ANALYSIS: $900 M for defense and a luxury jet—Is Ottawa really prioritizing national security?

Breaking Down the Budget

Ottawa’s official announcement details a $900 million investment spread across several areas. A significant portion is earmarked for the renewal of Canadian Armed Forces equipment, including vehicles, communications equipment, and weapons systems. Another portion is dedicated to strengthening cyber capabilities—an area where Canada lags worryingly behind in the face of modern threats. Funds are also earmarked for improving defense infrastructure in the North, in line with commitments made as part of the NORAD renewal. These expenditures address real needs documented in internal Canadian Armed Forces reports, which describe aging equipment and degraded operational capabilities resulting from years of chronic underinvestment.

We must also acknowledge what this $900 million does not directly fund—or at least not yet. Replacing the Victoria-class submarines, which are nearing the end of their operational life, will require tens of billions over several decades. Modernizing the Royal Canadian Air Force’s fleet, despite the ongoing purchase of F-35s, remains a colossal undertaking. And the Canadian Armed Forces’ recruitment crisis—with thousands of unfilled positions—cannot be solved with equipment checks. National defense also means soldiers, officers, and specialists capable of operating all that equipment. And in that regard, Ottawa is seriously behind.

Nine hundred million is a substantial sum. But in the workings of modern defense, it’s also a sum that can vanish into the depths of a military budget like a drop of water in a dry reservoir.

What Military Experts Think

Canadian defense analysts have greeted the announcement with a mix of caution and conditional approval. Many voices within expert circles commend the direction taken while pointing out that the scale of the investment is insufficient. Institutions such as the Canadian Institute of Global Affairs and the Canadian Centre for Security and Defense have reiterated that Canada must not only increase its spending but, above all, improve the efficiency of its procurement processes—which are notoriously slow, bureaucratic, and costly. It is not uncommon for Canadian military equipment projects to face years of delays and dramatic cost overruns. The announced funding must still navigate the labyrinth of the federal bureaucracy before reaching soldiers in the field.

An aircraft that embodies Quebec excellence

The Bombardier Global 6500 is, by all objective measures, a remarkable aircraft. Designed and assembled in Quebec, it represents the pinnacle of expertise at Bombardier Aviation, one of Canada’s leading aerospace companies. With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, a cruising speed of Mach 0.85, and a cabin that can accommodate up to 17 passengers in a high level of comfort, the Global 6500 is one of the highest-performing long-range business jets in its class. The federal government’s acquisition of this aircraft is part of a plan to gradually replace the VIP transport fleet of the Canadian Armed Forces and the government, which currently operate aircraft whose age is beginning to raise concerns about reliability and operating costs.

The purchase also carries significant industrial and symbolic weight. Bombardier has weathered a difficult decade—marked by painful restructuring, the sale of the C Series to Airbus, and a refocus on business aviation. Today, the company has successfully repositioned itself in the high-end business jet segment. A government purchase of the Global 6500 sends a clear message: Ottawa believes in its own industry. Against the backdrop of trade tensions with the United States and discussions about the need to strengthen Canada’s industrial base, this type of order is not just a transaction—it is a political act in the noblest sense of the term.

Buying Canadian when you can buy Canadian—especially when the product is among the best in the world—is not protectionism. It’s strategic common sense. And it was about time Ottawa remembered that.

The Issue of Timing and Perception

But here’s the problem with poorly calibrated government communications: the Global 6500, as high-performing and as Canadian as it may be, is an aircraft associated in the public imagination with luxury travel. When images of this elegant aircraft circulate in the media on the same day as an announcement of defense spending, the message can easily be misinterpreted by the public. Is Ottawa buying an aircraft to transport military personnel to crisis zones or to transport ministers on official trips? The honest answer is probably: both. Government transport aircraft are used both for the official travel of political leaders and, in certain contexts, for Canadian Armed Forces missions. But this nuance gets lost in the media noise, and the government should have anticipated that.

A Complex Relationship Between the Private Sector and the Government

The purchase of the Global 6500 highlights a fundamental dynamic of the Canadian defense industry: the central role of a few large companies in delivering government capabilities. Bombardier, CAE, Magellan Aerospace, L3Harris Technologies Canada, and other players form the backbone of an aerospace and defense sector that employs tens of thousands of Canadians and generates significant exports. These companies depend, in part, on government contracts to maintain their production lines, invest in research and development, and preserve critical skills within the country. When Ottawa purchases a Global 6500 rather than a competing American or European aircraft, it makes a choice that has direct repercussions on jobs in Quebec and across Canada.

