JOBFlocks reported in January that the Canadian Armed Forces have modelled a hypothetical U.S. military invasion of Canada and the country’s potential response.James Maclennan/The Canadian Press
Richard Sandbrook is an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Toronto and vice-president of Science for Peace. He is the author of the forthcoming book, The Citizen’s Guide to Nonviolent Defence: How Canadians Can Deter Invasions, Defeat Tyranny and Build Democracy.
Prime Minister Mark Carney claimed, in an interview on Sept. 23, that it would be “irresponsible” for Canada not to prepare for the “extreme tail risk” of U.S. military action against Canada. He refused, however, to provide any details.
How would Canada respond to an invasion? A Globe and Mail article from Jan. 20 provides the answer. The military has apparently developed a contingency model for the unlikely event of a U.S. invasion. Canada would mount a military defence, but it would be breached within two to seven days. Resistance would then shift to an insurgency on the Afghan model, intended to impose high costs on the invading force. Insurgents would engage in hit-and-run tactics, sabotage, ambushes and planting improvised explosive devices.
Chief of Defence Staff General Jennie Carignan authorized a mobilization plan for a supplementary volunteer reserve force that would eventually number 300,000, according to reports in October, 2025. The volunteers would receive training in basic emergency and combat skills such as the use of firearms, communication systems and drones.
Carney prepared for risk that Trump might order military action against Canada, report says
Presumably, this force would form the backbone of guerrilla warfare.
This contingency planning takes us in the wrong direction. First, modern warfare is enormously destructive, as the Ukraine war attests. Aside from the devastating impact on Canadian cities, the violent confrontation would make it difficult for Canada’s friends and allies in the United States to organize a powerful internal resistance. Such action might be construed as treasonous.
Second, Canadians possess neither the culture nor history of insurgent struggle, unlike the Afghans whose example is cited in the Globe’s report. What proportion of the Canadian public would become guerrillas, undertaking ambushes and hit-and-run raids? Even if such a guerrilla force did emerge, its actions would justify, in the enemy’s eyes, a repressive response.
The alternative strategy is hiding in plain sight: nonviolent civilian defence in the cities of southern Canada.
Nonviolent defence offers Canada a potentially efficient and effective deterrence and defence, at a relatively low cost in terms of casualties and infrastructural damage. The case for civilian defence is pragmatic.
What is nonviolent defence, and how would it work? It is a strategy of deterrence and resistance in which unarmed civilians play a major role, either alone or in co-ordination with the armed forces. The civilian volunteers employ their training in nonviolent methods to make their country ungovernable by the occupier and to undermine the pillars of support on which the invader depends.
Civilian defence does not mean the displacement of the Canadian Armed Forces, though it does require that the two forces, obeying conflicting logics, co-ordinate their activities. Joint deployment demands geographical separation. Nonviolent defence would operate in the populated southern band of Canada; the CAF would be responsible for security in the remainder of Canada, in areas in which population is too limited and dispersed to allow for civilian defence. The armed forces would also provide services to the civilian defenders, including intelligence and protection from cyber-attacks and drone attacks.
The volunteer civilian force would be inexpensive, so the reduced role for the military would allow for smaller defence budgets: not the 5 per cent of GDP planned for by 2035, but perhaps no increase above the current 2 per cent. Other priorities could then be funded.
Opinion: I fought for investment in Canada’s defence as international order eroded
Is it realistic to expect unarmed Canadians to confront a heavily armed invading force? Yes, though obviously, it will take courage. It has often happened elsewhere. And in an Environics poll in April, 55 per cent of a sample of 1,800 Canadians stated they would resist an invasion or occupation. Fifteen per cent would resist with armed force. Yet 40 per cent (or as many as 14 million Canadian adults) said they would resist in a nonviolent manner.
Even if only half or a quarter of this number showed up, it constitutes a substantial force. But people need to learn how to resist non-violently.
Why not train the new supplementary force in the strategy and tactics of civilian defence and empower its recruits to return to their communities to train volunteers in local chapters? If successful, nonviolent defence would never need to be used. Its existence would act as a powerful deterrent. An additional benefit would be the rebuilding of networks of trust and co-operation at the local level. Nonviolent defence is inherently democratic.