18.02.2026, Ottawa.
The new defense industrial strategy presented on February 17 by the Government of Canada will not lead to the country’s self-sufficiency in rearmament, Rossa Primavera News Agency‘s America Desk wrote.
The document attracted attention, including because it was adopted against the backdrop of a trade confrontation between Canada and the United States.
Presenting the strategy, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did not mince words to express his enthusiasm, “Defending Canada means more than the size of our military,” he stated. “It also means the strength of our industries, the resilience of our economy and our capacity to act independently when it matters most. Our national security and our economic security go hand in hand.”
At first glance, there seemed to be grounds for this: the document includes a requirement to prioritize Canadian-made weapons for the country’s defense needs. However, the main issue is that Canada currently produces very few of its own weapons, especially in the field of heavy military equipment.
Thus, on the eve of the strategy’s publication, Ottawa, despite its disputes with Washington, made a payment toward the future delivery of an additional batch of US fifth-generation F-35 aircraft. The first batch includes 16 such fighter jets, with deliveries scheduled to begin before the end of 2026.
In addition, Canadian authorities decided to purchase 14 more fighter jets, although other options were considered, such as fighters from the Swedish manufacturer Saab. However, Canada’s Department of National Defense claims that the deal has not yet been finalized.
The same applies to other weapons systems. For example, the Canadian Navy is considering purchasing four Korean submarines to replace US ones.
On the eve of the announcement, the Canadian Navy successfully tested a new lightweight anti-submarine torpedo – a US-made one.
Canada is also participating in a European program providing loans for the purchase of weapons, which should enable it to more easily acquire European arms. This is the first time a non-European country has joined the program.
The strategy is indeed aimed at strengthening the defense industry, but mainly in terms of components for weapons rather than complete domestic weapons systems. For example, the document envisages the construction of a new plant to produce nitrocellulose, an important component of gunpowder.
This situation stems from decades of cooperation with the United States. In particular, under an agreement concluded with the Pentagon during World War II, Canadian companies are treated on par with US suppliers when participating in tenders. Severing these ties is not easy, even amid the trade wars launched by US President Donald Trump.
As noted by Canadian diplomat Wendy Gilmour, who was former Assistant Secretary General of NATO, Canada’s defense investment strategy does not contradict the US one, which also relies primarily on its own industry.
She asserts that in most cases, Canada and the USA are not direct competitors. The only competitor to US manufacturers may be General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, which produces light armored vehicles. However, it too is a subsidiary owned by a US firm.
At the same time, the strategy does indeed imply strengthening defense capabilities. According to it, the navy should reach 75% combat readiness (currently 59.6%), ground equipment 80% (currently 51%), and the aerospace sector 85% (compared to 42.3% now).
The main factors behind low combat readiness are aging equipment, personnel shortages, and other problems caused by past underfunding. However, Canada is clearly not prepared to enhance this readiness on its own.
