What must we do? Military and civil defence in Canada's future

Que devons-nous faire ? La défense militaire et civile dans l'avenir du Canada

Addition on March 16, 2025:

Since the original post, two pieces have been published that provide a robust basis for a debate on whether or not — and/or to what extent — Canada needs to be increasing military spending.

Where do you stand on the differences of views between the two authors"?

The first piece by Dan Gardner can be read directly on his Substack profile. It is called “Europe gets it. Does Canada? Canadian leaders still talk like it's 2017. It's time to get serious. Major sacrifices will be required if this country is to survive.”

The second piece by Luke Savage was published in the Toronto Star. It is called “Canada is going to spend another $14.5 billion a year? Here’s what we should really put it toward.”

Common introduction to each post in the “CANADA’S FUTURE,” “What must we do?” series of posts

On March 8, the Pledge emailed via Substack its first newsletter (called “Canada’s Future”) to the full list of supporters of the Pledge who also opted in to email updates (70,000 of you in total, at present). That newsletter is simultaneously a “post” (or, “article”) also called “Canada’s Future,” located on this Pledge website on Substack.

The “Canada’s Future” newsletter-article set out some observations and arguments about this historical moment in which we find ourselves and then asks Pledge supporters to engage on the Pledge’s Substack platform about what we must do to secure our future, to secure a Canada we want:

Make no mistake, Canadians will build a better Canada. There’s no shortage of ideas. What’s needed is a grand and diverse coalition of Canadians ready to do their part and to push their governments to work together and rise to the challenge.

We are including for your consideration several articles that try to sketch out an agenda for a less dependent, more resilient and just Canada. There is some overlap, some disagreement, some gaps [amongst theme].

Clicking on any given link [found in the “Canada’s Future” article] takes you to a post on the Pledge’s website…. From there, you can link to further information. The purpose is to launch a conversation amongst Pledge supporters.

You can comment/reply to posts by clicking on an icon that resembles a cartoon speech bubble at both the top and bottom of the post. You may choose to comment, and thereby participate in online dialogue, on any or all of the linked posts below.

This is one of six posts that connect back to the “Canada’s Future” newsletter/article.

Please consider participating!

As explained in the “Canada’s Future” post, clicking on the speech bubble icon at the top and bottom of the post is how you can make a comment. You can then reply to others’ comments. Please try to abide by two principles as expressed in Substack’s community guidelines for publications like the Pledge. They are expressed as applying to “writers” but the Pledge extends that notion to everyone commenting in threads on Pledge articles/posts.

1. Be kind to each other. Substack is founded on the belief that writers and their work deserve respect. Keep conversations civil in the comments of this publication and other Substack community spaces, such as events. Respect one other’s perspectives and life experiences in your conversations, and refrain from cruel or derogatory language.

2. Stay on-topic. We want this publication to support thoughtful discussion around writers’ work. It is not a place for irrelevant rants or off-topic digressions. That includes spam and repetitive self-promotion.

Defence in Canada’s future: an invitation to discuss this post’s themes with other Pledge supporters

This post’s theme is defence and security.

Military defence:

The primary piece we are sharing is the just-published (March 2025) annual strategic outlook report of the Canadian Defence Associations Institute, written by Professor Rob Huebert of the University of Calgary in collaboration with Professor Philippe Lagassé of Carleton University. Strategic Outlook 2025: Canada in a Dangerous World is about 20 pages — well worth your time to be brought up to speed on the essentials of Canada’s military preparedness and strategic situation and to have the authors’ conclusions on where we stand militarily. This is the overview of the report by the CDA Institute:

What are Trump’s intentions for Canada? Is he sowing confusion and chaos as part of a negotiation strategy or attempting to weaken Canada?

Historically, Canadian security has hinged on two core assumptions: that Canada faces no direct military threat, and that the United States would always act to defend Canada. Both assumptions are now being challenged amid rising global tensions and unprecedented shifts in the Canada-U.S. relationship.

This year’s Strategic Outlook is a timely and essential survey of the emerging and existing security challenges facing Canada at this dangerous inflection point. The report explores:

• The unprecedented shift of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship, including three possible interpretations of President Trump’s intentions in targeting Canada through 25% tariffs and his call for Canada to become the 51st state

• The implications of Trump’s disruption of NATO and his shifting stance toward Russia and Ukraine

• Arctic security and growing competition with Russia and China in the region

• Canada’s evolving role in the Indo-Pacific and the pressures of navigating between China and the United States

• Canadian defence recapitalization since 2017, with a special contribution by Philippe Lagassé reviewing the current state of procurement

Dr. Huebert’s analysis makes one thing clear: Canada must no longer depend on others to protect its security. It is time for Canadian political leaders to think strategically, act decisively, and take responsibility for safeguarding our national interests in a more dangerous and chaotic world.

