The Paikin Podcast - World on Edge: Will Canada Defend Itself?

Episode Date: October 16, 2025

Canadians are just a few weeks away from learning what Prime Minister Mark Carney has in mind when it comes to defence spending. Will Canada ramp up its investments? Will we meet our NATO commitments?  And what should we invest in? New American-made F-35 fighter planes? New ice breakers for the Arctic? Joining the Golden Dome defense system?Wesley Warks joins Janice Stein in this episode of World on Edge to discuss the state of Canada’s military and how Canada should defend itself in a changing world order. Follow The Paikin Podcast: YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/@ThePaikinPodcastX: x.com/ThePaikinPodINSTAGRAM: instagram.com/thepaikinpodcastBLUESKY: bsky.app/profile/thepaikinpodcast.bsky.socialEmail us at: [e-mail]

Canadians are just a few weeks away from learning what Prime Minister Mark Carney has in mind when it comes to defense spending. We're being told that the Prime Minister wants to ramp up investments significantly. But what does that actually mean? Does it mean spending on new icebreakers for the Arctic? For new F-35 planes from the United States? For joining the Golden Dome defense system? We'll discuss that and more on our World On Edge segment on the Paken podcast coming up next. Happy to be welcoming back, Janice Stein from the Monk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy

and our special guest this week, Wesley Wark. He's a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation, C.G. And a fellow at the Balsali School of International Affairs. And I got to say, he writes a very good substack column. It's called Wesley Wark's National Security and Intelligence Newsletter. and we're taping this on Thanksgiving Monday, so let me start by wishing both of you a very happy Thanksgiving,

and I want to offer thanks for you two being available today to talk foreign affairs. Wes, let's start with this. You're also Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto, which I did not mention off the top, so I'll mention it here. Do you ever bump into Janice on campus or teach any courses with her or anything like that?

All the time, both on campus and occasionally in the media as well. Did you two ever strenuously disagree? on anything? Not that I can recall. My favorite moment is, you know, whenever things were difficult, you could always count on Janice rubbing your back. That's a moment I always pressure.

Janice, he treasures the moment. Do you recall that? Well, it's part of my general friendliness, right, Steve? Well, if you two didn't agree, disagree rather, on campus very much, let me see if I can provoke some today because it would spice up our discussion a bit if I could find some points of departure among the two of you.

And as I suggested off the top, we got a federal budget coming up in a few weeks, and we've been told there's going to be significantly more money for defense spending. So let's just explore what that could mean. Do you think it means, West Dardosoff, do you think it could mean the purchase of those F-35 fighter jets, many more of them from the United States, which at the moment we are sort of doubtful about? Yeah, that's a great question, Steve. I mean, we've committed to 16, according to a contract, which I think none of us have actually ever seen. The entire purchase is meant to be 88 of these F-35s.

It's a huge purchase. It's actually more than the Harper government originally envisaged for Canada in terms of our defense needs. They're very expensive planes, a very complex planes. They're planes that our own Air Force is, you know, just very delirious almost to have. my view is that they're not by any means the best option for Canada and I hope we can find a way to kind of mix and match an air fleet of the kind that we really need. I've written about the alternative to the F-35s,

which is the Saab fighter jet. Originally I thought, you know, no chance that Canada was going to buy this, but the more that I dug into its kind of specs and its role in capabilities, the more convinced I am that actually the Saab fighters is the best option for Canada. Janice, maybe you could touch on the political angle here as well, because in a way, if we go for the purchasing dozens and dozens of these F-35s from the U.S., does it look like we're rewarding despicable behavior from the White House by doing so?

So I don't think we're going to do that, you know, on a state. Let me go on a limb here. And it's aside from how you characterize Donald Trump's behavior to us, Steve, I think there's an issue in Canada that worries that in the event that this relationship stays tense over time. Those F-35s are wholly dependent on software updates. You know, all advanced weaponry today is computers that are dressed up with additional clothes. And it just depends what clothes you put on it.

And it's not inconceivable in a fit of peak where Donald Trump to get really furious by something we did do or he thought we were doing that the updates could be slowed or even withheld. And that is a serious conversation inside, as Wesley knows. So I don't think we're going to do that. I think beyond, and our minister of industry was in. Sweden. So I think Wesley is hot on the trail of something that's being actively concerned.

But I think let's talk for a minute about the other part of the defense budget, which is a real commitment with a direction yet on revitalizing Canada's defense industrial strategy.

