On June 9, Prime Minister Mark Carney told Canadians in Toronto that Canada would reach NATO’s 2% GDP defense-spending threshold in the current fiscal year—five years ahead of schedule. He framed it not as compliance, but as necessity, driven by “evolving global threats and diminishing U.S. commitment.” This wasn’t a symbolic move: one of Canada’s four submarines is operational, less than half of our land and naval platforms are mission-ready, and aging systems have eroded our defense credibility for far too long.
To respond, Ottawa has budgeted an additional C$9 billion for 2025–26, allocated across naval procurement, Arctic surveillance drones, modern radar systems, and compensation for personnel. At the NATO summit in The Hague (June 24–25), Canada joined consensus on a new long-term target: 5% of GDP by 2035, with 3.5% earmarked for military capabilities, and the remaining 1.5% for infrastructure, cyber, and strategic industrial capacity. Carney described this shift as an “expansion of our capacity, forces, infrastructure, resilience… to deter and defend.” NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte reinforced this message, urging a “wartime mindset” in light of growing threats from revisionist powers.
At the core of this transformation is the decision to decouple from exclusive U.S. defense dependency. Canada is no longer content with sending three-quarters of our capital defense spending to a single partner, no matter how close the alliance. Carney was explicit: we are diversifying. European suppliers are being prioritized, and the F-35 acquisition is now under scrutiny. In Brussels, Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand signed a Security & Defence Partnership with the European Union, a first step toward shared procurement under the ReArm Europe framework.
But Europe isn’t the only direction worth looking.
The Israel Equation: Tactical Lessons and Strategic Alignment
In a world where speed, survivability, and sovereignty matter more than size or legacy systems, Israel stands out as a clear example of what focused, threat-informed defence innovation looks like. For Canada, intent on building its own autonomous, high-tech capability, Israel offers direct lessons across multiple domains.
First, unmanned systems. Israel’s drone programs, including the Hermes and Heron series, have shaped global expectations of what UAVs can do, persistent surveillance, target acquisition, deep ISR integration. Canada’s Arctic domain awareness and BVLOS capabilities are still maturing. Canada’s intent to bolster ISR in the North, and deploy RPAS for domestic and allied missions, aligns directly with where Israel has operated successfully under live-fire conditions for decades.
Second, missile defence and counter-UAS. With NORAD modernization in play, Canada must look seriously at layered air defense. Systems like Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow aren’t just defensive shields, they’re integrated command and control architectures that combine radar, kinetic interceptors, and AI-enhanced decision loops. Canada has no equivalent, and the need for a credible counter-drone and missile deterrent, especially to protect urban centers or forward bases, is no longer hypothetical.
Third, cyber operations and digital resilience. Israel’s Unit 8200 is world-renowned, but more importantly, it’s the institutional model of how intelligence, cyber, and private-sector innovation can be fused into national defense. Canada has capable agencies in the CSE and DND’s cyber elements, but the country lacks a tight-knit civil-military technology feedback loop. If we are to genuinely compete in the cyber domain, partnerships or at least policy blueprints from Israel should be considered.
In 2024, Canada and Israel expanded bilateral agreements on security and intelligence cooperation. But the potential here isn’t just tactical, it’s structural. Israel has shown how a small state can leapfrog legacy militaries by integrating procurement, doctrine, and education around existential threat realities. For Canada, looking to catch up after decades of underinvestment, this kind of agility may prove vital.
Of course, cooperation with Israel carries geopolitical sensitivities, especially given current international tensions over the Israel–Palestine conflict. Critics will argue that engagement must be cautious and principled. But in an operational context, where survivability and effectiveness matter, the Israeli model offers more than a vendor relationship, it offers a blueprint for self-reliant defense innovation.
CANSEC 2025: More Than Optics
The urgency behind these conversations was palpable at CANSEC 2025, held May 28–29 at Ottawa’s EY Centre. The tradeshow brought together over 12,000 attendees, 600 VIPs, and 40+ international delegations. Former NATO Secretary-General George Robertson urged nations to “prepare for war to protect peace.” Lithuania’s Foreign Minister pointed to hybrid threats as the new normal.
The atmosphere was unmistakably different from years past. Canadian companies weren’t just there to exhibit; they were there to compete. Elbit Systems from Israel was also present, highlighting the Skylark platform. From edge computing to counter-UAV systems, the floor was packed with viable, exportable innovation. For its part, the Department of National Defence wasn’t just a customer, it was a collaborator, showing clear interest in emerging technologies, dual-use systems, and AI-enabled tools.
If Canada is serious about a sovereign defence sector, CANSEC was the statement. And Israel’s presence in these conversations, either directly through technology partners or indirectly through doctrinal influence, was not lost on those paying attention.
Sovereignty as Statecraft
After decades of strategic hesitation, Canada is no longer treating defense spending as a burden, it is reframing it as economic statecraft. Rare earth mining, drone production, domestic shipyards, these aren’t just projects, they’re pillars of sovereignty. Across all levels of government, there is a clear alignment: this is not a militarization for the sake of symbolism; it is a deliberate move to secure the industrial and territorial future of the country.
Some have called this “Keynesian militarism,” a state-led approach to national resilience. Others warn that it risks distorting the economy, overwhelming provincial budgets, or encouraging rushed procurement. These risks are real. And that’s why execution will matter more than rhetoric.
Canada is expected to submit its detailed defense-and-resilience roadmap by mid-2026, with a NATO progress review slated for 2029. The implementation challenge is not just technical, it’s institutional. Procurement must be transparent. Oversight must be multi-level and most importantly, planning must be disciplined enough to match ambition with delivery.
From Reluctance to Readiness
This recalibration is unfolding against a complex global backdrop: Russian aggression in Ukraine and the Arctic, Chinese strategic encroachment, and fluctuating U.S. resolve. Canada’s increased aid to Ukraine (over $2 billion), and its participation in G7 infrastructure planning, suggests we are no longer spectators, we are now in the arena.
Canada is doing more than checking boxes. It is taking steps toward a true defense posture, one that integrates modernization, domestic capability, strategic diversification, and credible deterrence. But as always, the real question is: can we follow through?
If Canada stays the course, with accountability, strategic clarity, and serious partnerships, it may finally make the pivot from cautious ally to capable leader. And if Ottawa takes the right lessons from partners and allies, balancing operational excellence with principled alignment, it may not just catch up, it might lead in ways few thought possible.