The True North Strong and Free
I am a Canadian born in England to a Canadian soldier father and a British mother. However, I grew up in Montreal, served in the Royal Canadian Navy and studied economics at Concordia University. I took a gap year in the UK, which stretched into fifty-five years of living and working in the UK, Germany, France, and South Africa. I have only recently returned to my homeland. So, please forgive me if I’m not entirely up to date with my facts. However, I’m altogether concerned about certain aspects of my country upon returning.
True North Strong and Free is from our National Anthem. Most would interpret that phrase as our geographical position. But it also means “true,” as in loyal or faithful to our northern country. And it’s in that light that I wrote this essay.

Why is there so much debate about Canada’s defence?
On its golden anniversary in 1960, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) boasted a fleet of some fifty warships, including an aircraft carrier, fourteen St. Laurent-class destroyer-escorts with another six under construction, twenty-three converted wartime destroyers and frigates, and ten minesweepers, all crewed by 21,500 personnel. That was the navy I joined in January 1961, just as John F Kennedy became President of the United States. I proudly served with the RCN during the 1960s Cold War as a sonarman, participating in dead-serious Cold War NATO exercises off Gibraltar and Northern Ireland and the Gulf of St Lawrence. We searched for Soviet submarines during the Cuban Missile Crisis and for evidence of the lost US advanced nuclear submarine USS Thresher, all in the Atlantic. The world came its closest to atomic annihilation during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, but US President John F Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev retreated from the brink. I also lived and worked for many years in an Allied-protected Europe, then divided into a free West and a Soviet-controlled East. I also survived a Soviet-backed proxy conflict in South Africa that cost 14,000 lives between 1990 and 1994. I’ve lived through some tense moments in my life and know how critical solid defence is through personal experience.
However, after too many years of broadening my experience overseas and hearing little about Canada, I returned to a country that had dramatically changed in so many ways. I’m grappling with those changes, but the one that baffles me most is the debate over Canada’s defence spending. Excuse me, what is there to debate apart from planning for survival in the event of another World War or a belligerent invasion of our country?
It has been estimated that 231 million people died from war and its effects in the last century. We are barely a quarter of our way through the 21st century and the end of one Cold War, and we are teetering on the brink of another Cold War or worse. Are we adequately prepared for that, or will we once more depend on the goodwill of our more powerful allies?

Territory and opportunity
Canada has a lot to defend. We are the world’s second-largest country by area after Russia. We have the world’s longest coastline, comprising a vast mainland and many islands on three oceans. Canada has a 202,080 km-long coastline, including the islands. Canada’s mainland coast, including the islands of Newfoundland, Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island, is 71 261 km long and fronts on the North Pacific, Arctic and North Atlantic oceans. Protecting Canada’s sovereignty is a significant task. This contrasts with Russia’s 37,653 km coastline, the US with 19,924 km and China with 14,500 km. Canada also has the most extensive freshwater system worldwide, comprising 245,000 km2 or 14% of the world’s freshwater, including a 50% share of four of the five Great Lakes with the US. That is also a valuable resource that needs to be protected.
Why is protecting our coastline increasing in importance? The answer is our people, of course, but also shipping and invasion. Ocean shipping is an integral part of the supply chain for most industries, making it a backbone of global trade. It is estimated that around eighty percent of goods are transported by ships. The volume of seaborne trade has been showing a growing trend. Between 1990 and 2021, the volume of cargo transported by ships more than doubled, from four to nearly eleven billion tons. Hand in hand with the rise in seaborne trade is the increasing capacity of the global merchant fleet. Between 2013 and 2021, it grew by about 43 percent, reaching almost 2.1 million deadweight tons in 2021. The vast bodies of the Earth’s waters are becoming more congested and contested.
The most critical passage between the Atlantic and Pacific today is the Panama Canal, which was completed for world shipping over a century ago. However, serious issues are developing in Panama. Drought has forced its authorities to reduce shipping traffic in the waters that link the Atlantic and Pacific as a water supply crisis threatens the future of this crucial waterway. There are many challenges connected with the canal, some since its beginning. They range from finding enough water to raise and lower ships making the crossing to dealing with potential coronavirus or other equatorial infections among crews. For Panama, the canal watershed provides a population of over one million people in Panama City and Colón with water. However, urbanization, pollution, and slash-and-burn agriculture threaten this watershed and the quality of its water. Losing this water route would force shipping to reroute between the oceans, either via the Suez Canal or by circumnavigating the 15,000 km around South America at an enormous additional cost. Can this tiny Central American country, on whom the modern world has become so dependent, overcome these challenges, or will they get worse?