The prime minister cares about that because he sees that as a key economic lever for an economy that is so slow and frankly so lagging in productivity that is a serious issue. This is just to be clear, this is about getting up over 2% of gross domestic products spent on defense, which Canada has committed to do as being a member of NATO but never have. Yeah, but there's a real trap here. And this is going to provoke you both. There's a real trap here. In order to meet that 2% quickly, you buy big, clunky, capital equipment that could be obsolete by the time it comes on board. And you meet your

2%, but you've wasted the opportunity to get serious economic benefit. In an age where drones are increasingly shaping the battlefield, and we see it all over the world, maybe less if we pull back on some of that F-35 spending, which I really hope we do, we invest. We invest. that money in domestic production of drones, which we have the capacity at, and we have companies in this country that could grow, it's just slower. So we might get to that 2% or beyond the 2% because 2% we're going to get to. But we might get beyond that 2% more slowly and it would be, from my perspective, a much better use of defense dollars. Wesley, what do you think? Yeah, I think, Jennifer, is really onto something here.

I mean, the government is committed to reaching the 2% figure at the end of this fiscal year, and the way they say they're going to do that is through increasing, you know, spending on the armed forces in terms of salaries and infrastructure and some investments in the Arctic as well. All of that's absolutely necessary. You look at the average salary of a serving member of the armed forces. It's frankly disgraceful, and it's no, you know, no wonder that young Canadians don't really regard this as a suitable career. So I can see as getting to 2%, even without, you know, buying the big expense of pieces

of military hardware, you know, just in the interim. But down the road, we've, of course, committed to 5%, which includes a 3.5% GDP spending on defense for really going to defense directly related spending, and then 1.5% for so-called infrastructure related to defense. How that will all work out over the next 10 years, it remains to be seen. But I think the key for Canada is actually to build a high-tech military. And that's going to include some very expensive hardware, and it's going to include a lot more very inexpensive, what is often called in the defense field,

as Janice knows, attributable systems, systems that you don't care whether you fire and lose, like drones. You don't care if they're long-standing nature in terms of their operational capacity. Drones in the air on the ground, as we're seeing the Ukrainians use, at sea, of course, undersea. These are going to be an important part of a military revolution to come.

We often tend to focus on the very high-end, expensive stuff, and we buy most of that from the United States, and that's going to have to be the big culture change in terms of rebuilding our armed forces, make it high-tech, make us much less dependent on the United States, build as much of it as we can in Canada, and we don't necessarily need to build all the hardware for these smaller high-tech systems,

as long as we can build the innards, the software, the computing capacity, the sensors. We have the ability to do that. We just have never done it. We've never kind of invested in that kind of sector. So I think that's the future. But, you know, I think the big question, Steve, to be honest, is we can imagine a new kind of armed forces, and it's desperately needed. I think we can find the defense capacity, industrial capacity in Canada to begin to do that. the question is, are Canadians going to support it?

And there, I think the government has a big job on its hands to really convince Canadians that spending massive amounts of money on the armed forces is necessary. I agree it is, but I think the question of convincing Canadians about that is a big question. Janice, again, a little follow-up here with a bit of a political question, which is when that cabinet minister went to Sweden to check out the Saab Plains, the first thing that went through my mind is, I wonder if this is for real or if this is performative, just to show the Americans,

oh, you know, we have options here. What do you think? No, I think it's for real in the sense that there is real reservation about the 88F35. So that's real. That's real. There's a huge amount of money. And you make yourself hostage, frankly.

So I think that's for real. Now, look, you can see why Wesleyan, I never disagreed at the U of T because I'm going to agree with what he said, every word he said, but I'm going to go further. because how do you convince Canadians that spending this amount of money and it's a huge amount of money just to put this in context on the Canadian budget

the biggest thing we have to do is service our debt and that's growing all the time and after that comes health care and when you finish with those two if you fold in this spend on defense over the next decade you're functionally done right and our Canadians really So these are really tough choices.

Are Canadians really up for this? Well, Canadians will be up for it. One, if we continue to worry as actively about the United States as we do now, and that's going to depend a lot on Donald Trump, frankly. I mean, there we were back last week again with the 51st state. He's really having trouble letting go of that. But the second way Canadians will support this is if we invest in Canadian companies And we invest in a group of young entrepreneurs, tech entrepreneurs that can go a long way to do what Wes is talking about here, which is to build systems.

