It's Time for Canada to Rethink Its Approach to National Security

Image By: Canadian Dimension

“We live in a fireproof house far from inflammable materials.” Senator Raoul Dandurand’s statement to the League of Nations in 1924 has long encapsulated the Canadian attitude towards national security. Since the dawn of European settlement, Canada has relied on other nations ― France, Great Britain, and now the US ― for protection. Surrounded by three oceans and a powerful southern neighbour, this geographical privilege has produced an underdeveloped security culture.

Given a complacent electorate, matters of security and intelligence have largely been neglected by policymakers. Key authorities for intelligence collection on national security threats have seen little revision since the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in 1984. Similarly, Canada’s sole national security strategy has been collecting dust since 2004. Such outdatedness questions its capacity to adapt to modern security challenges. 

The evolving threat landscape

Most improvements made to Canada’s national security systems are typically driven by the emergence of unexpected threats. The 9/11 attacks, for instance, prompted the publication of Canada’s aforementioned national security strategy (2004), followed by involvement in Afghanistan (2001–2014). Later prominent events include the Nexen deal (2012), the emergence of ISIS and foreign fighters (2013), and the rise of online threats to democratic processes (since 2015). While these events increased demand for intelligence, they did not induce immediate negative consequences in Canada, in contrast to the aftermath of 9/11 in the US. Consequently, the cost of security neglect in Canada has remained fairly low. 

In recent years however, deteriorating geopolitical conditions coupled with the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic have sounded a clear alarm: the traditional pillars of complacency that had built a “fireproof” house may now be ablaze. Power struggles and violence, exemplified by the Russia-Ukraine war, concerns over Russia's activities in Canada's vulnerable Arctic north, and escalating diplomatic disputes with India, have reshaped the threat environment. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified pre-existing transnational threats: the spread of conspiracy theories and disinformation, emboldening of extremist groups, and assaults on critical cyberinfrastructure. What were once state-targeted threats are now endangering individuals and societies.

reliance on allies

The new dimension of non-traditional threats, from disease outbreaks to climate-induced disasters, has redefined the national security landscape. In response, peers in the Five Eyes including Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and the US have revamped their national security strategies.

Canada however, has not followed suit. Its dependence on intelligence provided by allies, particularly the US, have raised concerns, starting with Trump’s presidency, whose politicized relationship with security and intelligence agencies dealt a destabilizing blow to the institutions upon which Canada relies. Furthermore, Trump’s effective mobilization tactics towards his supporters has ensured the immortality of his agenda, particularly among far-right movements. 

In present times, the growing transnational ties between right-wing extremist groups pose a significant security threat, as witnessed in Canada with the Freedom Convoy protests. Former national security adviser Vincent Rigby sees last year's demonstrations as a wake-up call for a policy pivot in Canada's relationship with the United States.

It is evident that Canada requires high-quality intelligence to make informed security decisions. Yet, heavy reliance on external sources for information and protection has, on occasion, clouded national interests. A substantial proportion of intelligence Canada receives is filtered through the lens of another nation, which likely diverges from Canadian priorities. However, it is unlikely that Canada's position as a net consumer, rather than as a producer of intelligence, will change. It faces a different structural reality from its allies, characterized by undefined interests and a less mature security policymaking culture. This presents as significant deterrents to mobilizing support for security and intelligence reform initiatives. Instead, Canada is urged to expand its intelligence collection and analysis capabilities through Canadianization: assessing intelligence received through the lens of Canadian interests.

“canadianization” on the international stage

Canadianization in the security and intelligence community is pivotal to pursuing national interests and maintaining global relevance. Particularly in the US, where “security is a currency,” the risk of Canada’s limited contributions impedes its status among allies and the quality of intelligence received is a stark reality. Being left out of AUKUS (security alliance between Australia, the UK, and the US) in 2021 is a telling example. 

While AUKUS was focused on supporting Australia’s acquisition of nuclear submarines, a technology of limited relevance to Canada, other emerging developments such as AI and cyber quantum innovations are of significant interest. AUKUS Pillar Two is evolving into a platform for cooperation on emerging defense technologies, and Canada’s initial exclusion may signal that it will not be part of such future conversations. 

Australia has been commended for its analysis of security issues through an Australian lens and its proactiveness in forging relationships. In a similar fashion, Canada must prioritize Canadianization to offer a unique perspective to its peers. Beyond this, Canada should concentrate its limited intelligence-generating capabilities to develop niche areas, which could hold a potential geographical focus, such as Australia's coverage of South and East Asia. For instance, Canada could shift attention to the Arctic, a region where few allies, apart from the US, possess visibility. This also advances national interests, as in the past, Canada and the US have both held opposing views regarding claims to the Northwest Passage. This strategic shift positions Canada to enhance contributions to its allies, and in turn, reap greater benefits.

a step in the right direction

At the Council of Foreign Relations earlier this April, PM Justin Trudeau emphasized the integrated nature of modern security challenges ― the global pandemic, rising inflation, climate change, the resurgence of authoritarianism ― and the growing importance for collaboration in their address. Later in July, Trudeau unveiled a new cabinet committee on national security and intelligence, which could provide a pivotal opportunity for revamping outdated policies and catching up to our allies. The extent of its role, whether limited to discussion or robust in policymaking, remains to be seen.

But one thing is clear: the world is evolving, and so are the challenges we face. Our nation’s protective institutions must adapt accordingly.