Gross neglect: the statutory duty to prepare for war abandoned

Registry finding · Ottawa · 4 October 2026 · Danilo Dzyuban

ISubject

The Honourable David J. McGuinty, Member of Parliament for Ottawa South, in the offices he has held since 20 December 2024:

From 2017 to 2024 he chaired the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians. The finding concerns the performance of duties attached by statute to these offices. It makes no finding on any matter outside them.

IIThe law

Text as consolidated on the Justice Laws website, current to 21 September 2026. The Emergency Management Act was last amended on 3 August 2007; each of its provisions quoted below has stood in the same words throughout the period under review.

Emergency Management Act, section 2

Minister means the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Section 3

The Minister is responsible for exercising leadership relating to emergency management in Canada by coordinating, among government institutions and in cooperation with the provinces and other entities, emergency management activities.

Section 4(1), paragraphs (a), (c) and (d)

The Minister’s responsibilities under section 3 include (a) establishing policies, programs and other measures respecting the preparation, maintenance, testing and implementation by a government institution of emergency management plans; … (c) analysing and evaluating emergency management plans prepared by government institutions; (d) monitoring potential, imminent and actual emergencies and advising other ministers accordingly;

Section 6(1)

The emergency management responsibilities of each minister accountable to Parliament for a government institution are to identify the risks that are within or related to his or her area of responsibility — including those related to critical infrastructure — and to do the following in accordance with the policies, programs and other measures established by the Minister: (a) prepare emergency management plans in respect of those risks; (b) maintain, test and implement those plans; and (c) conduct exercises and training in relation to those plans.

Section 6(2), paragraph (d)

Each minister shall include in an emergency management plan … (d) in the case of war or other armed conflict, the programs, arrangements or other measures that (i) support the overall defence effort, (ii) support the Canadian Forces and the armed forces of Canada’s allies in the conduct of military operations, (iii) contribute to meeting Canada’s military and civil wartime obligations to its allies, and (iv) mitigate the effects of foreign armed conflict on Canada.

National Defence Act, section 4

The Minister holds office during pleasure, has the management and direction of the Canadian Forces and of all matters relating to national defence …

Three features of the text govern the analysis. Section 6(1) imposes the duty on every minister accountable for a government institution, without exception. Section 6(2) uses “shall”, which under section 11 of the Interpretation Act is to be construed as imperative. Paragraph (d) attaches to no threshold of probability: the plan must provide for the case of war or other armed conflict, whether that case is judged likely or not.

IIIFacts

Each fact is stated with its source. Sources are listed in full in part VIII.

1. F1. The national instrument. The National Risk Profile is Public Safety Canada’s national assessment of disaster risk. Its first public report, released in May 2023, states that it “seeks to lay a foundation for understanding disaster risk in three key areas: earthquakes, wildland fires, and floods.” The report runs to 56,526 words. The words “war”, “armed conflict” and “conflict” do not occur in it. The page was last modified on 16 July 2024. Text examined on 4 October 2026.
2. F2. The planned extension. The report states that the next round of assessment covers “extreme heat events, hurricanes and space weather events”, and that the Profile will “continue to evaluate the inclusion of many more hazards”, naming avalanches, drought, permafrost degradation, industrial chemical spills, acts of terrorism and cyber-attacks. War and armed conflict are not named. The Profile’s overview page, last modified on 7 August 2025, and its backgrounders on the Profile’s future do not name them either.
3. F3. The statements. On 7 January 2025, at Mar-a-Lago, the President-elect of the United States said that Canada “should be a state”. Asked whether he would use military force to that end, he answered: “No, economic force.” Statements that Canada should become the fifty-first state continued through 2025.
4. F4. The model. On 20 January 2026 The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Armed Forces had modelled a hypothetical American assault on Canada. Two senior government officials described the model to the newspaper as “a conceptual and theoretical framework, not a military plan, which is an actionable and step-by-step directive for executing operations.”
5. F5. The request. A request under the Access to Information Act, received by National Defence on 31 August 2026 and registered as file A-2026-01154, asked for five classes of record: any emergency management plan prepared under section 6(1)(a) of the Emergency Management Act in respect of nuclear attack on Canada; any such plan in respect of war or other armed conflict affecting Canada; any list or register of risks identified by the Minister under section 6(1); any record of a test, exercise or training activity under section 6(1)(c); and any record of whether nuclear attack had been identified as a risk. It asked that the absence of records be stated item by item.
6. F6. The answer. By letter of 17 September 2026 the Department answered: “We regret to advise you that this Department neither confirms nor denies records exist pursuant to section 10(2) of the Access to Information Act. If the documentation did exist, it would be exempted in its entirety pursuant to section 15(1) of the Access to Information Act.” Two other requests, A-2026-01143 and A-2026-01144, received the same answer in the same words. A complaint concerning the three files is before the Information Commissioner.
7. F7. The Prime Minister. In an interview with The New York Times reported on 23 and 24 September 2026, the Prime Minister said that he had prepared for the possibility of United States military action against Canada, describing it as an “extreme tail risk”: “That’s not a base case, but it would be irresponsible not to.”
8. F8. The Minister. On 24 September 2026 the Minister of National Defence said: “It is normal. All militaries in the world spend time analyzing risk scenarios.” He added: “The prime minister also indicated that that’s the kind of detail that we would not get into.”
9. F9. Parliament. A brief to the Standing Committee on National Defence of 29 August 2026, with its supplement of 30 August 2026 stating that the Emergency Management Act requires measures for the case of war and that none appear to exist, has been published on the committee’s website since 8 September 2026. No response to its substance has been received.

