By spending more on defence, the true north concedes it must be stronger if it wants to stay free

Whenfederal governments makeambitious promises, Canadians are justified in their skepticism.

It took Ottawa 38years, for example,to create a national child-care program, initially promised byBrian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives, resurrected but never implemented by Paul Martin's Liberals, and finally made intosomething of a reality by Justin Trudeau's minority government and all 10 provinces.

NowOttawa ispromising something even more ambitious.

On Thursday, Finance Minister Chrystia Freelandessentially formalized Canada's entry into aglobal conflict between open, pluralistic democracies and nationalist, authoritarian states.

"The world's democracies including our own can be safe only once the Russian tyrant and his armies are entirely vanquished," Freeland said during her budget speech in Ottawa, referring toPresident Vladimir Putin and the invasion of Ukraine.

"The world's dictators should never mistake our civility for pacifism. We know that freedom does not come for free, and that peace is guaranteed only by our readiness to fight for it."

Those are quite literally fighting words. Freeland's rhetoric has Canada, a relative spendthrift within NATOsince the end of the Cold War, committed to combating continuedRussian aggression and potential moves by other authoritarian states.

With its new spending plan, Canada is supposed to help the world's democracies win a global conflict while devoting1.5 per cent of its gross domestic product to defence spending, a level that remains below the North Atlantic Treaty Organizationtarget of two per cent.

Freeland announced an additional $8 billion in defence spending over five years. That money is supposed to help Canada meet commitments to NATO, bolster cybersecurity, improve intelligence gatheringand continue themodernization ofNORAD, which is responsible for North American air and maritime defence.

'Ashift in attention to homeland security'

Winnipeg isa North American Aerospace Defence Commandregional headquarters, but any investment in infrastructure or jobs if thatdoes end up here, rather thanNORAD command in Colorado Springs, Colo. wouldbe years down the road, said Andrea Charron, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.

First, Canada hasto bolster its ability to monitor a vast swath of the Arctic, where the movements of Russian ships and aircraft have become far more critical to observe.

But the mere fact a federal government is putting more money into conventional and cyberdefence is significant, Charron said, considering the way Canada has kicked the defence-spending can down the road for decades.

"Most budgets are notable for the cuts they take to the defence budget, because it's one of the larger envelopes," she said, noting it's been tough for any Canadian government to sustain any focus on defence spending.

Mulroney, she noted, proposed the purchase of 12 nuclear submarines in 1987, only to see the Iron Curtain crumble two years laterand the urgency for defence spending disappear.

Canada spent the 1990s viewing its military as a global peacekeeping force and allowing defence spending to wither. Then came the 20-year war in Afghanistan, with its fuzzy objectives and disastrous outcome.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine, it's fair to surmise many Canadians no longer expect the military to serve purely as police officersoverseas oras a component of disaster relief efforts here at home.

"There's always a balance that needs to be struck between defending Canada and North America versus assistance overseas, and sometimes you see sort of these shifts in attention," Charron said.

"So we are definitely in a shift in attention to homeland security because we now realize that North America is vulnerable."

That's not hyperbole in an era when cyberwarfare makes it possiblefor hostile nations to cripple critical industrieshalf a planet away.

Healthy communities'strongest defence in the Arctic'

Even conventionally, Canada's ability to assert its sovereignty over its vast Arctic archipelagois questionable. For example, Russia has six nuclear-powered icebreakers (with more on the way) capable of crunching through multi-year sea ice at speed.

The Canadian Coast Guard operates diesel-powered icebreakers, which can't move as quickly and have a far more limited range.

Still, hardware alone doesn't serve a deterrence function. Inuitleaders have spent decades impressing the need forOttawa to view Arctic sovereignty outside of a purely military lens.

"It's vital that we include people in the Arctic, especially Indigenous peoples," Charron said. "The strongest defence in the Arctic is healthy, viable, sustainable communities, and so any increase in funding or infrastructure as a result of military capabilities should always see if it canbe dual-use.

"For example, if you need to extend a runway for the military, let's make sure it also operates for commercial useand for being able to resupply local communities."

For some, the somewhat suddenurgency around beefingup Canada's ability to protect itself may seem jarring at a time when this country is still recovering from the economic shock of the pandemic, and has made relatively little headway in its commitments toreducegreenhouse gas emissions.

But nothing focuses public attention quite like anexistential threat. The invasion of Ukraine woke many Canadians up to the consequences of an intensifyingideological, economic and strategic conflict between democracies and authoritarian states.