I mean, it's madness to invest in in clunky legacy stuff. You know, you think about drones that can cost $100,000, even $500,000 to manufacture. at the high end of the spectrum, but you're firing missiles to shoot them down that can cost 20 million. That's the space we're in right now. That's the math. You know, as long as, as long as you brought up that Oval Office visit by Mark Carney, his second one last week. Wesley, let me follow up with you on this. I think Canadian, I mean, this is just my suspicion. I think Canadians are sick to death of hearing Donald Trump talking about annexing us as a 51st state. I don't think it's funny anymore. Not that it ever was. And people are tired of it. But if you were sitting down with Mark Carney to brief him on, let's say, his next interaction with someone in the American administration, Wesley, would you go so far as to say, look at, if we hear any more of this 51st state BS, you can forget about us cooperating on defense, on Arctic security, on anything. We've had it. You can't do that anymore. Would you play that card?

I'm not sure I would just now, Steve, to be honest. I mean, we're in a very tricky phase in terms of our economic relations with the United States. I think everybody understands the nature of Donald Trump in terms of his psychology. Probably the last smart piece of advice would be to say, you know, give him an ultimatum, you know, either behave or we're going to, you know, pull up our stake in the North American kind of economic and defense and security relationship. But I do think you're absolutely right. the Canadians are fed up with this. I suspect that Mark Carney and other cabinet ministers are fed up with it.

It was interesting to see the body language of the cabinet ministers who were sitting as props in the White House. You know, and, you know, Dominic LeBlanc is always capable in these sessions. But the other two ministers, Melanie Jolie and need and none, didn't look very, very happy as I read it. You know, and I think these are difficult, difficult encounters. You know, I would say two things about Trump's language. about annexation, quite apart from the fact that it's so objectionable to Canadians.

One is that, look, he really believes it. He thinks this is an inevitability, an organic development, and he's going to keep saying it over and over again, and we're going to have to keep pushing back, not in terms of ultimatum, but kind of explaining the realities to Donald Trump and those around him. And so, you know, and the other thing I think is to, is, you know, when there are future meetings that are televised, at least,

there has to be a stronger defense of Canada, I think, that the prime minister is prepared to give, and less kind of nodding and bono me and joviality. I just, you know, that's the cure-starmer way. I don't think it's what Canadians want from prime minister, who we voted into office, frankly, because there was this promise that he would stand up to Donald Trump. And I think we're seeing just, you know,

I think the balance in terms of the behavior and the body language and the kind of nodding agreement you saw at the White House, including on the so-called Golden Dome, I just think, is a mistake. Yeah, let's get to the Golden Dome in a second, but Janice, let me get you to reflect on that as well. I mean, there's a lot of sort of pictures of Trump and Carney, thumbs up and looking very, I guess the word is collegial, but it might be a little bit more than that.

Elbows Up clearly was an election campaign slogan. It doesn't appear to be the philosophy underpinning the negotiations these days. talk about what Wesley just referenced and whether you're on side with that. I'm on side of, but more so. You know, you mentioned that it's Thanksgiving Monday. And I just watched Donald Trump's speech in excess and the overwhelming flattery that Donald Trump received before that speech and lapped it up. I mean, this is the way, you know, the way leaders all over the

world, they're dealing with him from Zelensky to Kirstarmer, who does this, you know, nonstop to Stubei in Finland. Everybody understands. But it's the kind of thing people said to Saddam Hussein, you know, they're treating him the same way. I'm not going there, but you just did, Steve. Okay. So I, so you do this.

And it's a wink and a nod for anybody. I don't think the Canadian public is naive. They understand. We are in the middle of really serious trade negotiations. And we're not going to get much of a break from those because then the USMCA is up for renewal. So we've got two years, at least, of serious trade negotiations that matter. They are so important to the future of the Canadian economy. And now for the first time, wrapped into this, is security and defense.

It's part of the bigger package. Because believe it or not, the United States needs us to defend North America. It's something we don't talk about often enough. It's part of the price of admission that we just have to accept a few 51st state jokes along the way. Yeah, big deal. I get it. We all know it's a joke. We all know it's a joke.

