Shooting Down Carney’s Faulty NATO Pledge

Less than a week before Canada Day, the Mark Carney Liberal government announced it was joining other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries in agreeing to dramatically increase spending on national defence to five per cent of gross domestic product, or GDP, within 10 years.

As with most ill-advised political decisions these days, this one has its roots in the appeasement of Donald Trump. The U.S. president had been badgering NATO countries to increase their military spending.

For Canada, the sudden five per cent decision is momentous, and potentially disastrous.

In today’s dollars, the new defence spending would amount to $150 billion per year, an astronomical sum. Even if accounting for only the 3.5 per cent “core defence spending” NATO target, this would still equate to more than the federal government spends on all health and social transfers to the provinces and territories combined.

Currently, no NATO country spends five per cent of their GDP on defence. The Americans spend only 3.2 per cent (and have refused to commit to the new number). Nine of the 32 member countries spend less than even the two per cent target. Canada presently spends 1.4 per cent. Until recently, our pledge to our NATO allies was to get to two per cent by 2032. Prime Minister Carney first expedited that promise to next year, then expanded the commitment to five per cent within a decade.

In the government statement supporting its NATO spending announcement, the prime minister declared, “The world is increasingly dangerous.”

But is the world in 2025 uniquely more dangerous, in terms of military threats, to warrant such an upheaval in public spending?

Is the world more dangerous today than in 2022 when Vladimir Putin began Russia’s invasion of Ukraine? More dangerous than the “war on terror” years in the early 2000s? Or during Cold War tensions pre-glasnost in the 1980s? Or at the brink of nuclear war in 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis? Is now really the most dangerous period globally since 1957? Because that was the last year Canada spent five per cent or more of its GDP on defence.

None of this is to suggest the world is lacking in significant — even unprecedented — threats to human safety and well-being. Indeed, conflicts and suffering in Ukraine, Sudan and the Middle East, including, notably, Gaza, are alarming. Territorial competition in the Arctic is troubling.

Yet the world faces risks beyond conventional acts of military aggression. Exhibit A is climate change, as the apocalyptic scenes from Canadian forest fires make clear. Unchecked economic inequality, unfiltered disinformation networks and unregulated artificial intelligence companies pose additional and enormous challenges to the sovereignty, security and social cohesion of Canada and countries around the world.

Certainly, Donald Trump’s return to power makes the world more dangerous in a multitude of ways, particularly for Canadians.

These threats require candour and competence by global leaders, not bravado and bombs.

This is where inconsistencies begin to be found in justifications by governments — including Canada’s — for massively increasing defence spending. Consider the following concerns.

Where will the money come from?

Details on how these tens of billions of new dollars will be spent are vague. Troublingly, there has been no discussion linking defence spending to the rising, non-traditional security threats noted above, by either the Canadian government or NATO itself. There have, however, been links made to accessing “critical minerals” sought by military and technology companies.

Where governments will quickly find this new money is an immediate concern. C.D. Howe Institute senior fellow and former clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, for example, suggests a new, dedicated two per cent consumer tax similar to the GST. In the absence of such national tax increases or deficit financing, governments are likely to have to reduce public services that sustain democracies, cut programs that protect the vulnerable, delay investments in human capital that grow economies, and abandon efforts to confront equally, if not more urgent, risks to global security. Carney has warned of government cuts to come, and yesterday his finance minister ordered cabinet ministers to slash deeply.

It is also important to remember that Canada’s NATO commitment to greater defence spending is not our only ambitious international pledge. Will we rob from other responsibilities to pay for this new one?

It has been more than 50 years since countries, including Canada, agreed to the United Nations goal of directing 0.7 per cent of national GDP to international aid, a goal we have never met. In comparison with the new five per cent NATO pledge, this global aid commitment seems a paltry sum. In terms of preventive peace and stability, it reads as a better investment.

Then there is Canada’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, a necessary action to address the climate emergency and its impact on human health and security. The federal government’s Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, however, raises doubts about the country’s environmental commitments.

Under the previous Liberal government, Canada signed on to an international, legally binding treaty on artificial intelligence, designed to ensure AI systems are “fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law.” Yet comments made by the federal minister responsible for AI suggest the Carney government is worryingly cool to regulation. One of the leading experts in the field, Geoffrey Hinton, has warned against an approach of weak regulation.

It is clear the government is prioritizing conventional military defence over responding to other threats. It is just not clear there is a persuasive or values-aligned case for doing so.

Defence analysts, peace advocates and even a former Liberal foreign affairs minister are already challenging the government’s recent statements and actions concerning national defence policy.

