Canada wants up to 300,000 civilians trained as a reserve. The country's military chief says the armed forces must change to meet larger, conventional threats.

What Ottawa is planning

General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada, told Sky News that Ottawa is preparing to expand its armed forces on a scale not seen since the Cold War. She set out a package of measures including growth in the regular force, a larger reservist corps and an ambition to build a so-called "strategic reserve" of up to 300,000 civilians with some form of training who could be called up in a large crisis.

This marks a major change for Canada, which has focused on expeditionary and peacekeeping missions for many years.

The move is driven by what Carignan described as a changed global threat picture — states able to launch long-range strikes and rising competition in the Arctic from Moscow and Beijing. She said Canada needs forces better-suited to "more conventional" combat and different capabilities to match.

One immediate practical step has been diplomatic outreach. Carignan visited London to meet counterparts from the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) — the UK-led security grouping of northern European and Baltic countries — and to explore how Canada could both benefit from and contribute to the alliance.

Why the Arctic and the North Atlantic matter

Canada's geography makes the Arctic central to its security calculations. The vastness of the region, the opening of new sea lanes and an uptick in military activity by Russia, along with growing Chinese interest, have all pushed the issue up Ottawa's list.

The Arctic issue goes beyond geography. It's about resources, shipping, and sovereignty. Control of sea routes and access to mineral wealth has commercial consequences; control of territory has political consequences.

For the UK, stronger Canadian involvement in northern European defence arrangements would matter. The JEF was conceived in 2012 as a means for like-minded states to respond quickly to crises in the High North, the Baltic and the North Atlantic. Canada joining or working more closely with that group could add geographic reach and heft to operations in those waters.

At the same time, closer cooperation means shared planning, more exercises, and potential burden-sharing on deployments and equipment. That would be welcome for London, which has sought partners able to operate alongside British forces beyond NATO's collective-defence mechanisms.

Military change meets political choices

Expanding the armed forces and creating a large strategic reserve are political choices as much as military ones. They require sustained funding, new recruitment drives, training infrastructure and the logistics to equip and sustain larger formations.

Canada's Minister of National Defence, David McGuinty, appears in public material alongside General Carignan and has a part to play in turning the chief's vision into policy. Any increases in personnel or capability will need approval and budgets from ministers — and ultimately from parliament.

So the debate will reach into Ottawa's finances. Higher defence spending may push other public priorities. And procurement programmes aimed at rebuilding conventional capability tend to be multi-year and costly. That's true in the UK, and it'll be true in Canada.

Mastheads

For British industry, a deeper Canadian defence push could open opportunities — joint procurement, shared logistics hubs, or coordinated equipment choices. But such benefits aren't automatic. They depend on decisions about what Canada buys and how much it wants to co-operate on supply chains and training.

Operational and economic implications

On the operational front, having more conventional capabilities requires different equipment. It means heavier units, air defence, logistics, and the ability to sustain formations at range. Canada's move away from a primarily expeditionary set-up implies different force structures and basing requirements.

That has knock-on costs. Training spaces, fuel, transport and maintenance budgets all rise when forces are built for sustained high-intensity operations. And those costs don't stop at military books — they ripple into procurement industries, regional economies where bases are located, and private contractors who support armed forces.

For the UK, that ripple could be partly positive. Shared exercises in the North Atlantic or Arctic could mean more work for British logistics, engineering and defence firms. It could also mean closer interoperability between the two militaries — something both London and Ottawa have signalled they want.

However, this shift carries political risks. Defence realignment can unsettle voters if it looks like money's being diverted from health, housing or schools. Governments must sell the case that the threat picture really has changed enough to justify the cost. General Carignan has already framed that argument; ministers now have to make it persuasive at the ballot box.

Alliance politics and NATO

Canada's interest in the Joint Expeditionary Force isn't a move outside NATO. Rather, it's a signal that Ottawa wants flexible coalitions inside the broader western security framework. The JEF offers a way to act more quickly than larger NATO structures while still aligning with allied strategy.

For the UK, stronger ties with Canada in the JEF would shore up a transatlantic dimension to the force. It would also reflect shared concerns about the High North and the ways rival powers project influence there.

Still, closer cooperation raises questions about who will bear the costs. Who pays for what? Which countries provide which capabilities? Those debates are already familiar inside NATO, and they'll reappear in any JEF talks that bring Canada deeper into the group.

Public consent and recruiting

Carignan's idea of a 300,000-person strategic reserve is striking not just for size but for what it says about society's role in defence. Large reserves require public buy-in, clear legal frameworks and policies on when such personnel could be mobilised.

Recruitment campaigns will need to be sustained. So will training. And the military will have to offer incentives — pay, job security, transferable skills — to persuade civilians to sign up. There's a lot to design before such a scheme becomes workable.

That matters for the UK too. British planners will want clarity on how a Canadian strategic reserve would integrate with allied plans. Exercises will need to test not just equipment but mobilisation protocols, command relationships and legal arrangements for deploying reservists across borders.

What critics might say

Some commentators may question the scale of the proposed expansion. They'll ask whether Canada can sustain large defence spending increases without economic strain. They'll also question whether the threat projections justify the shift in posture.

Others will point out the challenge of creating conventional capability quickly. You can't conjure trained, cohesive units overnight. It takes time to grow leaders, NCOs, logistics managers and the bureaucratic systems that keep an army running.

Still, supporters will say that failing to prepare invites risk — that modern adversaries have shown the ability to act fast and strike far, and that allied cooperation is the best hedge against that reality.

Next steps

Carignan's London meetings are an early step rather than a finished plan. Ottawa now has to convert military ambition into policy, budgets and international agreements. The JEF talks will also continue to test how Canada and the UK can work together around shared northern security concerns.

Expect detailed debates at defence committees, across ministries and with industry. Expect to see further exercises and planning work. And expect the question of cost to sit at the centre of the argument.

General Jennie Carignan framed the choice plainly: bigger threats demand a different kind of force. How Ottawa pays for that, and how Britain fits into the picture, will shape transatlantic defence co-operation for years to come.

Related Articles

"We have to get ready for large-scale conflicts, more conventional, so we need a different military to do that and different capability," said General Jennie Carignan, Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada.

This article was created with AI assistance.