We laugh. Okay. I think what matters, you know, in terms of how the prime minister persuades Canadians. And he, first of all, he says it over and over. We're in a changed world. Secondly, he says, we're going to do a deal with the United States on the things we need to do a deal with. but we have to diversify. And most importantly, he keeps saying over and over,

it's what we're going to do ourselves in Canada. Well, let's put that to the test with defense spending. Right, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What are we going to see it? Yeah, what are we going to do ourselves in Canada? And by the way, one of my other bett noir is, how are we going to change our procurement strategy in this country to buy from small, nimble Canadian companies

that can't wait three years for the funding to flow. The United States did that two years ago. We haven't done it yet. They tell me it's coming in the budget. Okay, the two words, the two words, Golden Dome came up a few moments ago, and I want to pursue that. Wesley, maybe you could start by telling us

your understanding of what Golden Dome is and whether we should be part of it. Steve, it's hard to know exactly what it is because I don't think anybody really knows, even in the United States, even in the Pentagon. It was originally called, and this was part of Project 2025, five, we may recall, was part of Trump's election campaign.

He was going to create an American version of the Iron Dome system. Well, it didn't really fly because the Iron Dome system is very specific to Israel's defense needs and the nature of missile threats in the Middle East, very different from those that the United States would face. So it's really a very, very ambitious, high-tech vision of a system that would be able to detect and knock down any kind of missile coming at the United States or North America. Whether it's technologically feasible, nobody knows. It seems to imply the weaponization of outer space, which is banned under the Outer Space Treaty,

one of the kind of key bedrocks in terms of trying to ensure that outer space is available and free from weaponry and available to all nations. I'm not sure Canada wants to go there. I'm not sure the system is workable. I'm not sure, frankly, what the benefit to us is. I'm not sure what the nature of the threat assessment is. You know, who is going to throw an intercontinental ballistic missile at North America in these days? Do we believe that deterrence is over?

Mutual assured destruction is over. I don't think so. I don't think it's the right way to go at all. And I think Canadians have to be very, very careful about signing on to this with an unknown price tag and an unknown feasibility. And it's one of the things that, again, I regret from the way that Mark Carney behaved at the White House, where he's kind of nodding along when when Donald Trump is talking about this this you know this amazing unbelievable system and you know I read unbelievable literally I think it's unbelievable I talked to a former national

security intelligence advisor recently just a kind of a casual chat and I said you know if you were if you were still in office what would you do and talking with the Americans about this and you'd say I would study it for a long time and I you know I think that's brilliant advice study the thing death. Don't make commitments. I mean, we can say, yes, we, you know, we have sensor capabilities that we're happy to use to try and enhance Norad's ability to detect. And through a detection capability, you know, that's a form of deterrence in itself. But, but, you know, ponying up whatever Trump might demand in terms of our commitment to, to Golden Done system, I think is

sheer madness when we have many, many other defense needs. You know, look, we don't know what Golden Dome is. To the extent that we know what it is, the technology is not there yet, right? And there are no analogies. That's absolutely right. But let's talk about the downside of staying out of the study phase of this. And there's an issue here. So at an earlier period in the 90s, as you know, under the Critcham Martin administration, we said no.

we said absolute no to ballistic missile defense. That's right. So what happened in a sense on the ground? The United States took that away, took it out of NORAD, created another structure, and we don't have a voice in that structure. So the weekend NORAD create an alternative decision-making structure. Frankly, we're not at the table. That's not a really great outcome for us.

You want to pay the price to be at that table, though? Well, so let's study it. Let's say, oh, this is really interesting. This is new age. This is missiles. Oh, we really want to be a part of this. Let's study this. Let's understand.

And let's see. Because, you know, Canadians, as Leslie just said, we're really good at satellite to sensor communication. We're very strong in space. We have lots of good assets. We have great companies in this country who do this, by the way. Oh, let's assemble a group. Let's create a group of private sector and Wesley Mork and others in this and really do some

serious work on this. And that's, I think, we probably should do that anyway rather than deal ourselves out right now and shut ourselves out of the future decision-making structure. Because let's face it, what missiles are they worried about? I don't think they're worried that China or Russia is going to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile. So what are they worried about? So it's the North Korea's of this world, you know, who could go rogue and who have the capability. That's fundamentally.

So it's a very, it's a low probability, what we call a low probability high value contingency. And we would be the first in the line of fire. We want line of sight on that kind of thing. We don't want to be read out of the decision-making structure. We're great studiers. We establish royal commissions. We're the best in the world at the last. way. When we need to do it, let's do it. Well, that's what I was going to ask you. When you say

let's study it, do you mean really study it for the purposes of potentially doing it or studying it to kill it? We need to study it. We understand what there, because we don't, there's nothing to understand yet. We're five years away, I think, at least before there's something real. But we also need to understand what happens to our voice in decision making if we're not in and if we are in, because that's the piece that was left out on the ballistic missile defense. And we can do it. Steve, can I just want to jump in very quickly. I mean, I think I'm fundamentally skeptical at the end of the day,

in face of any kind of serious intercontinental ballistic missile threat that we would ever be at the table. I mean, we might be part of a sort of NORAD decision-making chain on the nature of threats, but actually at the table in terms of response, I'm not sure that the Americans would ever give us that power. I think it's important to be able to share with the United States a capacity to maintain a surveillance and detection system, and that may even require assets in space.

