Building Under Pressure: Security, Infrastructure, and Canada’s Strategic Instinct

Canada’s history of nation-building has often unfolded at the intersection of infrastructure development and perceived security threats. From the transcontinental railway conceived in part to secure the young Dominion against American encroachment, to Cold War northern radar lines and continental defence networks, major national projects have frequently been justified not only as economic necessities but as strategic imperatives. As the 2025 federal budget elevates defence priorities and strategic infrastructure, particularly in the Arctic and across continental supply chains, it raises a familiar question and uncomfortable idea: does Canada only undertake ambitious infrastructure development when compelled by external threats? By revisiting the historical relationship between security threats and national project building, this article considers what this pattern reveals about Canada’s political past and the lessons it offers for contemporary policy and transatlantic comparative studies.

The Coastal Axis: CPR and Early Infrastructure

The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) stands as a foundational example of this logic. Conceived amid fears of American expansionism and the risk that an unsettled West could drift economically and politically toward the United States (US), the CPR functioned as a strategic bulwark that anchored Canadian sovereignty across the continent. By enabling settlement, troop movement, and the extension of federal authority into the Prairies, most notably during the 1885 North-West Resistance, the railway served not only as an economic artery but also as a mechanism for internal security and territorial consolidation. At the same time, it linked Canada more tightly to the British Empire’s global defence and commercial networks, simultaneously reinforcing imperial strategy and the emerging Canadian national identity rooted in a transcontinental east–west axis. 
Much like the CPR, the Trans-Canada Highway and other Cold War-era infrastructure projects reveal continuity in Canada’s security-driven nation-building logic. Beyond facilitating civilian mobility and economic integration, the Trans-Canada Highway and northern air routes allowed for the rapid deployment of troops and equipment in response to potential Soviet threats and domestic emergencies. Similarly, the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line established early-warning capabilities across the Arctic, asserting Canadian sovereignty in the North while contributing to continental defence under NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command). 
In both eras, the federal government prioritised projects that reinforced territorial integrity and strategic control over those motivated purely by domestic economic or social needs, demonstrating a persistent Canadian pattern: transformative infrastructure tends to be realised most decisively when framed as essential to national security.
These security-driven infrastructure projects also entrenched Canada’s strategic integration with the United States, marking a gradual transition from British to American economic dependence. As the two countries emerged as close allies through the First and Second World Wars, Canadian security concerns shifted toward fortifying the North American continent, exporting its security logic into a shared framework institutionalised through NORAD. Cold War-era highways, ports, and northern transport corridors not only enhanced continental security but also deepened economic and structural ties to the United States. By embedding Canadian development within a North American strategic orbit, these projects created enduring dependencies, rendering Canada’s capacity to transport resources and sustain its economy increasingly contingent on US logistical systems and policy priorities.
This historical pattern offers a critical lens for interpreting the 2025 federal budget, which continues to prioritise strategic infrastructure and defence investment, while recalibrating American dependence. Through trade diversification, domestic defence manufacturing, and critical minerals strategy, the government is reorienting Canada away from exclusive US dependence while maintaining continental interoperability. Central to this objective is the creation of the Major Projects Office, which seeks to streamline approvals, coordinate federal oversight, and accelerate nationally controlled infrastructure and resource projects, thereby “untangling” Canada’s development pathways from excessive external dependency. At the same time, this recalibration foregrounds persistent questions about sovereignty, domestic industrial capacity underpinned by military production, and Canada’s place in the global system, regarding the critical minerals race and Arctic expansion.

Analysis: Security, Trade, and Governance

Between 1885 and 1945, Canadian nation-building and infrastructure development followed a deliberate, security and export-driven logic. Railways connected the sparsely settled Prairies to eastern markets while eastern manufacturing hubs processed raw materials for export to Britain and eventually the United States, reflecting the staples economy model. Infrastructure projects were often slow and regionally uneven, punctuated by accelerated development during the First and Second World Wars. Immigration and settler colonialism in the Prairies were integral to this strategy, as European settlers were encouraged westward to solidify sovereignty and develop agricultural production, often displacing Indigenous communities. Across this period, infrastructure and population policies were inseparable from nation-building objectives, demonstrating a pattern in which strategic, economic, and territorial imperatives drove the scope and pace of Canada’s development.
The 1970s illustrated the vulnerability inherent in Canada’s US-oriented economic integration. American tariffs on key Canadian exports, including lumber, steel, and agricultural products, exposed the risks of over-reliance on a single partner. In response, Canada pursued “The Third Response”, diversifying trade by building stronger ties with the European Economic Community (EEC), expanding exports, and investing in diplomatic and industrial capacity abroad. This episode illustrates a recurring tension in Canadian planning: infrastructure and resource networks often bind the country to dominant powers, but trade and security shocks push the government to seek alternative markets and greater autonomy, a tension that remains relevant when evaluating the 2025 budget and the conflation between nation-building and infrastructure projects, especially in the context of the current Canada-US relationship.