Here is an extract from the report itself:

The second challenge to the core security assumptions is based on the Canada-U.S. security relationship that has existed since 1940. The actions and statements by President Trump have cast confusion and concern within Canada. Events are moving so quickly that it is difficult to fully understand the ramifications of his words and actions thus far. First, he has made very clear statements challenging Canadian independence. When he initially suggested that the United States should annex Canada and make it the 51st state, it was thought that he was only joking. It was also thought he was possibly trying to rattle Canadian officials as a means of improving his position with Canada over several issues of importance. However, he has repeated this suggestion, and it is starting to appear that, even if he does not intend to invade Canada, he does seem to be seeking some extended form of control. He has also begun to move towards undermining Canadian economic security

There is no list of proposals in the report, ‘just’ analysis and a basis for Pledge supporters to connect the dots between their own observations of the world we are in and Canada’s current relationship — with the US, in NATO, in the defence of Ukraine — and what they learn from the report.

What does it means “for Canadian political leaders to think strategically, act decisively, and take responsibility for safeguarding our national interests in a more dangerous and chaotic world”? What must we do?

Civil defence:

The focus in the Strategic Outlook is on military defence in the classic sense. We are also including a recent piece (March 5) called “Canada needs a new civil defence corps”, written by Peter McLeod and published in The Tyee. You can read the piece by clicking on either link in the previous sentence. We reproduce the introductory three paragraphs so that you have a sense of what the article discusses and proposes:

When Sweden joined NATO last year, it wasn’t a decision made lightly. Swedes are famously independent, deeply pragmatic and serious about their security. During the Cold War, they built a robust civil defence system, training their population in preparedness, stockpiling critical supplies and ensuring that in any crisis — natural or man-made — Sweden could stand on its own feet.

But after the Berlin Wall fell, Sweden, like much of the West, took a “peace dividend.” Civil defence was scaled back and military spending shrank. That all changed in 2017. Seeing the world shift under its feet, Sweden reinstated partial conscription, restarted preparedness training and began fortifying its infrastructure.

Today, following the reactivation of its Psychological Defence Agency, every Swedish household receives a booklet titled “If Crisis or War Comes,” outlining what to do in an emergency. The country has retrained thousands of reservists and rebuilt its civil protection programs — not because it wants war, but because it takes security seriously.

Canada should be doing the same.

….

What would Canadians actually do?

A modern civil defence program is fundamentally about national participation — mobilizing the talents and capabilities of an entire population. In Sweden and Finland, civil defence is built around training, community preparedness and personal responsibility. Every adult is expected to have the knowledge and basic skills to help in an emergency — whether that’s first aid, defending critical infrastructure or organizing local response teams.

He then discusses six specific areas:

• Universal civil defence training

• Optional defence skills track

• Reserve forces expansion

• Cyber-resilience training

• National youth service program:

• Arctic protection and Indigenous leadership

In a similar spirit, the campaign underway by youth and the Climate Emergency Unit in BC for a Youth Climate Corps (YCC) merits serious consideration. See Erin Blondin’s “Our Vision for a Youth Climate Corps: a transformative climate and labour solution.” These passages stand out in terms of the kind of spirit and commitment that the Pledge for Canada envisages Canada will need going forward:

In the Second World War, Canada’s population sat at just over 11 million people.

To counter the rise of fascism and one of the greatest threats to democracy our world had ever faced, over one million Canadians enlisted for military service—a remarkable level of participation.

Those who signed up were prepared to sacrifice everything. From all corners of the country and all ethnic backgrounds, the majority of people who went to fight overseas had an important characteristic in common: their youth. About 64 per cent of those who enlisted during the Second World War were under the age of 21. That generation of young people left their farms, they delayed plans to join the workforce or launch their careers, and they deferred their post-secondary studies because they understood the emergency to be immediate.

….

Today, thousands of young people are eager for a chance to meet this new generational moment. As the world begins to confront the climate crisis, the last few years have seen a burgeoning of youth leadership. Just like we saw in WWII, youth are once again mobilizing to secure our collective future. But so far, our governments have failed to create public programs to accept and deploy their energies and talents. The invitation has been absent.

The good news for today is that the crises we must confront call upon us to help and to heal — both society and the planet.

Enlisting with the YCC could be just the antidote to the mental anxiety experienced by countless young people in the face of escalating climate disasters.

Canada needs a new youth corps, focused on building community resilience and the infrastructure and programs required to tackle the climate emergency. Not a compulsory form of youth service, but an attractive one.

What do you think of the civil defence idea in general and the specific kinds of programs?

Does the civil defence idea help us think about defence spending in more creative and more effective terms?

Does the civil defence proposal help us to think of dual- or multiple-use defence expenditure — where fire-fighting, assistance to civilians in times of disaster, humanitarian assistance missions abroad, rescue of migrants at sea, etc. are all part of defence?