FEATURE
Canada’s New National Security Priorities By ANDREW HOUSE AND MACNEAL DARNLEY
F
or years, Canada’s security and intelligence community wrestled with the question of who poses a threat to the country’s national security. But in 2020, that transformed from “who” to “what.” The answer was a virus destructive not only of the human body but social cohesion and the institutions, processes and systems that keep Canadians alive and prosperous. By government standards, the Canadian response was relatively quick. In March 2021, Canada updated its 2016 Guidelines on the National Security Review of Investments and released a new Critical Minerals List. With these changes, Canada’s security priorities began to move away from a
20
near-exclusive focus on terrorism and espionage toward comprehensively securing the basic health and safety of Canadians. Critical medicines, medical protective equipment, ventilators and food security all became examples of a new understanding of essential security interests. In the months following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, concern about radicalization to violence topped Canada’s national security priorities. Canadians were shocked by 9/11, prompting passage of anti-terror legislation with unprecedented special investigative and detention powers. This policy direction was vindicated by the 2014 assault on Canada’s Parliament, resulting in the
TODAYSGENERALCOUNSEL.COM JANUARY 202 2
death of a member of Canada’s military and a threat to both the executive and legislative branches of government. Throughout the post-9/11 era, espionage and foreign influence continued to garner media and academic attention, as they have since the Cold War. Early signs of a broader Canadian view of national security appeared in the 2009 amendments to the Investment Canada Act — Canada’s primary tool for controlling inbound foreign investment — with the creation of the national security review process. The Act authorizes review of virtually any acquisition or establishment of a business in Canada by a non-Canadian that could be “injurious to national security.” If the government reasonably believes that an investment would be injurious, it may take any measures that it considers advisable, including blocking, unwinding or imposing conditions. However, the Act still does not define “national security.” For several years, foreign investors operated without a clear understanding of the circumstances in which a review might be initiated. In an attempt to demystify the process, the government issued guidelines in 2016. Nevertheless, the process remained opaque. The Guidelines did provide insight into the types of investments the government viewed as threatening, BACK TO CONTENTS
