Carney's Defence Industrial Strategy: A Major Advance with Critical Vulnerabilities
Mark Norman, in a detailed analysis, asserts that Ottawa's recently unveiled Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) represents one of the most significant developments in Canada's defence landscape in decades. However, he cautions that while the plan marks a crucial step forward, several vulnerabilities must be addressed to ensure its successful implementation.
An Ambitious Blueprint for Defence Transformation
The government has outlined an ambitious agenda to invest $6.6 billion over the next decade through a series of initiatives designed to bolster domestic industrial capacity in key areas. This strategy aims to reduce dependence on foreign suppliers for military equipment, stimulate domestic job growth, and fundamentally transform how Canada acquires and sustains military capabilities. Ultimately, the objective is to more efficiently mobilize nearly $500 billion in planned spending toward equipment, preparedness, infrastructure, and downstream capacities.
The DIS identifies ten priority sovereign capabilities central to Canada's growth and long-term resilience. These range from aerospace and ammunition to sensors, space, and critical minerals. The list includes several areas where Canada already demonstrates capacity, competence, and export potential, such as shipbuilding, communications, space, aerospace, and autonomous systems. The goal is to grow these sectors not only to satisfy domestic needs but also to potentially scale up as competitive exporters of Canadian expertise and capabilities.
Unprecedented National Ambition with Historical Context
Norman adds his voice to the chorus of support, genuinely believing this represents an essential, unprecedented, and long-overdue expression of national ambition and intent. No such comprehensive strategy has existed in recent memory, and Canada's defence industrial capacity has suffered from decades of incoherence and neglect. Born from the historical necessity and urgency of current geo-strategic circumstances, the DIS constitutes a major step in the right direction.
This initiative marks the starting point for what will undoubtedly be a decades-long effort to not only rebuild the Armed Forces but also to build much-needed autonomy, resilience, and opportunity into critical sectors of the economy. Norman expresses sympathy for Doug Guzman and his nascent team at the Defence Investment Agency, whose "to-do list" rapidly outpaces their current capacity. He emphasizes that this will be challenging work, and any expectation of miracles in the near term is unrealistic.
Implementation Challenges and Bureaucratic Vulnerabilities
The government has set a wide range of explicit targets, but Norman's instinct suggests many of these are "stretch goals." He advises against becoming overly focused on or distracted by the specifics of numbers and associated timelines, despite the overwhelming compulsion to do so. There will inevitably be mistakes and potentially some failures. The inherent risks of such a complex undertaking are massive, but so too are the potential rewards.
Among the most significant challenges Ottawa must address is the potential for spending to become bogged down in new layers of bureaucracy. This vulnerability could undermine the entire strategy's effectiveness if not properly managed from the outset. The lesser alternatives would be to continue muddling forward through the status quo or to take a more cautious path toward incremental change. Neither approach would meet the compelling needs of the current strategic context.
Economic Rationale and Strategic Imperatives
From a strictly economic perspective, some may argue against the inherent inefficiency of using public funds in a "Keynesian" strategy to artificially stimulate an industrial sector that might not otherwise survive on its own. Norman counters that this argument is flawed for several reasons. First, given the critical need to rebuild the Armed Forces and meet alliance commitments, the money must be spent regardless. This key principle underlies Prime Minister Carney's central maxim: Why would Canada spend these funds elsewhere if it can spend more of them domestically?
Secondly, many of the core capabilities identified as priority investment areas are vital to national interests and will not magically materialize without serious public investment. Therefore, keeping the economic benefits while strengthening defence capabilities makes sense in this context—it represents simply smart policy that addresses both security and economic imperatives simultaneously.
