From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michel Maisonneuve

Retired lieutenant-general and graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, argues Canada should establish a mandatory national service for all citizens under 30 to rebuild patriotism, civic trust, and national readiness.

Our country can’t defend itself, and citizens aren’t patriotic enough to step up. It’s time to change that.

I joined the military at the age of 18, right out of high school. My parents were working class and couldn’t afford to pay my university tuition, so although I was accepted to several good schools, I chose the Royal Military College of Canada, where I’d be considered part of the military and receive an annual salary. During the academic year, our job was to study. Then in the summer, we did military training. We graduated as second lieutenants—entry-level officers—and then did four years of military service.

I loved RMC. That’s where I learned about discipline, leadership and teamwork. After graduating I served in an armoured regiment in Quebec City, the 12e Régiment blindé du Canada. Eventually, I became a three-star general—a senior commander—and represented Canada in NATO. The military is where I met my wife, who served as a major in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Our experiences gave us a sense of purpose that’s we’ve passed down in our family: today, two of my four kids serve in the Canadian military.

But they’re in the minority. On the whole, the Angus Reid Institute finds that young Canadians are more reluctant to fight for our country than older Canadians, and pride in our armed forces has dropped significantly, from 79 per cent in 2019 to 54 per cent now. That decrease is coupled with a lack of trust in our public institutions. As of 2023, only a third of Canadians were confident in the federal parliament, and barely half reported confidence in the justice system and courts. Some might argue that Canadians are taking more pride in our country now than ever—U.S. President Trump’s tariff threats brought us together and started the “Elbows Up” boycotts—but even that has started to ebb. In any case, we shouldn’t need Trump or any outside influence to make us patriotic. Real patriotism doesn’t come through ideas and slogans, but through leadership and action. That’s why I believe that now, more than ever, Canada needs to create a mandatory national service for all Canadians under 30 years old.

The Canadian Armed Forces are facing a shortage of between 14,000 and 16,000 personnel. Meanwhile, our Arctic coastline is poised to become a site of global geopolitical competition as world powers eye its critical minerals, oil, gas and fresh water. Russian and Chinese interests in the region are expanding, and the ice is melting, opening us up to a looming scramble for northern waterways and seabed resources. If anyone wanted to come into the North and seize our natural wealth right now, there would be little we could do to stop them, short of a strongly worded diplomatic protest. We don’t have the necessary troops to defend ourselves—and the ones we do, we can barely transport up there.

Meanwhile, our country’s political, economic, and military weight has atrophied, and Canada’s international reputation is getting weaker. We’re no longer a strong player on the world stage. For example, in August, when a group of European leaders travelled to Washington, D.C. to discuss the war in Ukraine and support President Zelenskyy, Canada was not at the table—even though we are only a short flight away. We need to rebuild Canadians’ confidence before we can once again wield the weight of a strong middle power abroad. And we can do that by ensuring that Canadians love their country and are prepared to serve it.

The good news is that recent polls show strong interest in a mandatory national service program—especially if it’s broadened beyond the military. In an Angus Reid survey, 43 per cent of people supported the idea of mandatory military service, but about 70 per cent of people approved of a year-long mandatory service in the fields of public health support, environmental support, youth services and civil protection.

There’s much that young people can gain from serving their country. Early in my military career, I spent two years on exchange in France, where I commanded army conscripts. It was the late 1970s, and at the time, almost every 18-year-old male was required to serve in the French military. We received new appelés, or conscripts, right off the bus. They had long hair and lacked any prior military training or knowledge. But after 12 months of basic training, I could have taken my troop to war and won. Some of them, who had shown leadership potential, ended up becoming crew commanders in charge of an armoured vehicle.

These conscripts gained more than just the skills to shoot a rifle or drive a tank; they learned about their country and the importance of defending and serving it. Having a job to do gave them discipline, and they picked up small lessons like the importance of nutrition and staying fit. These basic but foundational habits can help set a person up for life-long health and success.

