This text is a summary of the conference From Ambition to Action: Succeeding in Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy held on January 26, 2026 at UQAM.
On Monday, January 26, a conference was held on Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) as well as the expectations surrounding it. This initiative, launched under Prime Minister Carney’s mandate, takes place in a global context marked by a deterioration of the country’s strategic environment, characterized both by instability in the international system and growing uncertainty regarding the reliability of the American partner. In this context, the DIS appears to be an attempt at strategic repositioning for the country. The objective is to strengthen Canada’s resilience, reduce certain critical dependencies within the defence industry, and support the development of an industrial and technological base in defence that is adapted to contemporary needs and challenges.
This meeting provided a forum for exchanges between academics, senior public servants, and business leaders. Participants were able to express their expectations regarding the content of the strategy, put forward recommendations, and raise concerns and reservations about the risk that it might be too ambitious, fragmented, or insufficiently grounded in the constraints specific to the Canadian context. This note provides a structured summary of the discussions and suggestions that emerged during the debates held at this meeting.
In summary, there is consensus on the importance of strengthening Canadian capabilities in research and development (R&D), improving the process of converting innovation into production and export, and simultaneously contributing to Canada’s economic security. The strategy must also enable Canada to develop greater strategic autonomy while avoiding autarky. Canada cannot “do everything”: it must instead focus its efforts on areas where it already has comparative advantages, while seeking international industrial partnerships in order to diversify its dependencies.
After outlining what this defence industrial strategy represents and highlighting the efforts already undertaken by the Canadian government, this note will examine the main expectations and concerns expressed, before concluding with the most frequently mentioned recommendations.
The Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS): A Structuring Innovation for Canada
The development of a defence industrial strategy is an unprecedented initiative for Canada. Until now, the country stood out among its allies for lacking a framework document clearly defining its industrial priorities, technological objectives, and policy levers in the defence sector.
Although its release has been delayed due to the global political context and reforms made to the Defence Investment Agency (DIA), the DIS is the result of a whole-of-government effort. It has successfully mobilized the defence, industry, economic development, and foreign affairs portfolios, with the objective of better aligning national security and Canadian industrial policy.
Jean-François Juneau, Acting Senior Director of the industrial strategy team at the Department of National Defence, reminded us that the government did not wait until the last minute to structure the initiative: since 2024, a working team has been in place, a budget has been announced (approximately 6 billion over five years), and several preliminary measures have been introduced.
Two central objectives were highlighted:
Reforming military procurement, considered too slow, too cumbersome, and insufficiently compatible with industrial realities. To illustrate this, Juneau noted that it is sometimes easier for Canadian companies to contract with the Pentagon than with Ottawa.
Accelerating the transition from innovation to commercialization, in order to consolidate a Canadian industrial sector capable not only of meeting national needs but also of integrating into export markets.
Stéphanie Lesaux-Farmer, Acting Deputy Director of the Defence Export Division at Global Affairs Canada, presented the defence export strategy, developed to enable Canadian companies to access new markets. The DIS’s orientation reflects a structural reality in Canada: the limited size of its domestic market makes it impossible for a defence industry to rely solely on internal demand.
Drawing inspiration from models implemented by its allies (dedicated export agencies, specialized committees, industrial support mechanisms), the Carney government is seeking to provide clear direction for the country. However, such ambitions come with high expectations and close scrutiny regarding the real feasibility of the strategy.
First Expectation: A More Sovereign, but Realistic and Non-Autarkic Industry
All participants agreed on the need for Canada to strengthen its industrial sovereignty and to protect itself against future risks vis-à-vis the United States, particularly in a context of American political volatility and potential pressures on supply chains.
One major warning regarding this orientation was repeated multiple times: the strategy must remain realistic and take into account Canada’s specific constraints. In this sense, it cannot replicate a French-style model based on highly diversified industrial autonomy and the ability to structure supply chains almost entirely at the national level. The challenge for Canada is to develop selective autonomy, meaning focusing efforts on certain critical areas while continuing to strengthen cooperation with reliable allies.
Several panelists suggested that Canada should work toward integration into international consortia, allowing it to participate in joint projects and share development costs with partners. Yan Cimon, Professor in the Department of Management at Université Laval, emphasized a crucial point: autonomy must not mean isolation. Canada must be able both to sustain operations in a major crisis and to remain embedded in industrial networks with its partners.
In this perspective, Justin Massie, Director of the Department of Political Science at UQAM and co-director of the Strategic Analysis Network, argued that Canada should adopt a hedging posture. The goal is to preserve the relationship with the United States without becoming dependent on it. The aim is not rupture, but the development of resilience capable of limiting exposure to unpredictable American decisions.
