Canada’s ambitious Northern security strategy is designed to protect territory, but it is failing to protect the people most at risk within it. Prime Minister Carney announced $35 billion for defence and infrastructure in the North and has said that Ottawa will quadruple defence spending within the next five years. In short, Ottawa is flush with money for defence and security. The question is whether its definition of security is broad enough.
This military-focused conception of security reflects growing geopolitical pressures and bilateral expectation from the US for Canada to invest more heavily in defence infrastructure. Yet Canada should resist simply adopting an approach to security that equates national security with enhanced military assets.
The government speaks of “whole-of-society approach” and “societal resilience”. These concepts echo longstanding commitments to human security and the belief that a secure country requires more than secure borders. It also requires people and communities that are safe and resilient to the threats they face.
Security funding decisions matter to all Canadians. How our government chooses to define security is just as consequential. That definition shapes what it prioritizes, where political attention is directed, and what kinds of investments become easier to justify or cut.
Prime Minister Carney has been clear that accelerated defence spending will inevitably come with some sacrifices and tough choices for Canadians. As Canada’s security agenda becomes focused on defence infrastructure, especially military assets, the risk is not only about fiscal displacement, it is about what gets recognized and prioritized as a security threat.
Historically Canada has embraced the concept of human security and Canada has often been a global leader in pursuing the ideals associated with it, including the foundational belief that security is not just about borders and survival, but about people’s ability to thrive, be healthy, and be free of fear and want. In 2001, former Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy declared that the meaning of security was being transformed in a way that put people first. A human security approach would seek to identify an expansive range of threats that undermine people’s safety and wellbeing and direct resources toward reducing them. From this perspective, security threats are not limited to military threats. Canadians face profound threats from disease, addiction, homelessness, gender-based violence, lack of access to medical care, and climate change.
If these threats receive less attention and become less central to how we understand and pursue security, we risk investing more in defence while leaving Canadians less secure in their everyday lives.
This broader understanding of security has important implications for Canada’s approach to the North. The Northern security strategy should treat violence prevention as infrastructure. That means sustained funding for Indigenous-led Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, Girls, and Two Spirit people (MMIWG2S+) programs, not short-term grants. It means recognizing that safety work, healing work, and rapid response are not separate from security; they are part of the infrastructure required to provide it. Rooted in prevention and led by communities themselves, these programs save lives. When those programs are left uncertain and underfunded, Canada leaves an important gap in its human security infrastructure.
Military presence in the North is designed to deter external threats and assert sovereignty. But the most immediate threats Indigenous women face are not coming from outside Canada’s borders. Indigenous women face particular threats that demand a broader and more inclusive security strategy. Indigenous women living in the North are murdered at a rate six times higher than non-Indigenous women in Canada. They also experience higher rates of sexual and physical violence at about twice the rates of non-Indigenous peoples and are at a disproportionate risk of homelessness.
These threats demonstrate why territorial defence alone cannot address the full range of threats facing people living in the North. Indigenous women have been understandably suspicious of institutions that are meant to provide safety. Research has found that Indigenous women have been the targets of violence and discrimination by the police. While efforts are made to reform and respond to this evidence, existing Indigenous-led MMIWG2S+ programs can help protect human security. The National Family & Survivors Circle supports families and survivors so they do not face grief alone. The Red Dress Alert program alerts the public when Indigenous women go missing, triggering rapid responses and timely recoveries. The Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada program works to end gender-based violence, build shelters, and address the root causes of violence in Inuit communities. But sustained funding alone is not enough. Families of the missing and murdered have been clear: resources must be directed toward family-led oversight and implementation. Any long-term funding must centre their voice.
The consequences of overlooking human security priorities like Indigenous women’s safety are stark. The Prairie Green Landfill case shows what can happen when women’s safety is treated as an afterthought and action comes only after lives have been lost. Two Indigenous women were recovered from a landfill after a seven-month search that cost $18.4 million. Canada should be putting resources into keeping women alive, not only into responding after they have gone missing.
Yet as Canada makes unprecedented long-term investments in Northern military restructure, funding for programs addressing these other security threats remains uncertain. Canada has committed $2.67 billion to the Northern Operational Support Hubs (NOSH). Federal funding of $840,000 for MMIWG2S+ programs has lapsed, with no commitments for renewal. These funding decisions were not made at the expense of one another. But the contrast illustrates the different levels of certainty and long-term planning Canada attaches to different forms of security.
Sustained funding for human security would require only a fraction of Canada’s broader security investments. Long-term programs like these would directly address the human security gaps that military infrastructure cannot. This is not a trade-off between defence and human security: it is a choice to fund both.
If Canada can commit to a 20-year military infrastructure plan, commitments to Indigenous women’s safety must be part of this plan. These are not competing priorities. Military infrastructure secures Canada’s borders from external threats. Prevention programs secure people from the violence happening within these borders. One does not replace the other. A Northern security strategy should be capable of doing both.
Tadiwa Nyashanu is a graduate student in the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia.
Megan MacKenzie is a Professor and the Simons Chair in Peace, Disarmament and Human Security at Simon Fraser University.
The views expressed in this op-ed are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of the Institute or its staff.
Photo: Corporal Sarah Morley, Canadian Armed Forces. Department of National Defence / Combat Camera / 2023. Crown Copyright. The use of this image does not imply or constitute endorsement by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces.
