Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job

Canada’s Defence Strategy Is a Start — However, Parliament Must Finish the Job by Maj (ret’d) CORNELIU, CHISU, CD, PMSC FEC, CET, P.Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East Canada has released a new defence industrial strategy. It is ambitious. It is overdue. However, it will fail unless Parliament is prepared to confront the structural dysfunction that has plagued our defence policy for decades. I write this not as a commentator from the sidelines, but as a former Member of Parliament who sat on the defence committee and witnessed firsthand the recurring cycle of announcements, consultations, delays, cost escalations, and strategic drift. We have seen white papers come and go. We have seen procurement “resets.” We have heard promises of reform. The problem has never been the absence of strategy documents. The problem has been the absence of execution. The new strategy recognizes something fundamental: defence is no longer simply about purchasing equipment. It is about sovereignty, industrial capacity, and geopolitical credibility. It correctly links military capability with economic resilience. It acknowledges that Canada cannot continue to outsource critical security functions and remain strategically relevant. However, here is the uncomfortable truth: strategy without structural reform will simply produce another decade of underperformance. The Procurement Paralysis - During my time on the defence committee, one issue resurfaced constantly: procurement paralysis. Projects that should take five years take fifteen. Requirements are rewritten repeatedly. Risk aversion becomes policy. Accountability diffuses across departments until no one is responsible for outcomes. Canada’s allies move. Canada studies.- Meanwhile, the men and women of the Armed Forces wait. We ask them to deploy to Bosnia, Afghanistan and recently Latvia, patrol the Arctic, assist in domestic emergencies, and contribute to NATO reassurance missions. Yet too often we equip them with platforms at the end of their service life, delayed replacements, or capability gaps papered over by temporary fixes. No industrial strategy will fix this unless we tackle the governance architecture itself. Procurement in Canada remains fragmented among multiple departments, each with distinct mandates and incentives. Public Services prioritizes process integrity. Treasury Board prioritizes cost control. National Defence prioritizes capability. Innovation departments prioritize industrial benefits. Each objective is legitimate. Together, they often produce gridlock. If the new defence strategy is serious, it must be accompanied by a structural consolidation of procurement authority with clear lines of responsibility and measurable timelines. Parliament must demand quarterly reporting on delivery milestones — not aspirational targets, but actual equipment in service. Sovereignty Is Not a Slogan - The strategy’s emphasis on “Build–Partner–Buy” is sound in principle. Canada must build more at home. We must partner intelligently with trusted allies. We must reduce overdependence on any single supplier. However, sovereignty is not achieved by rhetoric. It is achieved by capacity. Do we have domestic ammunition production sufficient to sustain high-intensity operations? Do we have secure supply chains for critical minerals essential to advanced weapons systems? Do we have cyber resilience robust enough to withstand coordinated state-backed attacks? Do we have Arctic infrastructure capable of sustained presence? In too many cases, the answer is: not yet. - The war in Ukraine exposed Western ammunition shortages. The pandemic exposed supply-chain fragility. Cyberattacks on critical infrastructure are no longer hypothetical. And the Arctic is no longer geopolitically quiet. Canada cannot assume that allies will always have surplus capacity to compensate for our deficits. In a crisis, every country prioritizes its own national interest. That is not cynicism. It is reality. - NATO Commitments and Strategic Credibility For years, Canada struggled to meet NATO spending benchmarks. We debated percentages while capability gaps widened. The issue was never merely the 2 percent target. It was credibility. Alliances are sustained by contribution. Influence flows from commitment. When Canada underinvests, we reduce our voice at the table where strategic decisions are made. If we aspire to shape NATO policy, Arctic security frameworks, or Indo-Pacific engagement, we must demonstrate that we are serious. Defence spending is not charity to allies. It is an insurance policy for Canada. The Arctic Is the Test No region will test the new strategy more than the Arctic. Climate change is transforming northern geography. Shipping lanes are emerging. Strategic competitors are increasing activity. The Arctic is no longer a peripheral theatre. Canada’s sovereignty in the North must be exercised, not merely asserted. That requires: · Persistent surveillance · Modernized NORAD capabilities · Air defence and interceptor readiness · Naval presence · Infrastructure for sustained operations. Without these, sovereignty becomes symbolic. The defence strategy speaks of industrial growth and technological innovation. Good. However, those investments must translate into tangible northern capability. If ten years from now our Arctic posture remains under-resourced and reactive, the strategy will have failed. Parliament Must Reclaim Oversight - One lesson from my time on the defence committee is this: Parliament must be more assertive. Oversight cannot consist of occasional hearings and retrospective criticism. It must involve structured, ongoing scrutiny of timelines, cost escalations, industrial offsets, and capability delivery. We need: · Transparent procurement dashboards available to Parliament · Independent technical audits · Clear accountability for missed milestones · Protection for whistleblowers within the procurement system Without oversight, even well-designed strategies drift. - Defence as National Renewal There is also an economic dimension that Canadians must understand. Defence industrial capacity is not a sunk cost. It is a driver of innovation. Advanced manufacturing, aerospace engineering, cyber security, artificial intelligence, and quantum research — all spill over into civilian industries. Defence investment, properly managed, strengthens national productivity. For too long, Canada has treated defence spending as consumption rather than investment. That mindset must change. The Risk of Complacency The greatest risk facing the new defence strategy is not opposition. It is complacency. We have seen ambitious frameworks before. We have seen cross-party consensus evaporate. We have seen fiscal pressures redirect attention. We have seen projects quietly deferred. If this strategy becomes another binder on a shelf, Canada will drift further into strategic irrelevance. The world has changed dramatically in the past decade. The security environment is harsher. Great-power competition is more explicit. Technology is transforming warfare at unprecedented speed. Canada must adapt with equal urgency. A Final Word When I served on the defence committee, I was struck by the professionalism and dedication of our Armed Forces personnel. They do their duty without complaint. They operate with limited resources. They adapt continuously. The least Parliament can do is match that seriousness with institutional reform. Canada’s new defence strategy is a necessary beginning. But it is only that — a beginning. If we are serious about sovereignty, credibility, and national resilience, we must move beyond announcements and deliver structural reform. Strategy is easy. Execution is leadership. And leadership, at this moment, is what Canada requires most