This reality should not lead to wishful thinking. Simply buying Canadian is not enough to ensure a sound defense policy. Equipment must meet actual operational needs, be delivered on time and within budget, and fit into a coherent overall strategy. Canada has experienced painful episodes where defense contracts were awarded primarily for political reasons—regional economic benefits, corporate pressure, electoral considerations—with disappointing operational results. Vigilance on this front is constant and necessary.

The Canadian defense industry deserves support—but above all, it must hold itself to high standards. Government procurement must never become a blank check for complacent mediocrity.

Economic Benefits in Quebec

It would be incomplete to analyze this purchase without mentioning its regional economic impact, particularly in Quebec. Bombardier employs approximately 16,000 people in Canada, the vast majority of whom are in the Greater Montreal area. The Dorval plant, where the Global series jets are assembled, is an industrial flagship that brings together world-class engineering and manufacturing expertise. A government order for a Global 6500 directly contributes to Bombardier’s financial health, helps secure existing jobs, and potentially paves the way for investment in future generations of aircraft. At a time when the Carney administration is seeking to strengthen Canada’s economic resilience in the face of trade uncertainties with the United States, this type of domestic order makes perfect economic sense.

Canada’s Shameful Ranking Within NATO

The numbers don’t lie. Among the 32 NATO members, Canada consistently ranks near the bottom in terms of the percentage of GDP allocated to defense. In 2024, only 7 out of 32 members met or exceeded the 2% target—including Poland, the Baltic states, Greece, and the United Kingdom. Canada, at approximately 1.37%, falls far short of the mark. This shortfall is not new—it has built up over several decades under governments of all political stripes. Liberals and Conservatives alike have preferred to invest in other electorally profitable priorities rather than in national defense, whose needs are less visible to the average citizen.

This context is now changing, and the shift is significant. The war in Ukraine has radically altered perceptions of security risks in Europe and North America. The unpredictability of the Trump administration has added a layer of uncertainty regarding the reliability of U.S. security guarantees. Canada can no longer afford to outsource its security to Washington in the hope that the U.S. security umbrella will always hold. Defending Canadian sovereignty—on land, at sea, in the air, and in the Arctic—is a responsibility that Ottawa must assume using its own resources, capabilities, and strategic vision. The announced $900 million marks the beginning of this realization. But it is only a beginning.

For decades, Canada has benefited from having a U.S. neighbor that effectively shouldered a large part of its security burden. That era may be over. And if so, it will take much more than 900 million to make up for lost time.

Is the announced budget trajectory credible?

In recent months, the federal government has published a defense spending roadmap that aims to reach 2% of GDP by the end of the decade. Analysts are viewing this trajectory with caution for one simple reason: Canadian governments have a well-documented habit of announcing increases in military spending and then failing to maintain them when budget cycles become tight. Cuts to defense budgets have historically been a near-automatic reflex during periods of austerity. For the announced trajectory to be credible, Ottawa must enshrine these commitments in multi-year budget legislation, with independent monitoring mechanisms and accountability to Parliament. The credibility of a defense commitment is measured over ten years, not ten months.

The Arctic: At the Forefront of All Issues

No analysis of Canadian defense spending can overlook the Arctic. This region accounts for approximately 40% of Canada’s territory and is the focus of challenges that will intensify in the coming decades. Global warming is gradually opening up new sea routes—notably the Northwest Passage—which will become major commercial and strategic arteries. The natural resources buried beneath the permafrost and the Arctic seabed—oil, gas, lithium, and rare earth elements—are fueling the ambitions of the major powers. Russia has massively strengthened its military presence in the Arctic since the middle of the previous decade. China is positioning itself as a “nearby Arctic power” and is investing in naval capabilities that would eventually allow it to operate in these waters.

Faced with these realities, Canada’s Arctic capabilities are notoriously inadequate. Northern military bases are few in number and often ill-equipped for extended operations under extreme conditions. Surveillance of Arctic airspace and maritime areas relies heavily on systems shared with the United States through NORAD. The Canadian Coast Guard, essential for operations in icy waters, is struggling to renew its fleet of icebreakers. And the Canadian Armed Forces lack personnel specifically trained for operations in extreme northern conditions. The announced $900 million includes a northern component—but is it commensurate with the scale of the challenge?

The Arctic is not the setting for an adventure movie. It is the next battleground for power rivalries, and Canada is arriving late, ill-equipped, and inadequately prepared. This assessment is not alarmist—it has been documented, quantified, and reiterated by experts for years.