After Carney’s previous surprise announcement on increasing military spending to two per cent of GDP, academic Philippe Lagassé mused, “The speed at which the Carney government made its recent defence announcement also makes me wonder about the degree of alignment between PMO/PCO [Prime Minister’s Office/Privy Council Office], the defence minister, and various parts of DND/CAF [Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces].”

Cesar Jaramillo, former executive director of Project Ploughshares, has criticized the lack of evidence behind previous calls to commit to “arbitrary” NATO spending measures. He is not the only peace advocate to do so.

Past Liberal minister Lloyd Axworthy has strongly rebuked Carney’s NATO spending decision and advised against joining Trump’s “Golden Dome” plan, warning it would be a “betrayal” of most Canadians’ desire for more independence from the United States.

In justifying the need for even greater defence spending, the Carney government points to threats such as Russia, China and Iran. Indeed, the governments of these countries have sought to interfere in our elections, detained our citizens and threatened our allies.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, India and the United States, meanwhile, have sought to disrupt our democracy, killed and detained Canadian citizens, and threatened our sovereignty, yet the Carney government invited their leaders to Canada to attend the G7 summit.

Selective outrage is not a sound national security strategy.

Did Canadian voters get Trumped?

Unfortunately, there was very little advance public debate about such a significant spending commitment, and there was no talk of a five per cent commitment during the spring federal election campaign. Additionally, according to opinion polling, only about one-third of Canadians believe spending five per cent of GDP on defence is a fair target that we should try to meet.

In the absence of an unprecedented global risk environment, persuasive arguments made in a broad public debate, or a groundswell of popular support, citizens should be contemplating the fundamental question asked since the ancients: Cui bono? Who profits?

With hundreds of billions of dollars — cumulatively, trillions — to be spent by governments on expenditures like military equipment in the coming years, a massive opportunity exists for the defence industry, including arms manufacturers. Among these players, U.S. companies make up more than half the global market cap, and the United States has more than a 40 per cent market share in global arms exports.

Noted military affairs journalist David Pugliese notes the connection, writing that the “spending boost announced by NATO could also prove to be a big winner for the American economy,” as “the U.S. is the world’s largest arms manufacturer.”

Incredibly, but unsurprisingly, Trump has declined to definitively say whether he would honour the mutual defence guarantee that is the raison d’être of NATO, notwithstanding the summit’s closing declaration.

Trump heightens global chaos, he bullies the world to invest more in military weaponry, and he reaps the rewards — at minimum, politically — of U.S. defence company contracts.

Remarkably, Canada under the Carney Liberals appears content to go along with this game, in spite of Trump and his administration threatening to annex us, his political supporters disrupting and influencing our national discourse, and his economic allies eying our resources.

Canadians have reason to be confused about whether we are taking enough steps to respond to our increasingly hostile neighbour directly to our south. In fact, while we’ve seen the announcement of a Canada-European Union mutual security pact, the Liberal government has signalled an intention to strengthen ties with the United States.

In addition to Carney’s confirmed talks to join Trump’s absurdly costly Golden Dome missile defence plan, Canada’s chief of the defence staff has reportedly urged our country to “stick with America” and purchase U.S.-built and -controlled F-35 military jets.

Canadian business leaders who are prepared to water down Canada’s sovereignty for closer economic and security ties with the United States are increasingly emboldened. Carney’s NATO announcement and corresponding acquiescence to Donald Trump will do nothing to discourage them.

As is frequently the case with political debates over military defence and policy decisions, citizens can expect to be bombarded with appeals to national pride and unity, frightful warnings of risk to public safety, and assertions of bold leadership and pragmatism. The irony that these messages will commonly be delivered to Canadians by American-owned newspapers, American-funded think tanks and American-friendly business leaders should not be lost on anyone.

Citizens concerned about the federal government’s five per cent NATO pledge must not be discouraged from asking legitimate questions, challenging unwarranted assumptions and confronting spurious declarations.

Canadians can chew gum and walk. We can support better pay and living conditions for soldiers yet oppose cuts to public services. We can agree to help allied countries under attack from military aggression and resist pressure from countries that challenge our sovereignty. We can expect better protection for our Arctic territory and still demand comprehensive action on climate change.

We can respect difficult choices while rewarding political courage. To truly have a “more secure world” and a “stronger Canada,” Canadians must challenge our government on its NATO pledge.

Christopher Holcroft is a writer and principal of Empower Consulting. Reach him by email.

[Top photo: Why should Canadians pay for more F-35 fighters like this one made by a United States menacing our economy? Photo via Lockheed Martin.]