However, Panama’s problems are Canada’s opportunity. Canada has a valuable alternate maritime route through its northern waters that the country and world have not yet exploited – the Northwest Passage. This 1,450km (900 miles) water route through the islands of Canada’s north connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans via the Arctic Ocean, a valuable route that explorers have sought to exploit for centuries. The Northwest Passage is 7,000 kilometres shorter between Europe and the Pacific than the current shipping route through the Panama Canal. It saves about two weeks of travel time and cost. From London to Tokyo via Panama, the distance is about 23,000 kilometres. Travelling east through the Suez Canal is 21,000 kilometres. The route through Canada’s Northwest Passage is just 16,000 kilometres. That’s an enormous potential saving in elapsed time and fuel!
Less distance doesn”t always mean more time saved. A study by the Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics concludes that depending on the ice conditions in the Arctic, journeys from Northern Europe to East Asia may not save any time at all. The overall time of the journey depends on the time spent in ice water, which slows down ships considerably. As such, if the routes are open only 3 months in a year, which implies the worst ice conditions, the transit mentioned above could cause a loss of three days compared to the one passing through the Suez Canal. However, if the route is open all year round, which implies perfect ice conditions, the transit could cause a gain of up to seven days. Another study even estimates that the time gained via the Northwest Passage could reach up to sixteen days. The question is, how can we make it happen?
Until now, it has not been exploited since it has been frozen over for nine months of the year. With climate change, that limitation is shrinking. With a warmer climate, improved icebreakers, and more frequent use, the Northwest Passage could be transformed into the coveted shipping route between East and West that the explorers sought. As such, it is an important asset and a new source of business for Canada, and it needs to be protected.
The route has been proven viable recently. In 1969, an American tanker, the SS Manhattan, made a voyage through the Northwest Passage to confirm the passage was a feasible route for shipping oil. Canada’s permission was not sought by the Americans, but Canada provided an icebreaker to escort the SS Manhattan. In 1970, the ship sailed through the passage. In the end, Canada imposed environmental regulations on trips through the passage, but who controls those waters is not resolved. Then again, in 1985, the US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Sea passed through the passage without asking the Canadian government for permission. Political fallout followed a direct challenge to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. It led to the signing of the Arctic Co-operation Agreement in 1988 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and US President Ronald Reagan. The document states that the US would refrain from sending icebreakers through the Northwest Passage without Canada’s consent, but it is tacitly given. Whether the waters were international or internal is still unresolved.

Enemies on our doorstep?
Regarding the rarely-considered danger of invasion, Michael Higgins of the National Post wrote in February 2024 that an undefended “Canada could find itself embroiled in a hot war it isn’t expecting.” He points out that an aggressive China in the Indo-Pacific, an ambitious Iran in the Middle East, a dangerous Russia in Europe and an arms race in Asia are just some of the potential flashpoints that could erupt into a hot war that could drag Canada into it. Are these potential dangers real or imaginary? Clarity increases daily amidst global tensions. That may sound far-fetched, but with modern technologies, distance means nothing anymore to invaders. The distance from Moscow to Ukraine is 1,000km, and 700 more to Kyiv. General Andrew Leslie says, “Our North is vulnerable.” We have vast reserves of gas, oil, and other minerals, but we have a complete lack of facilities and ports for a valuable region of four million square kilometres. He repeats that there have been promises to spend more on the Arctic, “but nothing happens.” Excellent vision and excellent papers written over and over, “but nothing happens.” Leslie points to the “US Arctic in Alaska, which is protected by 20,000 forces; Russia has 30,000 troops in the Arctic, but Canada has less than 300! We have “no equipment to deter foreign invasion apart from 12 jets.”