But I'm just skeptical of this argument that, you know, we have to go whole hog into a golden dome system or whatever they ultimately call it in order to ensure that the NATO capacity remains. I think we'll, sorry, the NORAD capacity, I think we'll have that anyway, the United States needs us for that, it needs our geography, it needs our capabilities for that. So I think we're, you know, not in a bad position. I guess my answer to your question, Steve, is study it to delay and study it so that we can come to a point where we really understand, well, what is the nature of the threat? Is a golden no missile system the best response to it, which I don't.

think it is. I much prefer a strong deterrent strategy, detection capability, a renewed effort at arms control. You know, and we've been worrying about a North Korean missile threat for how long. I think their capabilities, frankly, are honest, are limited. Their capabilities are certainly not honest. They're very limited. Iran is kind of off the table for now, and I think Janus is right, that, you know, we can hold a Russian and a Chinese threat in check in terms of our own capabilities. So I'm not sure the threat is there that really justifies a Golden Dome system. Yeah, you know, let me just put one more on the table here.

What is the price of getting a deal on trade is you have to join Golden Dome? Because we could come down to that, frankly. That's a tough call then, isn't it? That's a very tough call because if you look at the future of economy, the growth rates and how much benefit we get out. We still get out of our relationship with the United States, even now, all right? So that's why I'm saying study it and don't say no until we understand not only what the Golden Dome can offer, but where we are over the next two years in these critical negotiations.

I should just say, I don't know which one of you is doing this from Parliament Hill, but those bells in the background sound absolutely glorious. Oh, that was me. That was me. That's my grandmother clock. I can get up and turn it off if you want me to. No, no, it sounds nice. It sounds nice.

I get the feeling that we're actually doing this in the heart of our democracy on Harlan Hill when I hear those bells going. Okay, let me put one more issue on the table here, and that is I want both of you to start looking north, way north. Yeah. Canada talks a really good game about how sovereign we are when it comes to having control of the northern passages of this country, you know, right up to where we sort of become neighbors with Russia. But as we count down to this first budget, I'm wondering whether we're actually intending to put any money behind what our lofty claims are about sovereignty. Are we thinking about icebreakers? Are we thinking about submarines? Are we thinking about, I don't know what else?

Wesley, tell us. So I think we're definitely thinking about all that. The most recent defense strategy that was released last April, April 2024, really pivoted very, very strongly to the defense of the Arctic and the maintenance of Arctic security. But here's the challenge for Canada, Steve. I think it's a twofold challenge. One is that the real threat to the Arctic is not a military threat. It's climate change. And if we're going to spend a lot on the defense of the Arctic and Arctic sovereignty,

that really means spending a lot to ensure that Arctic communities can survive climate change. It's a kind of quasi-military goal, but not directly a military goal. And so that's why the government talks a lot about sort of dual use infrastructure, you know, building roads, telecommunication systems, airports, enhancing harbors. That is all very expensive work in the Arctic and there can be a very significant economic payoff. Lots of projects, you know, underway and in the minds of people about trying to build a sort of northern gateway to the Arctic Ocean to ship critical minerals out of Canada's North, for example. That can be a very exciting project. It's on the list of next major projects to come, perhaps, by the government. But, you know, this is the challenge.

Defending the Arctic is defending the Arctic against not the Russians, not the Chinese. It's against climate change. And secondly, when we invest militarily in the Arctic, I think we have to understand that while we present this as a commitment to NATO and as a way to meet our NATO spending arrangements, in fact, other NATO countries are going to look at this and say, you're just spending on your own defense. We all do that, but you're not spending to enhance NATO security, collective security. And that's going to be a big challenge, policy challenge going forward. How do we kind of align the sense that we want to protect ourselves, but at the same time, say we're meeting these NATO spending obligations under collective security and somehow spending in the Arctic is an assist to holding back

Russian aggression against Ukraine and so on and so forth? So, you know, look, the amazing thing is that NATO said they're going to count this. This is a huge gift to count. We, you know, when you get a gift like this, Wesley, let's just take it. And the people are, let's just take it for once. And the people are happy about that are the Nordics, because they are actually worried, really worried about Russian defense spending in the Russian art, which is the last number, so I saw, is between 10 and 15 times,

what the rest of us are spending in the Arctic. And they're building military infrastructure. And so the Nordics really want us to spend. And so it's an elegant solution to get us to the place where we need to go on NATO defense spending because they're going to count. But just to take the argument one step further, I was in a heated, heated debate where I came down on one side of this. Well, when Trump really gets exercised and keeps talking about annexing Canada, what is Canada going to do when the United States?

