Canada First Defence Strategy: The Harper Era Defense Framework
The Canada First Defence Strategy, released in 2008, established the defense policy framework that guided Canadian defense for nearly a decade until superseded by Strong, Secure, Engaged in 2017. Understanding this predecessor policy provides context for contemporary debates and illustrates how defense policy evolves across governments and changing circumstances.
Origins and Context
The Canada First Defence Strategy emerged during the Conservative government's second year in office, responding to concerns about military capability that had accumulated through the 1990s funding reductions. The policy title itself, emphasizing Canada first, signaled prioritization of domestic and continental defense that distinguished the approach from what critics perceived as previous governments' emphasis on international deployments.
The policy developed as Canadian forces were heavily engaged in Afghanistan, an operation that revealed capability gaps and imposed demands that existing resources strained to meet. This operational experience informed policy development, though the relationship between Afghan lessons and policy choices was complex.
The 2008 global financial crisis, erupting shortly after the policy's release, affected implementation as fiscal pressures constrained spending that the policy had projected. The gap between policy ambition and fiscal reality is a recurring theme in defense policy history.
Core Roles
The Canada First Defence Strategy identified six core roles for the Canadian Armed Forces: conducting daily domestic and continental operations; supporting major international events in Canada; responding to major terrorist attacks; supporting civilian authorities during crises; leading or conducting major international operations; and deploying forces in response to crises elsewhere in the world.
This role structure emphasized domestic and continental missions, with international operations listed but not given primacy. The ordering reflected Conservative priorities that critics characterized as isolationist and supporters described as appropriately focused on Canadian interests.
The domestic emphasis included attention to Arctic sovereignty, a theme that has persisted across subsequent policies. Northern operations, including sovereignty patrols and presence establishment, received priority that reflected both genuine security concerns and political messaging about Canadian sovereignty.
Capability Plans
The strategy outlined equipment acquisition plans including new maritime patrol aircraft, transport aircraft, ships, and vehicles. Many of these programs persisted into subsequent policies, reflecting the multi-decade nature of major defense procurement.
Personnel targets committed to maintaining regular force strength at approximately 70,000 and reserves at 30,000. These targets represented modest growth from then-current levels, addressing concerns about force size without the dramatic expansion that more ambitious approaches might have pursued.
Infrastructure investment received attention, acknowledging that facilities required modernization after years of deferred maintenance. The acknowledgment did not necessarily translate to implementation adequate to address accumulated backlogs.
Funding Commitment
The strategy projected stable, predictable funding with automatic annual increases to provide the resources its plans required. This commitment to funding stability addressed concerns that fluctuating budgets prevented coherent long-term planning.
Initial implementation followed projected funding levels, but subsequent budgets diverged as fiscal priorities shifted. Funding that the policy projected did not fully materialize, affecting equipment programs and other initiatives that depended on anticipated resources.
The disconnect between policy commitment and budget reality illustrated a persistent challenge: defense policies announce ambitions that budget processes may not sustain. Subsequent governments continued projecting funding that similarly did not materialize as projected.
Implementation Assessment
Assessment of the Canada First Defence Strategy must distinguish between the policy's vision and its implementation. Some initiatives progressed; strategic airlift acquisition, for example, delivered new transport aircraft. Other programs experienced delays that extended timelines beyond policy projections.
The Afghanistan mission concluded during the policy period, removing an operational demand that had shaped defense priorities. Whether post-Afghanistan force development followed coherent direction or drifted without the focusing effect of active operations was debated.
By the time Strong, Secure, Engaged replaced the strategy, many of its equipment programs remained incomplete. The successor policy inherited an acquisition portfolio that reflected both Canada First Defence Strategy priorities and the implementation challenges that delayed their realization.
Political Context
The Canada First Defence Strategy reflected Conservative political priorities that included strong support for the military, skepticism of international institutions, and emphasis on national sovereignty. The policy's tone and priorities differed from those that Liberal governments had articulated.
Defense policy is not purely technical; political values shape what capabilities are prioritized and how resources are allocated. The shift from Canada First Defence Strategy to Strong, Secure, Engaged partly reflected genuine circumstance changes and partly reflected different political orientations toward defense and international engagement.
The strategy's legacy includes equipment programs that persisted across the policy transition and institutional directions that subsequent policy maintained or modified. Not all change with government change represents discontinuity; much carries forward regardless of which party governs.
Comparison with Successor
Strong, Secure, Engaged maintained many elements from the Canada First Defence Strategy while adjusting emphasis and adding new priorities. The tripartite mission structure in the successor policy (Canada, North America, international) echoed the predecessor's role framework with different ordering and emphasis.
Personnel and equipment commitments showed broad continuity, reflecting that fundamental military requirements change slowly regardless of policy revision. Ships, aircraft, and vehicles that one policy initiates often deliver under successor policies.
Tone and international orientation differed more significantly. Strong, Secure, Engaged emphasized alliance relationships and international engagement more than the domestically focused framing of Canada First Defence Strategy suggested, though actual operational patterns may have differed less than rhetorical emphasis.
Lessons
The Canada First Defence Strategy experience offers lessons for defense policy broadly. Policies that project funding beyond governments' terms make commitments that successors may not honor. Implementation challenges, particularly in procurement, persist across policy frameworks. Political rhetoric about defense may exceed actual resource commitment regardless of which party governs.
These lessons should inform realistic assessment of current policy, recognizing that announced plans often exceed delivered outcomes and that implementation matters at least as much as policy articulation.
Conclusion
The Canada First Defence Strategy provided Canada's defense framework during a significant period that included the Afghan war's conclusion and the beginnings of renewed great power competition. The policy's emphasis on domestic and continental defense, capability modernization, and stable funding established directions that successors partly maintained and partly modified. Understanding this predecessor provides context for assessing current policy and recognizing that defense policy operates within continuities that span governments and policies.