency about national security.
Publishing a national security strategy every four years will be a huge undertaking. It will test the patience and fortitude of bureaucrats and politicians. It will also not be a panacea; strategies are worthless if they are not implemented. But they are the foundation upon which governments can most effectively develop the measures to protect Canadians in a tumultuous world. That should be the first priority of any government.