The Canadian governmentSA国际影视传媒檚 recent defence policy update, Our North: Strong and Free, was recently released with considerable fanfare.Promised for a year, the delay seemed to indicate the Liberal governmentSA国际影视传媒檚 budgetary pressures given the ballooning deficit.

In the end, it was more heat than light and was less of an update to address a worsening international security environment than a simple restatement of traditional approaches to CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 defence.

Announced by a joint team of the prime minister, deputy prime minister and both the defence and veterans affairs ministers SA国际影视传媒� with a backdrop framed by Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft at CFB Trenton SA国际影视传媒� the government went to considerable effort to portray this policy as a marked change in direction for Canada.

Arctic focus

In particular, the update squarely focuses on CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 North.

Previous policies SA国际影视传媒� like Brian MulroneySA国际影视传媒檚 1987 white paper, Challenge and Commitment and Stephen HarperSA国际影视传媒檚 2008 Canada First Defence Strategy SA国际影视传媒� had strong Arctic themes, but this one puts the emphasis right in the title.

Within the Department of National Defence, hopes were high that the government might announce something major, perhaps even a commitment to replace the NavySA国际影视传媒檚 four Victoria-class submarines.

Canada has been under significant international pressure to boost its defence spending. While historically this has been true since the 1970s, Prime Minister Justin TrudeauSA国际影视传媒檚 admission last year that Canada would never meet its promised NATO commitment to spend two per cent of its GDP on defence has caused that pressure to intensify.

Certainly, the numbers announced look impressive: $8.1 billion in the next five years and $73 billion over the next 20 years. However, even these figures are not enough to push Canada beyond 1.76 per cent, and then only by 2029-30.

At odds with reality?

Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia FreelandSA国际影视传媒檚 remarks during the official release of the policy were especially noteworthy given her statement in 2017, as minister of global affairs, when she announced to Parliament:

SA国际影视传媒淭o rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state. And although we have an incredibly good relationship with our American friends and neighbours, such a dependence would not be in CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 interest. That is why doing our fair share is clearly necessary. It is why our commitment to NORAD, and to our strategic relationship with the United States, is so critical. It is by pulling our weight in this partnership, and in all our international partnerships, that we, in fact, have weight.SA国际影视传媒�

And yet, despite the advances made in 2017SA国际影视传媒檚 Strong, Secure and Engaged policy update, CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 allies have complained itSA国际影视传媒檚 failing to pull its weight SA国际影视传媒� most vocally former U.S. president Donald Trump, but others as well.

Freeland reiterated her 2017 words at the CFB Trenton event, noting:

SA国际影视传媒淚f middle powers are not prepared to stand up for SA国际影视传媒� and if necessary, fight for SA国际影视传媒� peace and stability around the world, the rules of the game, including international borders, will be left for the great powers to determine between themselves SA国际影视传媒�. And that, most certainly, would not be good for Canada and Canadians. We cannot be at the mercy of decisions made without us in foreign capitals.SA国际影视传媒�

But the 20-year timeline of the new policy, and the fact that so many of the proposed investments are SA国际影视传媒渢o be explored,SA国际影视传媒� give considerable cause for concern about whether Canada has truly decided to pull its weight.

Vague priorities

The update continues to emphasize the same bland and unspecific priorities of past white papers: Canada, continental defence and contributions to international peace and security.

At a moment when, as Trudeau once put it, SA国际影视传媒渢he world needs more Canada,SA国际影视传媒� the countrySA国际影视传媒檚 defence strategy fails to articulate any of the hard choices facing a middle power with a tiny military in a world of spiralling threats. A bolder policy might have decided to do less with more.

The update perpetuates CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 antiquated SA国际影视传媒渇ire-proof houseSA国际影视传媒� mentality. In 1924, Liberal politician Raoul Dandurand famously said SA国际影视传媒淐anada is a fire-proof house, far removed from flammable materials,SA国际影视传媒� putting into words CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 approach to defence since 1867. Simply put, three oceans and a superpower sufficiently shield us from having to concern ourselves with national security.

How else to explain the federal governmentSA国际影视传媒檚 apparent acceptance that the ongoing personnel crisis racking the Canadian Armed Forces will not be fully addressed until the next decade?

Only by assuming that geography continues to provide Canada sanctuary from military conflict.

Canada also appears to be emulating something like the infamous SA国际影视传媒�10-year ruleSA国际影视传媒� that permitted Britain to underfund its military apparatus in the build-up to the Second World War.

Lackadaisical, feckless

Military strategy has often been an afterthought in Canada.

With apologies to Freeland, that is in fact a result of CanadaSA国际影视传媒檚 SA国际影视传媒渃lientSA国际影视传媒� status, at first to Great Britain and then to the U.S. In lieu of independent thinking, we have defaulted to the direction provided by London, Washington, the United Nations and NATO.

But the old certainties of the British and American empires or the much-vaunted rules-based international order are all fading fast.

The notion that bad things only happen elsewhere is at the heart of a lackadaisical and feckless approach to threats that are building daily around the world SA国际影视传媒� and is evident in a vague policy update that wonSA国际影视传媒檛 see the culmination of its objectives until long into the future.

SA国际影视传媒擝y Paul T. Mitchell, professor of defence studies, Canadian Forces College. This article was originally published on The Conversation, an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.