The Canadian Parliament has some of the weakest civilian oversight of its military among major democracies, according to a new study assessing how lawmakers monitor armed forces.
The findings come from a book based on a decade of research by defense scholars David Auerswald, Philippe Lagassé, and Stephen Saideman.
Saideman, a Carleton University professor, said the project began after the team noticed how little scrutiny parliament applies to the Canadian Armed Forces.
“When the military makes mistakes, it can be catastrophic. So you want to have more overseers, not less,” he told The Canadian Press.
The researchers argued Canada’s oversight mechanisms fall well behind those in countries with similar political systems.
Defense committees lack security clearances to review classified information and have limited control over their own agendas. Strict party discipline further discourages parliament members from challenging government decisions or probing military policy.
Political incentives also weaken accountability. Some parliament members decline security clearances because classified access would restrict what they can publicly discuss.
Meanwhile, former senior officers interviewed for the project noted that questions from legislators were often “partisan or superficial,” leading military leaders to prepare for political attacks rather than substantive discussions of military programs.
The paper found that Canada ranks alongside Japan, Chile, and Brazil as countries where legislatures play an “irrelevant” role in military oversight. By contrast, lawmakers in the US and Germany can access sensitive documents, influence promotions, and authorize deployments.
The findings emerge as Ottawa plans major defense spending increases and continues to confront the fallout from long-running military misconduct scandals.