The Axial Shift: Arctic Expansion and Contemporary Policy

The 2025 federal budget continues this historical logic. The government is investing $1 billion over four years in an Arctic Infrastructure Fund, supporting dual-use transport projects (airports, seaports, and all-season roads) that serve both civilian communities and the Canadian Armed Forces. A Defence Industrial Strategy backed by $6.6 billion over five years aims to strengthen domestic defence manufacturing and reduce reliance on external suppliers. Investments in Trade Diversification Corridors and border infrastructure reflect lessons from past vulnerabilities, seeking to ensure Canada can reach non-US markets while maintaining continental security. At the same time, hiring 1,000 new Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers and deploying modern surveillance technology highlights an emphasis on border integrity, sovereignty, and alignment with US security frameworks.
However, these initiatives, in particular those related to transport infrastructure, carry serious trade-offs, particularly for Canada’s northern Indigenous populations. Historically neglected communities have endured profound infrastructure deficits. This includes a lack of reliable electricity, drinking water, food security, and access to healthcare, contributing to devastating outcomes such as scurvy and other preventable illnesses. Framing new infrastructure and connectivity projects primarily in terms of security and critical mineral extraction risks repeating patterns of utilitarian development: resources and logistics are prioritised for national and global strategic benefit, rather than meeting long-standing basic needs of Canadian citizens. 
Unlike provinces, whose powers are constitutionally entrenched, Canada’s northern territories derive their authority from federal statute, meaning their self-governance is delegated rather than constitutionally guaranteed. The territory of Nunavut is a prime example of this, as its government operates with delegated authority, meaning Ottawa retains ultimate legal control over infrastructure, security, and resource decisions. While comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements, such as the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, grant significant rights to Indigenous communities, these protections are statutory and treaty-based rather than inherent under the Constitution. This distinction has important implications: Arctic projects framed primarily as security measures may proceed under federal authority, potentially overriding community priorities and reproducing historical patterns of federal control over resource frontiers.
Beyond Indigenous concerns, prioritising defence and security-linked infrastructure risks diverting funds from other social programs, and environmental trade-offs are considerable: Arctic roads, ports, and extraction-linked infrastructure can accelerate permafrost degradation, threaten fragile ecosystems, and increase carbon emissions. Enhanced border security and continental interoperability may further reinforce dependence on the United States, limiting true strategic autonomy. These tensions echo historical patterns: Canadian infrastructure, trade, and settlement have long sought to balance sovereignty, economic resilience, and security imperatives, often at the expense of social equity and environmental sustainability.

The Future of Security-Focused Nation-Building

Canada’s nation-building trajectory, from the CPR to Cold War highways, the DEW Line, and today’s Arctic investments, reveals a persistent intertwining of infrastructure, security, and sovereignty. The 2025 federal budget continues this logic, funnelling resources into projects meant to bolster resilience, protect supply chains, and advance Canada’s position within an increasingly competitive international landscape. Yet, as history consistently demonstrates, these initiatives carry significant trade-offs. Communities long excluded from meaningful infrastructure and basic services risk being once again overlooked as national strategy takes precedence. Through this historical lens, it becomes clear that Canada’s contemporary approach to nation-building remains a delicate balancing act: enhancing sovereignty and strategic autonomy while avoiding the reproduction of long-standing inequities in regions most affected by federal intervention.
Meeting these challenges will require embedding strategic ambition within governance practices that prioritise transparency, accountability, and genuine partnership. Sustaining good-faith relationships with Indigenous nations, particularly those in the North who bear the immediate consequences of security-framed development, is essential if Canada is to move beyond utilitarian conceptions of the Arctic. While recent developments, such as Nunavut’s devolution and Inuvialuit self-government agreements, signal federal recognition of Indigenous self-determination, these statutory frameworks remain legally contingent and politically vulnerable, unlike constitutionally entrenched rights. Consequently, Indigenous control over northern resources and infrastructure is not fully secure, leaving communities potentially exposed to decisions driven by national or continental strategic priorities. Extending reconciliation into international circumpolar relations, such as structured nation-to-nation dialogue between Inuit and Sámi communities, would further demonstrate a commitment to Indigenous leadership in shaping the region’s future as Canada deepens strategic and security relationships with Arctic states such as Finland, Sweden, and Norway. By grounding national security policy in inclusive, community-informed frameworks, Canada can pursue the infrastructure and defence capabilities required for an uncertain geopolitical era while avoiding the reproduction of historical exclusions and marginalisation that have long defined national development.