Finally, another important element emerged: the DIS should not be conceived as a short-term strategy aimed at achieving immediate political gains, but rather as a long-term process spanning 20 to 30 years—the only relevant timeframe for building a sustainable Canadian defence industrial base.
Second Expectation: A Strategy Aligned with the Armed Forces and Society
The second key point that reached consensus is the need for the DIS to be rooted in the real needs of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Guillaume Côté, CEO of CRIAQ, and Marc Bigaouette, Director of Canadian Government Programs for Bell Textron, emphasized that the CAF are the end users. Their trust and operational capability must remain the cornerstone of the strategy. It is therefore essential not to prioritize “made in Canada” equipment at the expense of performance, but rather to align the DIS with operational requirements.
Another fundamental issue raised is coordination with the provinces. Anessa Kimball and Youri Rousseau highlighted the importance of close collaboration with provincial governments, which hold key economic and industrial levers, given Canada’s federal structure. Quebec is particularly relevant, with advantages in aerospace, advanced technologies, and AI. These assets make it a key actor in the successful implementation of the DIS, provided favourable conditions are created.
However, concerns were also expressed. While collaboration with provinces is essential, the DIS must not serve short-term economic development goals or job creation driven by electoral motivations. Such a logic could lead to fragmented investments, unfeasible projects, and weakened overall effectiveness.
The final point concerns social acceptability. Yan Cimon noted that while Canadians support technological development and innovation, they are less supportive when it involves explicitly lethal capabilities. To achieve its objectives, the government must engage in transparent and educational efforts to legitimize its actions in the eyes of the public.
Third Expectation: Innovation as a Strategic Pivot
The third major focus of the discussions was technological innovation. The conclusion is clear: Canada invests too little in defence R&D—less than 5% of the budget. This significantly limits its ability to anticipate future threats and develop sovereign responses.
Without significant R&D investment, Canada will remain structurally dependent on foreign, particularly American, innovations for critical systems. A more ambitious strategy is required. The DIS should focus on sectors where Canada already has comparative advantages: artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, aerospace, drones, and surveillance systems.
Pierre Seïn Pyun of Bombardier highlighted the company’s role in defence, notably through a partnership with Saab on an airborne early warning aircraft. At the same time, Youri Rousseau and Marc Bigaouette emphasized Quebec’s role in strategic technologies.
A key proposal emerged: Canada should develop or strengthen an integrated approach modeled on its allies, including the creation of an agency capable of coordinating R&D investments and procurement.
Innovation also requires talent. The historical case of the Avro Arrow illustrates how program failure contributed to the loss of engineers to the United States. The DIS must therefore include measures for training and retaining talent.
Justin Massie also stressed the importance of developing autonomous analytical capacity to define and defend Canadian interests.
However, innovation has constraints. Anessa Kimball noted that innovation and job creation do not automatically align. A focus on cutting-edge technologies may generate high value but not necessarily large employment volumes. The DIS must balance innovation, production, and economic benefits.
Fourth Expectation: Exporting Our Capabilities
The final key issue is exports. Canada’s defence industry cannot rely solely on domestic demand. Export capacity is essential for financial viability and industrial credibility.
The defence export strategy presented by Stéphanie Lesaux-Farmer includes increasing and diversifying exports, both within NATO and beyond. Marc Bigaouette described this as a crucial aspect of the DIS.
Jean-François Juneau noted that some restrictions have been eased, particularly with the Business Development Bank of Canada, but more must be done. Canada lags in political, diplomatic, and financial support for defence exports. A clear assessment and structured support mechanisms are needed.
Guillaume Côté emphasized that export success also depends on diplomatic engagement. Producing is one thing; exporting is another. Conditions must be created to encourage allies to purchase Canadian equipment.
Conclusion: A Welcomed Strategy Requiring Rigorous Implementation
Although the DIS has been delayed, discussions revealed broad support for the initiative. It is seen as necessary for Canada’s national interests in security, defence, and sovereignty.
However, implementation must be disciplined, coherent, and sustained. The DIS cannot be a symbolic announcement or a short-term political tool. It must follow a long-term path—only over 20 to 30 years can it realistically build a strong industrial base.
Key Recommendations:
- Strengthen international cooperation: through information-sharing agreements, industrial partnerships, and participation in multinational projects.
- Actively support exports: develop political and financial mechanisms to promote Canadian capabilities abroad.
- Invest heavily in R&D: implement talent retention measures to limit brain drain.
- Develop centres of excellence: enable Canada to become a leader in targeted sectors.
- Maintain an open relationship with the United States: without excessive dependence, while adopting a hedging posture.
- Create or strengthen an integrated support agency: capable of coordinating investments, R&D, and procurement.
- Keep CAF needs central: avoid dispersing investments into projects driven by short-term political considerations.
Image Credit: Robert Sullivan, Public Domain Mark via Flickr
Comments are closed.