Medical staff direct some of the last passengers to be evacuated from the MV Hondius on May 11 in Tenerife, Spain.Chris McGrath/Getty Images
Kirsten Wright is managing director of The Waterloo Institute for Complexity and Innovation.
The recent hantavirus outbreak should not be treated as an isolated public-health curiosity. It is a warning from the future.
The world entering the 2030s will not be defined only by conventional geopolitical conflict, but by cascading systemic threats: emerging pathogens, climate-driven ecological disruption, cyberattacks, supply-chain fragility, synthetic biology and increasingly accessible technologies capable of catastrophic harm.
Canada remains dangerously underprepared for this reality.
Our public debate still imagines national security primarily through the lens of 20th-century military procurement: ships, jets and armoured vehicles. Yet the actual threat models of this century are increasingly asymmetric, distributed and biological. Billion-dollar military platforms can now be threatened by inexpensive drones. And the same asymmetry is emerging across other domains: in cyber, biology and infrastructure, small groups, or even skilled individuals, may soon possess capabilities once reserved for nation-states.
What is hantavirus, how does it spread and what are the symptoms?
At the same time, ecological instability is increasing the probability of natural spillovers. Climate change is reshaping disease vectors, animal migration patterns, flooding, heat stress and ecosystem disruption. Human contact with unstable ecosystems is increasing. Public-health systems designed for a more stable world are being stretched by concurrent crises.
And unlike conventional military threats, pandemics do not wait for mobilization.
There is no time to build resilience once exponential spread begins.
Canada learned this lesson during COVID-19, but has already begun forgetting it. The next crisis may involve higher mortality, deliberate targeting or simultaneous infrastructure disruption.
This is not science fiction.
The barriers to engineering dangerous pathogens are falling rapidly. Advances in synthetic biology, AI-assisted research tools and distributed laboratory technologies are democratizing capabilities that were once highly restricted.
But there is another side to this story.
The tools for defence are also advancing at extraordinary speed. Rapid genomic sequencing, AI-assisted protein modelling and programmable vaccine platforms are transforming rapid response.
Opinion: History teaches us how to manage risk
If governments take preparedness seriously, it may soon become possible to design and produce antibody-based countermeasures within days. But these capacities cannot be improvised during collapse. They require sustained public investment before the emergency begins.
Crucially, these investments would not sit idle waiting for catastrophe. The same systems that increase resilience during crisis also improve daily life and economic performance now. Decentralized energy systems reduce emissions and improve grid reliability. Domestic pharmaceutical and biotechnology capacity creates high-value industries and reduces supply vulnerability. Strong public-health systems improve work force productivity. Resilient infrastructure lowers disaster costs and insurance exposure. In the 21st century, resilience and prosperity are becoming the same project.
Canada possesses immense latent capacity: world-class universities, biotechnology expertise, AI researchers, advanced manufacturing capabilities, stable governance, freshwater, agricultural land and one of the most resource-rich geographies on Earth. Much of the infrastructure needed for a more resilient future already exists within Canadian universities, hospitals, public research institutions and manufacturing networks. Yet Canada has not organized these strengths into a coherent resilience strategy equal to the risks ahead.
What would genuine resilience look like?
It would mean treating secure food, water, energy, finance and shelter systems as national-security infrastructure. It would mean local manufacturing capacity for medical countermeasures, hardened electrical grids, decentralized energy systems, resilient communications and financial networks, and buildings capable of functioning during prolonged emergencies. It would mean investing in public health with the seriousness once reserved for continental defence.
Most importantly, it would mean recognizing that resilience is not merely defensive. It is productive.
Opinion: Climate disaster preparation is central to Canada’s economic security
Countries able to maintain social cohesion during crises will possess enormous strategic advantages. Resilience is not a luxury added after growth; it is increasingly the foundation upon which prosperity, sovereignty and stability depend.
Canada should therefore dedicate a meaningful portion of future security spending toward integrated resilience infrastructure: biosurveillance, rapid-response biotechnology, climate adaptation, emergency logistics, domestic pharmaceutical production, financial plumbing, cyber-defense, financial-system resilience and community preparedness.
These investments would not only reduce vulnerability; they would strengthen prosperity, productivity and long-term sovereignty.
The greatest danger today is not an attack. It is systemic fragility.
In a world of accelerating shocks, the countries that endure will not be those with the largest weapons platforms. They will be the societies capable of absorbing disruption without social collapse, the societies able to feed themselves, keep infrastructure functioning, and rapidly develop countermeasures when crisis emerges.
The next great national-security challenge may not arrive as an invasion fleet crossing an ocean.
It may arrive through disrupted ecosystems, engineered pathogens, cyberattacks on a bank – or a convergence of all three at once.
The question is not whether such crises will occur.
The question is whether Canada will begin preparing before they do.