The Northwest Passage is on roughly the same latitude as Russia’s Murmansk. This city in Russia’s far north will be the Russian terminus of the Arctic Bridge, a seasonal sea route approximately 6,700 kilometres (4,200 miles) long linking Russia to Canada, specifically the Russian port of Murmansk to the Hudson Bay port of Churchill, Manitoba. It’s closer than you may think and within reach by submarine in winter! Even though the passage has not yet been thoroughly tested for commercial shipping, Russian interest in this project and the Northwest Passage is substantial since the bridge will serve as a significant trade route between North America, Europe and Asia. The Russian Northern Fleet is based in Severomorsk on the Kola Peninsula, bordering Northern Norway, some 20km from Murmansk in the western Arctic. From there, the Northern Fleet has jurisdiction over the northwest region of that vast country as well as immediate access to the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans.
Russia has been investing heavily in the Arctic since Soviet times. The Northern Fleet comprises about two-thirds of all the Russian Navy’s nuclear-powered ships, including the nuclear-powered missile and torpedo submarines; missile-carrying and anti-submarine aircraft; surface ships with missiles, aircraft-carrying, and anti-submarine capabilities; coastal troops; combined independent force; the Russian Air Force and Air Defence Force; and the army corps of the Ground Forces. The Northern Fleet has easy access to the North Atlantic via Norway’s Nordkapp (North Cape) beyond the Kola Peninsula. The Russian Navy boasts one of the largest and most diverse submarine fleets globally, featuring about sixty-five submarines, including advanced models like the Borei class. The Northern Fleet is tasked with securing Russia’s northern coastline. The fleet boasts Russia’s most advanced Arctic land, air, and naval assets. Is the Arctic Bridge also a potential invasion route?
Even China has declared itself a “near-Arctic nation” and has expanded its icebreaker fleet. Russia, China, the US and others are keenly interested in exploiting Canada’s Arctic for resources.
Canada’s primary naval defences are on its Atlantic and Pacific coasts, where it would likely expect an invasion. Still, it must increasingly acknowledge the importance of the Arctic and the Northwest Passage and explore how to exploit its opportunity while offering various services and stops for ships passing through this northern route. Canada’s armed forces and its navy, in particular, must ramp up to protect such a valuable asset and the country’s territorial rights from invasion from this unlikely direction. However, one must keep in mind that Russia could attack us from the air, land or sea from three directions. Is Canada up to the task with its modest armed forces?
In April 2024, the Canadian government launched “Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence,” including an investment of CDN$8.1 billion over five years and CDN$73 billion over 20 years in defence spending to be included in the upcoming Budget 2024 and is building new Arctic patrol vessels. As part of its fleet renewal plan, the Canadian Coast Guard is gaining two Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) to replace two of the five existing offshore patrol vessels. That is welcome news, indeed, but I must again ask whether that is enough, given the size of our Arctic waters, global tensions and Canada’s vulnerability? Just asking.
Jordan Peterson hosted an incredibly candid and insightful podcast titled Canada Can’t Defend Itself with retired senior CAF officers J.O. Michel (Mike) Maisonneuve, Barbara Maisonneuve, and Mark Norman in July 2024. They clarified that “the Canadian Armed Forces are under-supported and underfunded. We are not up to an adequate defence of our country.” Canada has a shortage of 16,000 personnel and lacks trainers to beef up an increase in its numbers, anyway. Of the remaining current force, there is a lot of frustration and a feeling of abandonment. The CAF is seen by Ottawa as ‘Peacekeepers’, not a combat force ready to fight or protect.

Our navy
At the end of World War II, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world, after the US and the Royal Navy, with over 1,140 surface warships, submarines and auxiliary vessels. Canada also had the 4th-largest Air Force and the 5th-largest Army. The RCN served in the Atlantic and Pacific and especially excelled in the Battle of the Atlantic during WW2. It also supported the Allied landings in Normandy, Sicily, mainland Italy and southern France. Canadian warships destroyed 42 enemy surface ships and, either alone or with other vessels and aircraft, sank 33 U-boats. We developed an esteemed reputation of excellence in Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), a branch of underwater warfare that uses surface warships, aircraft, submarines, or other platforms to find, track, deter, damage, or destroy enemy submarines. The RCN lost 31 ships and suffered 1,990 fatalities in WW2. Although the RCN had no battleships or submarines, Canadian sailors served with distinction on both types of vessels in the Royal Navy.