I'm sure you've heard this, Wesley, because it's circulating everyone. What's Canada going to do when the United States sends a worship through the Northwest Passage and doesn't ask? Yeah. What are we planned to do? Well, yeah, what's the answer to Canadians when that happens? Now, I, you know, I don't take that seriously, but there is inside the Department of Defense right now, as there should be in any, I'm not critical, they need to develop scenarios and military planning for a contingency like that, which I don't think is any meaningful prelude to annexation. That's where I said this is, frankly, hoarse with a four-letter word. after it, but it's hugely embarrassing to any government of Canada, of any stripe.

But Janice, isn't the answer to your question, nothing? If that happened, we would do nothing. We'd make a phone call, but we really couldn't do anything. I don't, yeah, but part of the problem is, and I think we all know this, we don't have really good domain awareness in the Arctic yet. We don't know enough about what's under our, beneath the ice in our Arctic. We don't know what's on the water at times. We do better on land.

We don't know what's sometimes in space that are circulating over our Arctic. And so we don't have full situational awareness. That's an embarrassing place for this country to be, frankly. And so I think there is room for considerable spending to improve our domain awareness across all six domains, really, because cyber is a domain two here, six domains over the Arctic, which will help us get to where we need to go on our defense, but will improve what we Canadians know about what's going on in our Arctic. Wesley, as you consider your response to that, can I just put to you what the Prime Minister's

office press release after the meeting between Carney and Trump, this is what they put out. They said the leaders, quote, discussed opportunities to cooperate in defense and focused on their shared efforts to bolster Arctic security. Are these, in fact, shared efforts? And what do we read into that? Yeah, I also saw that and was puzzled by it, Stephen wondered about it. We both have interests, of course, in Arctic security. I think they're different, potentially competing, potentially confrontational.

And I think people are right to be concerned about the ways in which. the United States in particular may not just demand a sort of freedom of navigation passages as show through the northwest passage but but really want to exercise more power in terms of resource extraction from the Arctic as a whole not just their Arctic but our Arctic the Arctic is a big place and and we certainly have some good surveillance capacities at the moment from space uh from undersea from land but as Janice says much more could be done come back to your particular question, Steve, the Americans have been sailing nuke of the submarines through the Arctic Ocean since the 1950s. And all we've ever really asked quietly is that they let us know when they do that. And my understanding is that they still do. Hopefully they'll continue. They do.

If they were to send a surface, you know, warship of some kind through the Northwest Passage, then I, you know, I would say two things. What we do is we send a icebreaker with it, whether it's, you know, wanted or not. We accompany the journey and we make sure that every Inuit community that it goes by comes out to greet it and which they have the capacity to do. You know, this is symbolic. This is a show. but it's an indication, a practical indication, doable indication,

that we understand the Northwest Passage as Canadian waters. The Americans have never accepted that, but never quite contested it either. But if they did that, Wesley, would you, if you're running the government of Canada, would you interpret a warship going through our northern waters without a heads up ahead of time to our Prime Minister's Office or Ministry of Defense? Would you interpret that as a hostile act? Yes, absolutely, with no warning, with no agree. about icebreaker and potential search and rescue capabilities with no sense that Arctic communities themselves should be alerted to this passage in case something goes on or enclase a ship. I mean, the Arctic Ocean is a very, very big place. The Northwest Passage is not easily navigable even today. There are routes through the Northwest Passage that haven't even yet been mapped, you know, despite all the time since the Franklin Expedition. It's a tricky waterway, and it's not going to open up as quickly as people imagine. But,

I answer to your question, Steve, is without prior notification, without an agreement of some kind of Canadian complementarity in terms of the passage, we would have to regard it as a hostile act. Janice, given the bellicosity coming out of the White House, is there any way to interpret that kind of thing as inflaming the situation? Well, you know, again, you know, it is a hostile act with these, absolutely, right? And there's some risk associated with it, too. The risk that West has just put on the table. So, first of all, this would be done to embarrass the Canadian government. That's really what it would be done to do because it would be a huge, huge political embarrassment for any government. And I think any government has the obligation to plan for a response should that happen.

