Canada has benefited from an unusually fortunate geography. We are surrounded by three oceans and share our only land border with a long-standing ally. We have not experienced war on our own territory in the manner endured by many countries, and generations of Canadians have grown up without seriously imagining an invading army crossing the border or missiles striking Canadian cities.
That peace is something to be grateful for.
It is not something to assume will maintain itself forever.
For decades, defence could easily feel remote from everyday Canadian life. The Canadian Armed Forces operated overseas, participated in NATO missions, assisted during domestic emergencies and maintained sovereignty operations, while most Canadians continued their lives with relatively little direct connection to the military. Defence spending could consequently be discussed almost entirely as another line in a federal budget.
The international environment has changed enough that Canada can no longer afford such complacency.
In the 2025-26 fiscal year, Canada reached NATO’s defence-spending benchmark of 2 percent of gross domestic product, with more than $63 billion in defence expenditures across the Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence and other eligible government activities. The spending increase included investments in personnel, readiness, infrastructure, equipment and Canada’s defence industrial base.
Those numbers matter, but they are not the most important part of the defence debate.
The deeper question is whether Canadians view national defence as somebody else’s responsibility.
Healthy Canadian nationalism requires rejecting that idea.
A country is sovereign only to the extent that it retains the capacity to make independent decisions and protect the territory in which those decisions apply. Diplomacy matters enormously. Alliances matter. International law matters. Trade relationships matter. But ultimately a government must also possess the ability to monitor its territory, patrol its waters, protect its airspace, respond to threats and assist citizens during emergencies.
Canada has more territory to defend than almost any country on Earth.
We have Atlantic approaches, Pacific approaches and an immense Arctic. We possess strategically important natural resources, telecommunications networks, ports, energy systems and other infrastructure that modern societies depend upon. Cybersecurity has created another domain in which attacks do not require an enemy to physically cross a border at all.
The old image of national defence as tanks waiting near a frontier is therefore inadequate.
Modern defence includes ships, aircraft and soldiers, but it also includes satellites, cybersecurity, intelligence, communications, drones, surveillance systems, secure supply chains, Arctic infrastructure and the industrial capacity to manufacture and repair critical equipment.
This creates an economic dimension to defence nationalism as well.
If Canada is going to spend considerably more money on defence, Canadians should ask how much of that spending can also strengthen Canadian industrial capabilities. Domestic production will not be realistic for every aircraft, component or weapons system. Canada benefits from allied procurement networks and should continue participating in them. However, a thoughtful defence strategy should also ask where Canada possesses the expertise to become exceptionally good at particular technologies and then maintain those capabilities at home.
Shipbuilding, aerospace, artificial intelligence, advanced sensors, Arctic technologies, cybersecurity, communications and critical minerals all offer examples of areas where national security and economic strategy can overlap.
There is also a human side to this question.
The people serving in Canada’s armed forces are not abstractions. They are Canadians who accept obligations most citizens will never face. A country that wants a capable military has to ensure that military service is respected, that members and their families are properly supported, and that military careers are seen as valuable forms of public service rather than occupations society remembers only on Remembrance Day.
Respecting the military does not mean refusing to criticize military decisions or defence procurement. Democratic oversight is essential precisely because the military exercises extraordinary powers on behalf of the public.
Nor does patriotism require Canadians to become enthusiastic about war.
A serious defence policy exists partly to prevent war by ensuring that aggression carries consequences.
Canada should want peaceful relationships with other countries. It should support alliances, diplomacy and international cooperation. But peaceful intentions are considerably more persuasive when accompanied by the capability to protect yourself.
For generations, Canada has been extraordinarily fortunate to live beside the United States. American military power has contributed significantly to the security of the continent.
That reality should produce gratitude, not dependency.
A mature relationship between allies works best when both parties contribute meaningfully to their shared security. More importantly, Canada has interests of its own. We should possess enough independent capacity that defending Canadian territory never becomes an activity we assume another country will perform for us.
Nationalism sometimes gets reduced to symbols.
A flag on a uniform is certainly a symbol.
The Canadian willing to wear it into dangerous places is something more.
If we believe Canada is worth preserving, then maintaining the capability to defend it is not militarism.
It is responsibility.
0 comments