Anxious Neighbours: Canadians Fear US Invasion But Won't Pay to Fight

TORONTO, ON – January 19, 2026 – A startling new survey reveals a deep and growing anxiety among Canadians regarding their country's security, with a majority now believing a military invasion by the United States is a tangible possibility. In the wake of recent aggressive US foreign policy, including the occupation of Venezuela and threats toward Greenland, a poll conducted by procurement consultancy GEF Consulting Inc. found that nearly three-quarters (72.4%) of Canadians now believe a US invasion is possible.

This marks a significant spike in national insecurity, up 6.1% since October polling. The survey of 1,000 Canadians indicates that the recent American military action in Venezuela has been a particular catalyst, with 57.9% stating it makes a conflict on home soil feel more likely.

Yet, this heightened fear is met with a profound sense of fatalism and a striking reluctance to foot the bill for a credible defence. When asked what they would personally be willing to pay in additional taxes to mount a "proper national defence against the USA," a plurality of Canadians (40.1%) chose the most Canadian of options: pay nothing and "just apologize."

This finding presents a stark paradox at the heart of the national psyche: a population increasingly worried about its sovereignty but overwhelmingly unwilling to invest in protecting it, revealing a deep chasm between fear and fiscal commitment.

A Nation on Edge: Geopolitical Tremors Rattle Confidence

The anxiety captured in the GEF Consulting poll does not exist in a vacuum. It reflects a broader erosion of confidence in the stability of the North American alliance, fueled by an unpredictable geopolitical climate. The survey directly links the spike in fear to recent US actions, but it also taps into simmering tensions that have been building for years.

According to the poll, the timeline for this perceived threat is alarmingly short. A striking 66.1% of respondents who believe an invasion could happen think it would occur "before the end of the Trump presidency," a figure that has jumped by 13.3% since October. This suggests that Canadian anxiety is tied directly to the current American political landscape and a foreign policy posture seen as increasingly aggressive and unilateral.

While the poll's scenario of a Venezuelan occupation is a hypothetical flashpoint, real-world events provide ample context for these fears. Ongoing trade disputes, repeated threats concerning the sovereignty of Greenland, and consistent pressure on NATO allies to drastically increase defence spending have all contributed to a narrative of an unreliable and potentially hostile partner to the south. Other recent public opinion data from firms like Nanos Research and the Angus Reid Institute has consistently shown that questions about the reliability of the United States are a key driver behind a renewed, albeit complicated, Canadian interest in defence.

The Defence Paradox: High Anxiety, Low Confidence

Compounding the fear is a near-total lack of public confidence in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to handle such a cataclysmic event. When asked if the current military could defend against a US invasion, a combined 79.3% of Canadians responded with either 'no' (54.7%) or 'maybe' (24.6%). Fewer than one in five believe the CAF could mount a successful defence.

This skepticism extends to the nation's intelligence apparatus. The survey found that Canadians have little faith in their intelligence services to provide an early warning of American military intentions. Nearly a quarter (23.2%) explicitly state they do not trust Canadian intelligence to spot invasion plans, while another 33.1% only 'kinda' trust them.

This crisis of confidence paints a grim picture of a nation that feels both threatened and woefully unprepared. The sentiment is not that Canada would lose a hard-fought battle, but that the country lacks the fundamental capacity to even engage in one, fostering a sense of helplessness that underpins the public's broader response.

Procurement Paralysis and a Doubted New Agency

At the core of this perceived weakness is a problem that has plagued Canada's defence establishment for decades: 'procurement paralysis.' The term describes a chronically slow, bureaucratic, and inefficient system for purchasing military hardware. According to the GEF survey, 41.3% of Canadians—more than any other factor—believe this inability to buy equipment quickly would be the single biggest obstacle to mounting an effective defence.

In response to these well-documented failings, the federal government recently established a new Defence Investment Agency (DIA), tasked with overhauling the broken system and accelerating military modernization. However, the public is deeply skeptical. A combined 80% of Canadians said they have 'no' (44.5%) or 'maybe' (35.5%) confidence that the new agency can scale up the military quickly enough.

Graeme Foster, a procurement expert with GEF Consulting, shares this cautious outlook, pointing to several red flags. "It's a great idea in concept but now they must create a fully functioning, brand-new organization," Foster noted in the press release. "There's always a gap between idea to operational. We need to ask how long that is realistically going to take."

Foster also raised concerns about the agency's leadership, noting that an "ex-banking 'mover and shaker'" without a background in public sector procurement has been put in charge, which "could be a big problem." He drew a parallel to the federal Infrastructure Bank Agency, which "took many, many years to disperse actual money."

Independent defence analysts have long described Canada's procurement system as 'broken,' citing a critical shortage of experts, risk-averse bureaucracy, and political interference as key factors behind multi-year delays and cost overruns. For the new DIA, the clock is ticking to prove its doubters wrong. "If 6-9 months after inception the new Defence Investment Agency still isn't talking about what they are going out to market with (buying), that's a major indicator to the negative," Foster warned. "Radio silence would be a bad harbinger."

A Reluctance to Pay: The 'Sorry' Strategy vs. National Security

While Canadians recognize the systemic failures, their solution is not to demand reform and investment, but to shrug with fiscal resignation. The survey's most telling finding reveals that a desire for security does not translate into a willingness to open their wallets. Beyond the 40.1% who would pay nothing and apologize, another 29.2% would only be willing to part with an extra $100 per year. Only a small fraction, the 11.7% described as 'proud patriots,' would accept an annual tax increase of $1,000 or more for national defence.

This stands in fascinating contrast to other polls showing broad, abstract support for increasing defence spending to meet NATO targets. The GEF survey suggests that when faced with a specific, seemingly insurmountable threat like the US military, that abstract support crumbles into a pragmatic, if not fatalistic, cost-benefit analysis where the cost of resistance appears far too high.

Canadians are not naive about the potential consequences of a conflict, with a majority (60.8%) believing an invasion would cause between $500 billion and over $1 trillion in economic damage within just six months. They see the threat, they understand the stakes, and they doubt their ability to respond, leading them to a uniquely Canadian conclusion: better to say sorry than to be shattered.