In 2022, a task force on national security at the University of Ottawa brought together experts to assess Canada’s ability to address the threats confronting it. Their conclusion was blunt: Canada is “simply not ready” to deal with a range of threats to its national security. Since then, Canada has released its first Defence Industrial Strategy and committed $81.8 billion to rebuilding its armed forces –  significant steps in the pursuit of national security, but ones that leave the civilian readiness gap this article examines largely unaddressed.

The threats are real and varied: climate-driven natural disasters, transnational crime, foreign interference, cyberattacks, pandemics, the opioid crisis. Many of these intersect with one another, and most are not military in nature, which means the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), for all their expertise, cannot be the primary responder. Yet the military remains the institution with the most developed thinking about how to prepare for the unpredictable. Civilian agencies, therefore, have much to learn from it.

“Military readiness” means ensuring that forces are properly educated, equipped, and trained for the full range of missions they may face: the goal is that, when called upon to act, they are successful. Canada’s Our North, Strong and Free defence policy uses the phrase “ready, resilient, and relevant” throughout. In addition, the 2024 military doctrine Fighting Spirit lists readiness as one of eight professional expectations for those in the profession of arms.

Military readiness has been historically built around three questions. “Readiness for what?” identifies the adversaries, conditions, and scenarios that forces must prepare for. “Readiness for when?” asks how much time is available to respond, recognizing that some threats arrive without warning. “Readiness of what?” determines which parts of the force must be ready now and which can wait. More recently, a fourth question has been added, asking “How should we achieve readiness?”.  This is a tactical question, focusing on how best to use the resources the military has at its disposal. Together, these four questions create a baseline for strategic planning.

Once the strategic assessment is done, military organizations move to generating readiness through what G. James Herrera describes as a production line model with three stages: building initial readiness through recruitment and initiation,  increasing readiness through advanced training and testing, and sustaining readiness through ongoing preparation for future assignments.

None of this is inherently exclusive to warfighting. Every one of these questions and stages can be translated into the civilian context.

Why Civilian Agencies Need This Framework

Canada’s last comprehensive national security strategy was released in 2004, and no one would deny that the strategic landscape has changed fundamentally since then. In the absence of an overarching strategy, the government has released sector-specific documents addressing terrorism and cybersecurity, but these do not add up to integrated planning. Sector-based strategies work when they are derived from a comprehensive national assessment. On their own, they leave gaps. The Defence Industrial Strategy, released in February 2026, signals growing momentum toward a more integrated approach, one that – it is hoped – the government intends to replicate in other strategic areas.

A comprehensive strategy is crucial for many reasons. One of these is that the threats facing Canadians simply do not respect sectoral boundaries. A pandemic becomes a supply chain crisis, which becomes a political legitimacy problem. A large-scale natural disaster can overwhelm first responders and divert military capacity from defence-oriented missions as it works to provide aid to the civil power. In addition, insecurity also operates on perception: when citizens feel the government cannot (or will not) protect them, trust in institutions erodes. Indeed, societal unrest and fracture becomes more likely as distrust in the government makes the population more susceptible to misinformation from other sources and more willing to engage in extreme forms of political engagement to secure those they love. 

A readiness posture would force the government to take these interconnections seriously, assessing the full security environment and identifying where threats overlap. By making this readiness posturepublic through the release of a comprehensive national security strategy, the Canadian government would also be offering transparency about the risks Canadians face and knowledge about the general actions the government was taking to combat them: transparency and the perception of responsiveness on the part of the government are essential ingredients in earning back the trust of Canadians.

