Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the defence policy update.

This update is a welcome step, particularly as it offers increased transparency into Canadian defence policy at a time of unparalleled global uncertainty. Canada, as a middle power with a strong multilateral tradition, is uniquely positioned to influence how we collectively address pressing security challenges.

Today, I'd like to highlight three key areas of concern and follow them with three recommendations.

The three key areas of concern are multiple and overlapping crises, climate change in the Arctic, and the transformative role of technology in warfare.

First, the global community, including Canada, is facing a multitude of overlapping crises. The global security environment is increasingly volatile and marked by great power competition and its ramifications. Conflicts such as those in Ukraine, the Middle East and Sudan demonstrate that threats are rarely contained within boundaries of states or one region. They transcend borders and are more complex than ever before. We face the risk of nuclear weapons use in multiple contexts, and we're witnessing the decay of international arms control frameworks. International law, including international humanitarian law, is routinely violated. At the same time, climate-related disasters are affecting every nation, and new technologies like artificial intelligence are amplifying existing threats and creating new ones.

We must recognize and acknowledge that none of these challenges can be resolved by military means alone. Rather, they require global dialogue and co-operation. Disappointingly, the concept of interdependence is not mentioned in this policy update, despite its relevance in addressing these crises effectively.

As calls for increased defence spending grow louder in Canada and around the world, there's a tendency to label Canada a military “laggard”, yet as Ernie Regehr, co-founder of Project Ploughshares, points out, Canada ranks among the top 10% of the world's military spenders. Focusing on military spending as a percentage of GDP obscures this reality.

Furthermore, the interconnected crises we face require more than military solutions. They demand investment in non-military security measures such as peacebuilding and diplomacy, which remain significantly underfunded. While defence spending garners much attention, our diplomatic resources and capabilities have not received adequate investment or priority.

Second, while the policy update identifies climate change and Arctic security as key concerns, it doesn't fully address the broader implications for global security and the well-being of Canadians. The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence are being called upon more often to respond to climate-related disasters within Canada. With their capacity and resources, they are often the best equipped to handle such emergencies. However, CAF leadership has recently indicated that their ability to respond to natural disasters may be strained due to other commitments.

If the CAF lacks the capacity to respond to large-scale climate crises, which department will? We need a clear, detailed vision that outlines how the CAF and DND will adapt to climate-related challenges and support domestic disaster response. Moreover, an inter-agency protocol for disaster response is sorely needed, one that includes designated funding and resources for climate-related emergencies, ensuring that the CAF is not overstretched by this evolving role.

The Arctic’s changing security dynamics, particularly with heightened interest from major powers, elevate the urgency of a clear Canadian strategy to address both climate and security implications.

Third, the policy update acknowledges the transformative impact of new technologies on warfare. However, terms like “AI” and “machine learning” appear with little substantive detail on how Canada plans to address technological threats or even leverage these advancements.

Canada's stand on interoperability with allies, particularly around the deployment of potentially autonomous weapons systems, requires more precise articulation, especially on commitments to human oversight. Greater transparency and strategic planning in this area are critical to ensure that Canada's technological advancements meet ethical and legal standards. It is critical that Canada prioritize the development of a comprehensive framework for AI and defence, detailing its commitment to human control and legal accountability, and play a leading role in global discussions on autonomous weapons systems.

In response to these concerns, I propose the following three recommendations: one, strengthen interdepartmental collaboration and diplomatic capacity; two, use a broader lens in security when examining climate change; and three, provide more guidance on the deployment of new technologies in defence.

Mr. Chair, those of us in arms control and disarmament bear witness to the humanitarian cost of conflict and see first-hand how forward-thinking policies can save lives. Civil society's perspective is not one of naive optimism but of informed realism, built on the grim realities we encounter and on the conviction that prevention is both possible and necessary.

Thank you for your attention in considering these points.