Cyber Threats and Information Warfare

Beyond physical threats, Canada faces growing challenges in the cyber domain. Attacks on critical infrastructure—electricity grids, banking systems, government agencies—are on the rise worldwide. Canada has been the target of several significant cyber intrusions, attributed to state or parastatal actors linked to Russia, China, and other powers. The Canadian Centre for Cybersecurity, established in 2018, has seen its mandate and resources expand, but experts agree that investment remains insufficient given the scale and sophistication of the threats. A portion of the announced $900 million is intended to strengthen these capabilities—a step in the right direction, even if the amount remains debatable.

Playing Multiple Hands at Once

The Carney administration’s announcement must be viewed from several perspectives simultaneously. On the diplomatic front, it sends a direct message to the Trump administration: Canada takes its defense seriously and has no intention of remaining indefinitely the “free rider” within NATO that Washington has been criticizing for years. This message is important because the Canada-U.S. relationship is going through a period of turbulence unprecedented since the postwar era. Threats of tariffs, talk of a 51st state, and challenges to trade agreements have created a level of anxiety in Ottawa’s federal corridors not seen in a long time. Investing in defense also shows Washington that Canada is fulfilling its responsibilities as an ally—which gives Ottawa a slightly stronger negotiating position on other issues.

Domestically, the announcement responds to growing public demand in Canada for the government to invest in national security. Recent polls show a significant rise in Canadians’ concern about external threats—whether from Russia, China, or, more unusually, the United States itself. For the Liberal government, which must navigate a complex political landscape, this announcement is also a way to position itself as a government that takes national security seriously—an area where the Conservatives have traditionally held the advantage.

Ottawa is playing several tunes at once with this announcement. It’s a smart use of politics—provided the music actually matches the notes written on the sheet. In national defense, the gap between promise and delivery comes at a high cost. And not just in terms of money.

The Reaction of European Allies

Among Canada’s European NATO allies, the reaction to this type of announcement is generally mixed. On the one hand, any additional investment in defense is welcome at a time when the Alliance must demonstrate its cohesion in the face of the Russian threat. On the other hand, European partners who have made painful budget decisions—notably Germany, which has abandoned its sacrosanct budget balance to fund its remilitarization—view Canadian announcements with a certain degree of skepticism, as their credibility always depends on actual implementation. The next NATO summit in The Hague, scheduled for the summer of 2025, will be a key test of whether Ottawa is able to present a credible and up-to-date spending plan.

Supporters of a more ambitious reinvestment plan

On the right side of the Canadian political spectrum, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives welcomed the direction of the announcement while deeming it insufficient. The Conservative Party of Canada has been advocating for years for a return to 2% of GDP for defense spending, and its critics regularly point to delays and shortcomings in military procurement. For the Conservatives, $900 million is a step in the right direction, but one that is far too timid given the scale of accumulated needs. They also point out that the federal government’s procurement processes are so slow that it will take years for this money to translate into actual operational capabilities. This is a criticism grounded in facts—the issue of submarine replacement, for example, has been dragging on for more than a decade without resolution.

Other voices in the business world and foreign policy circles are calling for a thorough review of Canada’s defense strategy. Not just more money, but a clear vision of priorities, the capabilities to be developed, and the alliances to be strengthened. Canada must explicitly decide in which areas it wants to be a credible contributor to collective security: Arctic defense? Cybersecurity? Peacekeeping operations? Missile defense? These choices have budgetary, diplomatic, and industrial implications that will play out over decades—and they deserve a serious public debate that Canada has not yet truly had.

A defense policy worthy of the name is not merely a list of expenditures. It is a vision of what we want to defend, how, with whom, and why. Canada has not yet had this debate in a truly serious and structured manner. It is high time.

Pacifist Voices and Questions of Social Priorities

At the other end of the spectrum, some progressive voices are questioning the priorities behind these investments. Against a backdrop of a housing crisis, public health challenges, and a costly energy transition, allocating hundreds of millions more to defense is not a given for everyone. These concerns are legitimate within the context of a democratic debate on national priorities. The honest answer, however, is that national security is a prerequisite for everything else: without effective sovereignty, without the ability to defend the territory and institutions, all other social policies are undermined. This is not an argument for spending lavishly on defense—it is a reminder that security comes at a real cost and that we must bear that cost.

Bombardier, CAE, and Quebec’s Defense Ecosystem

The purchase of the Global 6500 is part of a remarkably rich Canadian—and particularly Quebec—aerospace ecosystem. Beyond Bombardier, the Montreal region is home to CAE, the world leader in flight simulation and military training, whose systems are used by armed forces in dozens of countries. There is also Pratt & Whitney Canada, a U.S. subsidiary that designs and manufactures aircraft engines in Longueuil and is involved in numerous military programs. This ecosystem, which employs more than 40,000 people in Quebec and represents a strategic export sector, depends in part on a steady stream of government orders to maintain its viability. Purchases such as the Global 6500 are therefore not merely commercial transactions—they are acts of industrial policy in the strongest sense.