In France, a lot of the appelés hadn’t travelled much. Once they joined the military, they performed military manoeuvres across the country. When young people get to know their country and its people better, a sense of national pride emerges, along with an understanding of why their country is worth defending in the first place. In Canada, national service could have a similar effect. Imagine a young man or woman from Quebec is sent to serve in Alberta, or vice versa. How much could they learn from that experience?

Several NATO nations already have a mandatory national service system in place, including Lithuania, Estonia, Norway, Finland and Denmark. Lithuania’s system, which seeks volunteers and then uses a lottery to fill the remaining quota, is only for the military and applies to men ages 19 to 26. Estonia conscripts all men between 17 and 27, but other public service jobs are options for those with religious or moral reservations. Meanwhile, Norway’s highly selective conscription program selects several thousand of the most eligible men and women up to the age of 44, granting the nation 3.5 times more military personnel per capita than Canada.

If we’re going to have a national service program, we’ll need leaders in government to create a framework for it. In Canada, the federal government could designate several different streams of work, including defence, conservation, emergency and disaster response, health care, social services, digital infrastructure and youth development. When a young person turns 18, they would register for national service and suggest what stream they might prefer. If more people register than needed, a lottery system could determine who serves and in which stream. Those selected would enter training and take courses on civics and Canadian history, as well as stream-specific skills. They would then be deployed to a community, where they would serve for a year. Deferral beyond age 18 could be an option in some cases, as long as young people still entered service before a certain age, like 25 or 30.

Getting a system like this off the ground would require resources, training capacity and federal coordination, but it would be a worthwhile effort. Canada is faces severe wildfire seasons, an expanding cybercrime landscape and declining biodiversity. Our health-care system is anticipating a shortage of 117,600 nurses by 2030. Young people would emerge from service with a stronger sense of responsibility for their nation and the foundational skills necessary to help address the country’s biggest problems. And of course, those who choose to serve in the military could be added to the reserve, which would place Canada in a stronger position to defend itself in an increasingly aggressive world.

I envision national service as a paying job, which would make it more attractive to young people. And there could be other incentives for them to join—financial support for university, for instance, or guaranteed employment after service. Permanent residents could get a faster path to citizenship.

Citizenship in this incredible country comes with benefits, but also responsibilities. Once every young Canadian has worn a maple leaf on their shoulder, I think they’ll feel pride for their country—something that can unite us all and help Canada achieve its fullest potential.

Michel Maisonneuve is a retired lieutenant-general who served Canada for 45 years. He is a senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and author of In Defence of Canada: Reflections of a Patriot.

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Under the proposed law, international treaties or accords signed by the federal government would not apply in Alberta unless approved through its own legislation.

Alberta’s Conservative government introduced a new law to protect “constitutional rights” that would allow it to essentially ignore International Agreements, including those by the World Health Organization (WHO), signed by the federal Liberal government.

The new law, Bill 1, titled International Agreements Act and introduced Thursday, according to the government, “draws a clear line: international agreements that touch on provincial areas of jurisdiction must be debated and passed into law in Alberta.”

Should the law pass, which is all but certain as Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s Conservatives hold a majority government, it would mean that any international treaties or accords signed by the federal government would not apply in Alberta unless approved through its own legislation.

“As we return to the legislature, our government is focused on delivering on the mandate Albertans gave us in 2023 to stand up for this province, protect our freedoms and chart our path forward,” Smith said.

“We will defend our constitutional rights, protect our province’s interests and make sure decisions that affect Albertans are made by Albertans. The federal government stands at a crossroads. Work with us, and we’ll get things done. Overstep, and Alberta will stand its ground.”

According to the Alberta government, while the feds have the “power to enter into international agreements on behalf of Canada,” it “does not” have the “legal authority to impose its terms on provinces.”

“The International Agreements Act reinforces that principle, ensuring Alberta is not bound by obligations negotiated in Ottawa that do not align with provincial priorities,” the province said.

The new Alberta law is not without precedent. In 2000, the province of Quebec passed a similar law, allowing it to ignore international agreements unless approved by local legislators.

The Smith government did not say which current federal agreements it would ignore, but in theory, it could apply to any agreement Canada has signed with the United Nations or the WHO.