Current rankings show the world’s largest navies by number of ships, with Russia in first place with 781, China with 730, North Korea with 505, the US in fourth place with 472 and Canada with 67 warships in 48th place. NATO has 2,049 warships, including 23 carriers, 113 destroyers, 22 cruisers, 184 frigates and 168 submarines. The World Directory of Modern Military Warships (WDMMW) takes a selected look at the current strengths (and inherent weaknesses) of modern military naval services around the world, then catalogues the ships and submarines in service. It ranks the US in 1st place, followed by China, Russia, South Korea in 5th, North Korea in 14th, and Canada in 23rd place.
The WDMMW listed Canada’s strength as four submarines, 12 frigates, and 21 offshore patrol vessels, making up its 37 active units in December 2021. That is smaller than Russia’s Northern Fleet, which comprises 25 submarines and approximately twenty surface vessels – one aircraft carrier, cruisers, frigates, and amphibious ships. Canada “lacks a dedicated aircraft carrier fleet” and a helicopter force with amphibious assault capabilities. Canada also has no destroyer warships (yet), corvette warships, cruiser warships, or mine/countermine warfare ships. Canada’s median hull age is a relatively young 16.8 years. The WDMMW describes our naval force balance as “fair.” Today, the RCN has 8,400 Regulars, 4,100 Reservists, and 3,800 civilians. RCN is now half of its 1960 size, let alone 1945.
Under Canada’s “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy, The Canadian Armed Forces in totality comprise approximately 68,000 Regular Force and 27,000 Reserve Force members, increasing to 71,500 and 30,000, respectively, and 5,200 Rangers in 187 Patrols, spread across over 3,000 communities or 10 million km2. It has a “significant” presence in every province and territory. In addition to our navy, our army and air forces excelled and made significant contributions towards winning two world wars. However, Lieutenant-General and politician Andrew Leslie pointed out that all such ambitious plans have resulted in zero progress on improving the Canadian Armed Forces, “follow the money…nothing happened.” He also pointed out that $2 billion has been cut from the 2025 budget.
Construction has begun on Canada’s new fleet of fifteen Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC), the River Class Destroyers. At approximately 8,000 tonnes, the replacement vessels will have almost double the displacement of the existing Halifax-class frigates and provide a wide-area air defence capability, ASW and anti-ship warfare capability, with the last ship expected by 2050. Canada has also committed to buying twelve new conventionally-powered, under-ice submarines. However, the CAF reputation has sunk so low internationally that Canada wasn’t even invited to participate in the AUKUS Alliance, a trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States intended to “promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and stable” and build a new fleet of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Canada is aiming to spend $9.9 billion over 20 years to improve the sustainment of its naval fleets. This will include extending the life of the Halifax-class frigates and preserving the Royal Canadian Navy’s interim at-sea replenishment capability. The Canadian Armed Forces are also purchasing eleven MQ-9 Reaper drones, with delivery expected to start in 2028. That is a good move, considering the proven importance of drones in modern warfare in the vast Arctic. However, I must again ask, will it indeed happen, and is that enough, and soon enough, considering the importance of reconnaissance and defence in the vastness of our land and coasts?
The Government of Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy “is a long-term, multi-billion-dollar program focused on renewing the Canadian Coast Guard and RCN fleets to ensure that Canada’s marine agencies have the modern ships they need to fulfil their missions while revitalizing Canada’s marine industry, creating good middle-class jobs and providing economic benefits are realized across the country.”
Canada doesn’t have an aircraft carrier nor any plans to build or buy one. Canada has no ambition to invest billions of dollars in an aircraft carrier, and its ongoing expenses are deemed impractical. In addition, the Arctic is not hospitable to such large vessels that commonly operate in more temperate waters. So, Canada has instead opted for a diversified fleet that includes modern ASW frigates, destroyers, and submarines.
However, the UK has two modern aircraft carriers with one principal home port. Why couldn’t Canada provide and share three ports on the three oceans? The two carriers could alternate summers in Canada’s Arctic, providing deterrents for protecting the Northwest Passage, East and West Coast and extending the UK ship’s global reach. Canada could provide ports, fuel and specialist personnel to accommodate the British ships. The UK’s GDP is US$3.5 Trillion; Canada’s GDP is US$2,2 Trillion with a higher Debt to GDP ratio of 112.9%. It is definitely within Canada’s reach until it builds its own carriers.