IVAnalysis

A. Sections 3 and 4(1)(a) and (c): the lead minister, 14 March to 13 May 2025

For these nine weeks the Minister was the “Minister” of the Act. Section 3 placed on him the leadership of emergency management in Canada. Section 4(1)(a) required him to establish the policies under which every government institution prepares its plans. Section 4(1)(c) required him to analyse and evaluate those plans. The instrument of his department for the national assessment of risk examines three natural hazards and does not mention war (F1). Its announced extension does not mention war (F2). No policy, direction or evaluation by which the lead minister required any institution to provide for the case of war under section 6(2)(d) has been published or disclosed. The duty is one of leadership; the record shows none on the one case the Act names by name.

B. Section 4(1)(d): monitoring a potential emergency

Section 4(1)(d) extends the duty to “potential” emergencies and requires the Minister to advise other ministers. When he took office as lead minister, the head of state of the only country with a land border with Canada had stated that Canada should become part of it, and had named the means (F3). A statement by a foreign head of state that the country should cease to exist as a sovereign state is a potential emergency within the ordinary meaning of the words. No record of monitoring or of advice to ministers has been disclosed.

C. Section 6(1): the Minister of National Defence, from 13 May 2025

War and armed conflict are not one risk among others within the area of responsibility of the Minister of National Defence. They are the area. Section 6(1) required him to identify them as risks, to prepare plans in respect of them, to maintain and test those plans and to conduct exercises on them. Asked for the plan, the register of risks and the record of exercises, his Department would neither confirm nor deny that any of them exists (F5, F6). The only planning activity on record is a model that senior officials described as “not a military plan” (F4).

D. Section 6(2)(d): the content the statute prescribes

Paragraph (d) prescribes four components. Components (i) and (ii) concern support to military operations. Components (iii) and (iv) concern Canada’s “civil wartime obligations” and the mitigation of the effects of a foreign armed conflict on Canada. Section 6(2)(a) further requires measures to assist provincial governments and, through them, local authorities. Measures that a province or a municipality must carry out are measures that must be communicated to them. The Department’s answer treats every class of record, including the bare register of identified risks, as exempt in its entirety (F6). Section 15(1) protects information whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to injure the defence of Canada; it does not answer the question whether the duty imposed by section 6 has been performed.

E. National Defence Act, section 4

Section 4 gives the Minister “the management and direction” of “all matters relating to national defence”. The conversion of a conceptual model into the plan required by statute is a matter relating to national defence. Nearly seventeen months have passed between his appointment and the date of this finding.

F. Accountability to Parliament

Section 6(1) attaches the duty to the minister “accountable to Parliament”. The fact that a plan exists, and the date on which it was approved, disclose no operational content. Neither fact has been stated to Parliament, to the committee that holds the brief (F9), or to the public. On 24 September 2026 the Minister declined to go into detail (F8). The existence of the plan is not a detail.

VStandard

The registry records a finding of gross neglect where four elements are established by documents: a duty imposed by statute in mandatory terms; knowledge of the risk to which the duty applies; time sufficient to perform it; and the absence of any record of performance after that time. The measure of the departure is the one Canadian law applies to gross departures from a legal duty: a marked and substantial departure from the conduct to be expected of a reasonable person in the same position (R. v. J.F., 2008 SCC 60). The registry is not a court and its findings are not convictions. They state what the documents establish.

VIPositions open to the Minister

VIIFinding

On the documents set out above, the registry finds that the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable David J. McGuinty, in the offices he has held since 20 December 2024, has not performed, or has not shown any performance of, the duty imposed by sections 3, 4(1)(a), (c) and (d) and 6 of the Emergency Management Act to identify war and armed conflict as a risk and to provide for it in the plan that paragraph 6(2)(d) prescribes; and that, measured against the mandatory terms of the statute, the public statements of a foreign head of state, the time elapsed and his own experience, the departure is marked and substantial.

Gross neglect of a statutory duty.

The record that would answer the finding is one sentence from the Minister to Parliament: that a plan under paragraph 6(2)(d) exists, and the date on which it was approved.

VIIISources

1. Emergency Management Act, S.C. 2007, c. 15, current to 21 September 2026: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-4.56
2. National Defence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5, s. 4: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5
3. Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, s. 11: laws-lois.justice.gc.ca, Interpretation Act
4. Public Safety Canada, The First Public Report of the National Risk Profile (May 2023; page modified 16 July 2024): publicsafety.gc.ca
5. Public Safety Canada, National Risk Profile overview (modified 7 August 2025) and Backgrounder: Future of the National Risk Profile: overview · backgrounder
6. Offices held: National Defence, May 2025 · House of Commons, member profile
7. 7 January 2025, “economic force”: The Canadian Press via National Newswatch
8. 20 January 2026, the model: The Globe and Mail
9. 17 September 2026, files A-2026-01143, A-2026-01144, A-2026-01154: the three letters in full
10. 23–24 September 2026, the Prime Minister and the Minister: BNN Bloomberg · CP24
11. R. v. J.F., 2008 SCC 60: canlii.org