Canadian universities and the new defence imperative: the case in favour

In recent years, defence and security have once again taken centre stage in public policy. The war in Ukraine, geopolitical tensions, technological competition between major powers, cyber threats and Canada’s commitments to its allies are gradually transforming expectations of public institutions. Universities are no exception to this trend. 

However, collaborations between universities, the Canadian Armed Forces and the defence sector are provoking mixed reactions. Some fear the militarisation of research or a threat to academic freedom. Others see it as an unavoidable responsibility in a context where national security increasingly depends on knowledge, technology and talent. 

In my view, the debate needs to be reframed. 

The real question is not whether universities will become more involved in defence efforts. They have been contributing to these efforts for a long time, by training the engineers, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, artificial intelligence specialists, cybersecurity experts, international relations analysts and managers who work within military institutions. They also do so through their research, whether it focuses on advanced materials, digital systems, health, public policy or the humanities. Canada also has two military units, each with university status, granted by Ontario (Kingston) and Quebec (St-Jean). 

The real question is whether our university system is ready to support the transformation that lies ahead. 

The Canadian government has announced a substantial increase in its defence spending. Beyond equipment procurement, this reorientation will inevitably lead to a significant rise in the demand for highly qualified personnel and in the research activities arising from their needs. If the ambitions currently being discussed are realised, the Canadian Armed Forces will need to recruit and train many more service personnel over the coming years. This development cannot be accommodated by military colleges alone. 

Canadian military colleges play a vital role in training officers. However, they train only around a quarter of the Canadian Armed Forces’ future officers. The vast majority of officers are graduates of civilian universities, which also provide a significant proportion of the academic training for specialist officers, as well as the professional development of senior non-commissioned officers who are called upon to assume command responsibilities. In other words, civilian universities already constitute one of the main pillars of Canadian military leadership training. 

This reality is set to become even more significant. 

The requirements will not be limited to engineering or military technologies. A modern army is, above all, a knowledge-based organisation. It draws on expertise in artificial intelligence, cyber security, medicine, logistics, management, law, psychology, social sciences, public administration, international relations and ethics. Contemporary conflicts demonstrate that operational superiority depends as much on the quality of knowledge as on that of equipment. 

This transformation also challenges the very mission of universities. Their contribution is not merely to meet immediate labour market needs. Above all, it consists of educating men and women capable of exercising judgement, making complex decisions and innovating in environments characterised by uncertainty. Academic freedom remains, in this regard, an essential prerequisite. Universities must never become instruments of defence policy; they must retain their capacity for critical analysis, including with regard to government decisions. It is precisely this independence that underpins their value. 

The Canadian context adds an often-overlooked dimension to this discussion. 

The Canadian Armed Forces are one of the few federal institutions where bilingualism constitutes a strategic competence. As officers progress to the highest levels of responsibility, proficiency in both official languages becomes a decisive criterion for promotion. This requirement undoubtedly contributes to the fact that Francophones represent a proportion of the general staff that is significantly higher than their demographic weight within the Canadian population. 

This reality should give universities pause for thought. 

Francophones account for around 23 per cent of the Canadian population and less than 21 per cent of the scientific community. Yet they hold nearly 37 per cent of posts within the Canadian Armed Forces’ general staff. This disparity serves as a reminder that linguistic duality is not merely a historical legacy or a legal principle: it also represents a strategic advantage for the country. 

Maintaining the capacity for university education and research in French in fields related to defence, security, public policy, international relations and cutting-edge technologies is therefore not merely a matter of protecting a language. It is also about ensuring that Canada can continue to train, across the country, leaders capable of carrying out their responsibilities in both official languages and of engaging with scientific networks throughout the Francophonie. 

A state’s sovereignty is no longer measured solely by the size of its armed forces or the quality of its equipment. It depends just as much on its ability to generate its own knowledge, develop its talent and maintain scientific autonomy in fields deemed strategic. 

Universities play a central role in this ambition. 

Canada’s next defence initiative should therefore not be viewed solely as an investment in military capabilities. It should also be seen as an investment in the universities that will train the men and women called upon to serve, lead and transform the Canadian Armed Forces. More broadly still, it should help to strengthen the country’s capacity to generate the knowledge on which its future security will rest. 

For, in the 21^st century, sovereignty is not built solely in military bases. It is also built in laboratories, research centres and classrooms.