Canada has several key naval bases that support the operations of the Royal Canadian Navy and are crucial for maintaining Canada’s naval readiness and supporting both domestic and international missions: CFB Esquimalt on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, is the headquarters for the Maritime Forces Pacific; CFB Halifax in Nova Scotia serves as the headquarters for the Maritime Forces Atlantic; Nanisivik Naval Facility on Baffin Island, Nunavut, used primarily for refuelling Arctic patrol and other government vessels. The base holds storage tanks for fuelling the new Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessels for patrolling the breadth of Canada’s arctic seas during the four-month summer season.

The debate
According to NATO, its “essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members. It does this through political and military means, ensuring the collective defence of all Allies against all threats from all directions. In short, ‘One for all and all for one.’
As of 2023, there are 32 members of NATO, of whom only 11 met the 2% of GDP threshold. Canada, a founder nation of NATO, has a 1.38% threshold towards the commonly funded budget, after the US (3.49%), Germany (1.57%), France (1.9%), the UK (2.1%) and Italy (1.46%). In Fiscal Year 2021-22, Canada spent 1.32% of its GDP on defence, well short of NATO’s agreed target of 2%. What is significant are the defence budgets of our potential adversaries. According to Statista, Russia has a budget of 5.9% of GDP in 2023, North Korea is listed at 36% of GDP and China is listed at 1.3%. Ukraine has a war budget of 37% of GDP, much of which is underwritten by the Western Allies.
Ottawa has been under pressure from Washington to boost defence spending. In May 2024, twenty-three US senators, both Democrat and Republican, wrote to Trudeau imploring him to make good on Canada’s commitment to spend 2% of its GDP on defence, and US House Speaker Mike Johnson accused Canada of “riding on America’s coattails.” Canada’s soon-to-be-retired chief of defence staff, Gen. Wayne Eyre, pointed out, “Our military history is one of unpreparedness, the outset of a war. 1914, 1939, 1950, and 2001 are all stark examples. Let’s not let that happen again. Urgency is required. There’s a price to pay for being ill-prepared for war, a human cost that rarely gets acknowledged in Ottawa in the debate over whether Canada can or should meet NATO’s defence spending benchmark for alliance members of two percent of national gross domestic product.”
As I mentioned, I’ve only recently returned to Canada and been introduced to “The Debate”. To be honest, as a Canadian ex-service member, I don’t understand why there should be any debate at all. Canada’s security is paramount. We have a vast and valuable asset, rich in land and resources, with the world’s longest coastline but inadequate resources to defend it from an aggressive and ambitious attack. That is hopefully unlikely in the short term, but we’ve learned that conditions can change quickly for the worse.
Contributing writer at The Hub and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, Richard Shimooka, wrote in September 2023 that Canada’s defence procurement is fundamentally broken, Canada’s military is being left behind, and the status quo can’t continue. He went further in May 2024, saying, “For a variety of reasons, Canadians’ overall defence and foreign policy literacy is low. For one, only tiny segments [of our population] have ever served in the military. Perhaps more problematic is that Canada’s defence civil society is fragile compared to other countries: there are very few people whose job it is to cover, analyze, critique, or advance thinking on defence issues. In this vacuum, misinformation, sensational, and poorly thought-out opinions fill in, further confusing the public on really essential matters concerning national security. That is unfortunate, as potentially a majority of Canadians have good instincts and a genuine interest in Canada, which has a solid international role commensurate with its size. However, many lack understanding and easily stray.
Shimooka adds that Canada’s defence capabilities are in disarray and that the “Liberals are not going to fix Canada’s defence spending problem. A new government is required before any meaningful progress can be made.”
Shimooka probably meant a Conservative government, but from what I’ve seen and heard, I doubt it would differ much from the Liberals. Given the precarious nature of international politics currently, does Canada not need a defence-savvy and possibly veteran leader in Ottawa, regardless of party? However, we must find a better solution quickly. Otherwise, the wolves at the door may make their next move, and we could be hopeless in stopping them. As Michael Higgens puts it, “Rising dangers require tough decisions about defence spending and assessing our capabilities, commitments to allies, and place in the world.”
To quell the rising concerns about Canada’s contribution to NATO, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told reporters at the July 2024 summit of NATO leaders in Washington, “Canada fully expects to reach NATO’s 2% of GDP spending target by 2032.” But actions speak louder than words, and 2032 is a long way off. A lot can happen between now and then!