Canada needs to hold a national conversation about mobilization, but it shouldn't start with an internal directive | Opinion

For decades, mobilization — the process by which a nation readies itself for war — has been almost entirely absent from public debate in Canada. The eight core missions of the Canadian Armed Forces make no mention of it, and the word itself appears nowhere in current defence policy.

That is why it was so striking to see recent news reports about potential defence plans to mobilize as many as 100,000 primary reservists and another 300,000 supplemental reservists. The idea, first reported here in the Ottawa Citizen, originates in an unclassified May directive issued by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Jennie Carignan and Deputy Minister of National Defence Stephanie Beck.

The directive quietly tasked a “tiger team” to produce an “initiating directive,” by late June, for the development of a “Defence Mobilization Plan.” The document warns that “rising threats fuelled by accelerating technologies present urgent, simultaneous, and unparalleled challenges to Canada’s ability to defend itself.”

In plain language: the world has grown more dangerous, and Canada is not prepared.

Canada needs to hold an open, national conversation about mobilization. Polling shows that geopolitical instability is fuelling anxiety among Canadians. Larger reserve forces must be part of that conversation, but an internal defence directive is not where the conversation ideally should have started.

The directive also calls for a pan-government public information campaign to sell Canadians on the idea of mobilization. The armed forces would then undertake to continuously recruit, train and equip several hundred thousand Canadians who could one day be compelled to take up arms for Canada.

This is no small matter.

Mobilization pertains to a nation’s preparations for war or other major emergencies through the graduated or rapid organizing of national resources, particularly the armed forces and industry. It can include conscription — a term the directive avoids. Mobilization would likely require federal legislation to compel elements of society in the face of a justifiable threat.

Historically, conscription has been a highly divisive issue in Canada, especially between English- and French-speaking Canadians during the two World Wars. In both wars, the federal government ultimately legislated conscription to address waning volunteers and mounting casualties.

Any mobilization plan must be anchored in explicit political direction, supported by elected officials, and debated openly. It is troubling the directive cites no political guidance or authority. For a national project as complex and potentially controversial as mobilization, that absence is conspicuous.

Canada has not seriously debated the concept of mobilization since the Korean War. That long silence reflects geography as much as politics. Protected by vast oceans on three sides and a friendly superpower on the fourth, Canadians have rarely felt tangible danger.

But the strategic landscape is shifting rapidly. China has become more belligerent. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its sabotage operations in Europe have jolted that continent into action. Europeans are upping defence spending. A dozen European countries maintain some form of conscription, and mandatory service is popular in Germany, France, and Poland.

Finland — a recent NATO member — can reportedly mobilize 280,000 trained reservists early in a conflict, with another 590,000 trained reservists ready to follow. For a nation of under six million people, this level of preparedness underscores what is possible for a small, united democracy facing existential threats.

Canada’s policy of collective defence, where the defence burden is shared through treaty organizations like NATO and NORAD, is still sound. But the United States has wavered on its security commitments to Europe and Ukraine. Unsettlingly, U.S. President Donald Trump has even mused about annexing Canada and Greenland. NATO’s largest member is sowing doubt about traditional security guarantees, which is pressuring allies to bolster their own defences.

All of this comes at a time when Canada’s armed forces are among the smallest in NATO. The regular force numbers under 65,000, the primary reserve is around 24,000; and the supplemental reserve has under 5,000 members. A goal of 400,000 combined primary and supplemental reserves would place Canada among NATO’s largest reserve forces — behind only Finland and the U.S.

Recent Angus Reid polling shows that 39 per cent of Canadians would not volunteer for military service in a time of conflict. Thirty per cent would volunteer if they agreed with the reasons. Only 19 per cent would volunteer if called upon by their country.

By contrast, Angus Reed polling also shows that Canadians appear much more open to non-military national service. Over 70 per cent support mandatory civilian service for those under 30. Perhaps this is a pathway to a broader national service framework.

Veterans of the World Wars often joined not out of abstract patriotism, but because their brothers, neighbours and classmates did. Community ties, local regiments, and shared heritage were powerful motivators. Perhaps community-based mobilization is the best path forward — 97 per cent of Canadians already live within a 45-minute drive of a reserve unit.

Mobilization, if handled thoughtfully, could perhaps even help strengthen national unity. Larger, more visible reserve forces would expose Canadians to each other and to their fellow citizens from different regions, backgrounds and cultures. It would also reinforce a sense of shared responsibility at a time when the world seems so divided.

Retired navy captain Dave Scanlon is a former senior military public affairs officer. During his 30-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces he served as an advisor and spokesperson across Canada and with NATO. 

Related