What Civilian Readiness Looks Like in Practice    

Once a readiness posture has been developed and communicated to Canadians, steps can be taken to generate civilian security readiness.  In practice, civilian readiness includes the following elements:

A Whole of Society response: While the federal government must maintain a position of strategic leadership in the field of national security, the complexity of the current security landscape requires the government to collaborate extensively with a diversity of actors including local governments, civil society, the private sector, Indigenous communities, and scholars. In addition to incorporating a wider array of expertise, adopting a whole of society response also allows for the localization of security planning. Localization recognizes that local actors are best suited to direct the planning necessary to keep their communities safe, thus, by delegating aspects of security planning to local actors, the federal government can reduce the strain on its resources and empower Canadians to work collaboratively to meet their security needs. 

Utilization of Scenarios and simulations: Training for readiness requires running complex scenarios and simulations to expose participants to the pressures they will face in an active crisis situation. These scenarios test the readiness of the ‘whole of society’ response and highlight successes and failures in planning along with the unexpected or unintended consequences of certain courses of action. In addition, such scenarios can ensure that experienced and tested leadership is in place when the time for action arrives.

Lessons-learned processes: Once a scenario has been tested, it is crucial that participants take time to learn from it and to implement those lessons immediately. These lessons might include changing up the command structure, inviting other members of society to engage in the process, investing in new equipment, instituting changes in training, or adding new elements to future scenarios. On-going training is crucial to sustaining readiness, and such training must continually be refreshed and improved so that those involved are as ready as they possibly can be.

Some of this work is already taking place. After devastating wildfires and floods, the British Columbia government created a Ministry of Emergency Management and Climate Readiness in 2022. The ministry has built a resource catalogue of research and strategic analysis on climate-related hazards, and the province’s Climate Preparedness and Adaptation Strategy Action Plan reflects a readiness posture in all but name, with its emphasis on resilience, capacity-building, prevention, and risk reduction. In addition, Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy uses language reflective of the ‘Whole of Society’ concept, committing to a whole-of-government approach in partnership with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities – a sign that this logic is gaining traction even in traditional national security areas. 

The Obstacles Are Real But Not Decisive

There are legitimate concerns. Some scholars worry that applying military concepts to civilian problems risks militarizing the response, producing heavy-handed interventions where nuance is needed. In addition, there is a deep thread of anti-militarism in Canadian security culture which may hinder the government from seeking to learn about readiness from the military.  We must recognize, however, that the CAF has a long and proud history of defending Canada and its allies from security threats: they are the experts and should be treated as such.  Through the process of translating military ideas of readiness (rather than direct importation), the federal government can adapt the logic of military readiness to civilian vocabulary and civilian institutions, thus ensuring that the expertise of the CAF is utilized in an appropriate form for civilian purposes.  

A more immediate problem is the concern over funding: additional spending on national security may seem like a luxury during the current affordability crisis. The federal government’s February 2026 commitment of $81.8 billion in new defence spending suggests the political appetite for security investment is stronger than it has been historically, although that investment has thus far been directed toward military capacity rather than civilian readiness. Arguably, however, investing in civilian readiness may actually be an easier political sell than investing in greater military readiness. Canadians are currently experiencing tremendous instability and insecurity in their daily lives.  Many of these issues, including extreme weather, the opioid crisis, foreign interference, gang violence, rising food costs, and the current volatility in gas prices, are issues of insecurity that can and should be addressed through ‘whole of society’ strategic planning.  Instituting a whole of society response and localizing security planning for these issues can empower Canadians, increasing their sense of personal efficacy and highlighting the determination of the government to secure its citizens.  This is a worthwhile investment.

We are living in uncertain times.  As such, the responsibility of the Canadian government to transparently respond to the security concerns of Canadians has never been greater.  The idea of military readiness is a useful framework through which the government can structure this response. By initiating a comprehensive strategic plan that takes into account not only a diversity of national security threats but also the complex ways in which they intersect, the government can develop a posture of readiness that enables decisive preparations. Following through on this strategic posture with a framework for generating readiness, the government can empower Canadians to assist in the process of securing themselves and their communities.  

Leanne J. Smythe’s article, “Civilian Readiness and National Security Threats in Canada: A Lesson from the Military,” is published in International Journal and is available here.

© OpenCanada