It is in Canada’s best interest to maintain and develop this defense industrial base. In a world where military supply chains are increasingly viewed as matters of sovereignty—the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically illustrated the risks of excessive dependence on foreign sources—having a domestic industry capable of designing, manufacturing, and maintaining cutting-edge military equipment is a major strategic advantage. The federal government should have an explicit and consistent policy to support this industry, not just ad hoc purchases driven by political cycles.

Quebec is home to one of the world’s most impressive concentrations of aerospace expertise. This human and technological capital is a national asset. The federal government has a responsibility to protect it—and to use it wisely.

Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Issues

In major defense procurements, the issue of technology transfer and intellectual property is often just as important as the price paid. When Canada purchases a Canadian-made aircraft such as the Global 6500, the entire value chain remains within the country—design, manufacturing, maintenance, and upgrades. When Ottawa purchases equipment from foreign suppliers, the terms regarding technology transfer, access to source code, and independent maintenance become critical long-term issues. Canada has learned this lesson the hard way in several past procurement programs. Supporting domestic suppliers—when they exist and offer competitive products—is therefore not naive protectionism; it is strategic risk management.

A country redefining its approach to its own security

Beyond the numbers and equipment, this announcement of defense investment says something deeper about Canada as an international actor. Since the end of the Cold War, Canada has gradually repositioned itself as a middle power whose foreign policy relied more on diplomacy, international aid, and peacekeeping operations than on raw military power. This model has its merits—and it has allowed Canada to build a strong international reputation. But it also has its limitations in a world where military power is once again becoming an essential diplomatic currency and where actors unable to defend themselves are facing increasing pressure.

Canada is at a turning point. The mounting challenges—U.S. pressure, competition in the Arctic, cyber threats, and global geopolitical instability—require a more robust response than that of past decades. The announcement of the $900 M is an indication that Ottawa is beginning to come to terms with this reality. But intellectually grasping a problem and having the political will to solve it over the long term are two very different things. The real question is not whether this government will spend $900 M on defense in 2026—it has announced it and will likely do so. The real question is whether, in ten years, Canada will have transformed these investments into real, sustainable, and credible operational capabilities.

A country that is beginning to take its defense seriously after decades of underinvestment deserves recognition. But that recognition is earned over time—not with a press conference and a $900 million check.

The Role of Parliament and Accountability

Amid all this, we must not forget the fundamental role of the Canadian Parliament in overseeing defense spending. The House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defense and its Senate counterpart are responsible for scrutinizing, questioning, and validating the government’s decisions regarding national security. This parliamentary oversight is essential to ensuring that taxpayer money is spent effectively, that priorities are properly established, and that contracts are awarded transparently. Independent audit bodies, such as the Office of the Auditor General, must also have the resources and the mandate to regularly audit major military procurement programs. Transparency in defense spending is not an option—it is a fundamental democratic requirement.

What This Announcement Really Means

Ottawa’s $900 million investment in defense and its acquisition of a Bombardier Global 6500 are decisions that deserve to be evaluated honestly—neither with excessive enthusiasm nor with systematic cynicism. These are substantive decisions, based on documented needs, and situated within a geopolitical context that demands a credible response. They support a world-class domestic industry, help modernize aging military capabilities, and send an important political signal to allies and potential adversaries. As such, they deserve to be commended for what they are: a step in the right direction.

But they also deserve to be evaluated for what they are not: a comprehensive solution, a global strategy, or a radical break with decades of underinvestment. Canada needs a twenty-year defense vision, not announcements that respond to election cycles. It needs to recruit and retain high-quality military personnel, not just purchase equipment. It needs to reform its procurement processes to make them faster, more efficient, and less costly. And it needs a serious democratic debate on the kind of power it wants to be in an increasingly turbulent world. Nine hundred million dollars is a start. The rest remains to be built.

Canada has always been better at identifying its challenges than at solving them with the rigor and consistency they require. This announcement is encouraging. What follows will determine whether this is the beginning of a real transformation—or just another entry in the long list of well-intentioned promises.

The question that remains

In ten years, will Canada have built a national defense system commensurate with its responsibilities, ambitions, and values? The answer will depend not only on the checks signed today, but also on the consistency of future decisions, the quality of political and military leadership, and the collective willingness of Canadians to bear the true cost of their security. This cost is real, it is measurable, and it will not disappear just because we choose to look the other way. History rewards nations that take their security as seriously as their other major national priorities. It is up to Canada to decide, now and in the years to come, what kind of nation it wants to be.

Signed, Jacques Pj Provost