But we need more icebreakers. Okay? We all kneel. We need more icebreakers. That counts as defense spending and as infrastructure. Well, let's do it now. Let's do it now, right? And again, there are opportunities to collaborate with European partners,

but to invest in Canadian companies and Canadian consortium that are being put together to work on this. Why are we arguing about it? Why should we be arguing at all about icebreakers? And here we go down. I can't find the right word. And it's quite insulting enough to describe. Help me out here. I mean, we have a procurement process that because officials are so worried that there's

going to be one kind of function that this new activity will require. And if they miss that, they layer on procuring after speck after spec after spec. So an icebreaker that we could build in a year. Or as I was one of really imagine the company said could charter right now. He doesn't have all the specs. No, don't do it. I think, Wesley, you've got to get on to the phone. You've got to get on the phone to the prime minister's office.

And you've got to say, Janice Stein for the new head of procurement for the government of Canada. No, that's already done. Thank goodness. She can whip this thing in the shape. Wesley, because you wrote a substack column on this, which I learned a lot from, I want to ask you a quick follow up on the northern issue. And that is Churchill, Manitoba. Yeah.

A place I visited, I think, but more than 30 years ago, it was the first week of June and the snow was up to my hips. It's really unlike any other place I've ever been in my life. And I guess the question is, you know, is it worth it to Canada to spend the billions upon billions of dollars it would require to make Churchill reach its potential in terms of being perhaps a new port for our exports, potentially as part of a new military strategy going forward, when there are fewer than 900 people who live there? Just ask. It's a great question, Steve. and probably most Canadians, you know, have not had the chance to visit Churchill as you have and I have had once. It's an extraordinary place. It's a tiny port. It's icebound still for most of the year. It would require a lot to turn it into a real shipping hub to allow for Canadian exports, of critical minerals, even grain to go back to that process to the world.

But I think it could be done. I think it is a worthwhile project to think about and study really seriously. because it could really open up a new dimension to the Canadian economy and it could, you know, really, if we're serious about the idea that the Arctic and the development of the Arctic is critical to the future of Canada. And again, I think that is something that Canadians are going to have to be sold on. It's a, you know, we think mythologically about the Arctic, but very few of us probably think seriously about it. If Canadians are going to be sold on the idea that the future of Canada depends in large part on what we do in terms of Arctic development and Arctic security, Well, I think Churchill may be the solution that we need. Yeah. And let me just add, Steve, we have to have a deep water port in the Arctic somewhere.

If you think that, you know, if the Northwest Passage is going to be more navigable for longer periods of time, 30 years from now, let's say, because that's a conceivable time period. Well, and we have no infrastructure in the north. We have no, not a single deep water port in the north as an Arctic country. That's a problem. So the question for me is, where should it be? And there is an argument to be made for Churchill, frankly. The question for me is, how many liberal seats are there in the province of Manitoba? And I wonder whether that will have some impact on this decision.

There are for sure not many in Churchill, Manitoba. That I can tell you. That's for sure. Okay. let's finish up here on something. It's a debate that comes up at least once a generation. And I certainly remember when I was a kid, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, mused aloud about the advisability of Canada remaining in NATO. And we seem to have this discussion, as I say, once a generation. So let's have it now here on the Paken podcast. Wesley, is it still in Canada's interest to spend whatever's required? And we're finding out that that's going to be a lot more than we're currently spending to remain a player in NATO. My answer is absolutely. I think it's critical to Canada's future. I think NATO is the best collective security organization that exists in the world. I think Canada is making a pivot. It's perhaps a pivot looking back a bit, but also looking forward to pivot to transatlantic

security and a sense that our safety and security is very much tied up with the safety, security and prosperity of Europe. We're trying to build new and renewed economic ties with European countries. We've sort of rediscovered our transatlantic links in ways that are important. I would say NATO is fundamental to that. I'm less sure to turn the question to slightly different. I'm less sure that NORAD is fundamental to Canada and the way it used to be. I would put a lot of emphasis on the NATO relationship as a reflection of Canada's relationship with Europe, which I think is going to be vital to our security and our economy going forward. Janice.

So the easiest way for me to answer this, Steve, is Canada. is a front-line state with Russia. And where is that in the Arctic, right? And so all of a sudden, we have all those other NATO members to support, reinforce our status as a front-line state with Russia. Russia, I don't think there's any of us who can dispute the fact has a leader who takes very big gambles. is unpredictable and makes strategic assessments that the rest of us find opaque at the best

and bewildering at the worst. And here we have this insurance policy, nail membership, when we are in a frontline position. So I think with Wesley that this is something absolutely that we want to continue to invest. You know, we've been having a wonderful conversation here for the last 30 or 40 minutes or so, and I was really hoping, I was really, really hoping that I might be able to find one point of departure between the two of you. Let me try. Well, please, please.

I think before we go here, I've got to find something that you two disagree on. So consistent with our discussion, we're going to go ahead and invest in submarines. Well, the submarines we're going to buy are diesel submarines. not nuclear submarines, and these diesel submarines can stay under the ice for two and a half weeks at a time before they have to resurface. So why are we putting all our naval eggs in a diesel submarine instead of dividing the budget and investing massively in smart, underwater submersible that are unmanned, which we can create swarms up and have the companies and have the technologies to do it in Canada.

I have made an absolutely a nuisance of myself making that argument in all because the budget probably firms up that commitment to buy 12 of these diesel submarines. And where are we buying them from? Well, it'll be, you know, it's narrowed down to two possibilities. it's Germany or Korea, South Korea. And there'll be a whole discussion of industrial benefits. But compare that. And, you know, we can, the first few will not be smart.

And there are ways where we can imagine that as the contract goes on, we can do more and more. But there is an alternative path here right now, if we're serious about a defense industrial strategy, Let's take that budget, invest some of it, because diesel submarines, we already know, is not state-of-the-art technology. Wesley, please tell me, Wesley, that you think diesel submarines are the bees' knees. You know, I'm going to try and disagree with Janice on this, Stephen. I would say, you know, I think we need the submarines.

I think it's a long-term project. It's going to be decades before we have a full fleet of 12. They're going to be divided between east and west coasts as we typically do. Yeah. So it's going to be a small fleet really trying to guard the access and egress points on both coasts as well as provide, again, a commitment to transatlantic security. And one of the roles that these submarines will, I think, find themselves playing is in dealing with various hybrid warfare threats, including, you know, ocean floor transatlantic cables for communications for energy, which we will ultimately ourselves have, of course, in the Arctic. So I think we need them, but it's a long-term project. But absolutely, we should be in, it's part of the whole drone story. We should be investing in undersea drones, in surface drones, and we can do that quickly.

That's the thing we should be doing now, and it's not that costly. We should be doing that now while we invest long-term in submarines, which I think continue to have a role. And they're very, I mean, we say diesel electric sounds like World War II or World War I or something. These are very sophisticated platforms that have real capabilities that I think Canada needs. Well, I wouldn't exactly call that a... No, this is not a robust disagreement. I was going to say, this is not a Carney-Poliev disagreement here. This is a fairly modest disagreement where I'm actually finding a lot of overlapping your concentric circles.

Let me just prolong this conversation for just one minute because, and Wesley has done work on this period. That's really interesting. Because, you know, we did have state-of-the-art. submarines in the 50s when we knew exactly which submarines were running up our coast. And what did we do when we found

a submarine running up our coastline? We never fired. One of them we picked up the phone and called Washington and told them that this was happening. Well, this is a very, very expensive way

to get intelligence about what's going on under the water. If that were the only goal here, if we knew all we were ever going to do is make a phone call, we would never do this. I can agree with that, but I don't think that's the only role. Yeah, we would have to convince ourselves that we're actually going to fire with, you know, we're going to use these as an instrument of warfare and that's where I'm scared. Yeah.

Okay. Okay. I'm going to give thanks once again on happy Thanksgiving to both of you for joining us today. Janice, as always, great to have you on board for our, world on edge. And Wesley Wark, we want to remind everybody that you're at C.G. in Waterloo, the Ballsley School of International Affairs in Waterloo. And we're happy to recommend your substack. Wesley Wark's National Security and Intelligence Newsletter, which is really, and you know what, the beauty of it is, it's very understandable. It's not written for pointy heads

in Ottawa. It's actually written for the general population to get a better understanding of what's going on in our world today. Steve, it's funny. Well, he's got a sense of humor. What can we say? Thank you, Steve. I very much appreciate it. And it's great to be with you and I love the podcast. Fabulous. Okay, everybody. Peace and love. Until next time on the Paken podcast. Thanks. Bye-bye.