Greg Quinn: Canada's real problem with defence isn't measured in GDP
Greg Quinn: Canada's real problem with defence isn't measured in GDP
Canadians need to be honest, and stop pretending that they are something that they are not ... or at least, that they've recently chosen not to be.
By: Greg Quinn
Canada isn’t pulling its weight on defence. Is that what Canadians want? Because it isn’t what its allies want. And the allies are more and more willing to say so.
Canada, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, likes to talk about how the country punches above its weight in NATO and global affairs more generally. It’s a cliché many countries have resorted to when put under pressure on one issue or another. (And I’ll confess that this includes my own United Kingdom, which I served as a diplomat for decades before my recent retirement.)
It’s also smoke and mirrors, which in Canada’s case on defence, hides an unhappy truth — Canada doesn’t pay its way.
Trudeau says Canada will meet the target of spending two per cent of GDP on defence in 2032. Some 18 years after NATO committed to it. At the moment Canada spends a paltry 1.37 per cent, or some $33.8 billion a year, on defence, damn near the bottom among the allies, in percentage terms. Ottawa claims this will increase to 1.76 per cent, or $49.5 billion, by 2030. If so, that will move Canada up a whopping two places to 25th.
Mind you, the Parliamentary Budget Office disputes even this, stating that Canada’s defence spending will peak at 1.49 per cent of GDP in 2025-26 before dropping (yes, dropping) to 1.42 per cent in 2029-30. Somebody is being economical with the truth.
Does this matter? Well, yes, it does to Canada’s allies who want to continue to regard the country as a good friend, a good ally, and a good partner. One that actually plays its part — as opposed to just saying it does. Promising to meet a target in eight years' time (when, incidentally, you probably won’t be in power) isn’t much of a promise at all.
The PM’s response to being pushed on this was as many could have predicted:
“We continually step up and punch above our weight, something that isn't always reflected in the crass, mathematical calculation that some people turn to very quickly, which is why we've always questioned the two per cent as the be-all and end-all of evaluating contributions to NATO.”
Somewhat petulant, one might say, especially since Trudeau freely and publicly signed up to said crass mathematical calculation! A target that Canada has reiterated its commitment to it on several occasions, across several governments. If you don’t plan to meet it then don’t try and get kudos from partners by saying it. Eventually, that will have the opposite effect to the one intended.
Indeed, that is what is starting to happen. Countries that are meeting their commitments will be grumbling behind closed doors. This will cut into whatever leverage and influence Canada may seek in allied capitals. Others will be more openly frustrated. Certainly, a bipartisan group of 23 U.S. Senators don't believe Canada is pulling its weight, as their May 2024 letter to PM Trudeau makes clear:
“As we approach the 2024 NATO Summit in Washington, D.C., we are concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its two per cent commitment this decade … In 2029, Canada’s defence spending is estimated to rise to just 1.7 per cent, five years after the agreed-upon deadline of 2024 and still below the spending baseline.”
I suspect that American leaders will also be frustrated at an assumption in Ottawa that the U.S. will always cover its “Northern Flank,” protecting Canada in the process. Personally, I wouldn’t want to bet my own national security on that assumption, especially given the upcoming election and the increasingly obvious trends in U.S. politics. Canadians convinced that the U.S. will always defend them should remember what happened to Ukraine when the U.S., for entirely domestic political reasons, cut off the flow of munitions a few months ago. Canadians confident that they’ll always be at the allied table should remember that when the U.S., Australia and the U.K. announced their new alliance, it wasn’t just that Canada hadn’t been invited. It’s that Canada wasn’t even told there were talks happening. How much more of that does Ottawa want to experience?
There will be those who will respond to me by saying that when the Liberals came to power in 2015 Canada was spending under one per cent of GDP on defence, and this despite the previous Conservative government having announced an “aspirational target” of two per cent in 2014. So, therefore, the Liberals are better. It’s a fair point. It's also irrelevant. The world has changed over the past decade, and all I have said above would equally apply to a Conservative government. But for Canada’s current government and its supporters, saying you are the least bad isn’t a good look. The fact remains that you are still falling well short of what you have pledged to do, and it is not unfair that people judge you accordingly.
These same people will also point to Canada’s plans to spend money on new submarines, new ships, new aircraft, and yes, support to Ukraine. But how long will it take for those things to become operational and what are the chances of cost overruns? Oh, and let’s not forget the stories about problems with 9mm sidearms, basic personal equipment for troops, the provision of meals to forces deployed abroad, and tank, aircraft and vehicle serviceability rates that are alarmingly low.
The bottom line is simple — what does Canada (and the Canadian people) want its role in the world to be? Words are easy but they need to be backed by action. One of the most obvious demonstrations of action is spending on a defence force that is capable of deploying and acting on the global stage. More bluntly, of fighting and defeating a near-peer enemy as part of a coalition of allies.
If Canada doesn’t want to do that and prefers a defence force that is essentially a glorified local militia that focuses on domestic issues, well, fine. But let’s not pretend it is anything else. Let’s not talk about how much of a force for good Canada is in the world and let’s not try and fool Canada’s allies. They’re not as stupid as Canadian politicians want them to be.
And let’s not expect those allies to happily accept the situation and continue on as if nothing has changed. Canada already complains about being left out of AUKUS. Is it any wonder? More of that should be expected. If you don’t play the game and don’t pull your weight, then sadly, you don’t get the benefits of being in the grown-ups' club.
Canadians owe themselves, and frankly owe their allies, an honest discussion about kind of role Canada actually wants to play in the world … and whether they’re willing to actually pay the bills required to play that role. Only after such an honest chat can Canadians, and their allies, calibrate their expectations accordingly.
Greg Quinn is a former British diplomat who has served in Estonia, Ghana, Belarus, Iraq, Washington, D.C., Kazakhstan, Guyana, Suriname, The Bahamas, Canada, and Antigua and Barbuda in addition to stints in London. He now runs Aodhan Consultancy.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
Completely true, with one exception, the commencement of the shunning.
I retired from the CAF in 2020; prior I was a delegate to many international military fora. I can tell you distinctly that the shunning began shortly after the 2015 election. By 2017 our principal allies, whilst still courteous, were being more pointed about their observations on our defence program shortcomings. By 2018 they weren't even being polite anymore and Canada was well ensconced at the kid's table. We were not part of contemporary warfighting discussions nor advanced tech nor emerging threats working groups.
Our acquisitions programs are impossibly byzantine, constipated, and focused exclusively on regional or Canadian Industrial development rather than delivering military capability with alacrity. It takes a decade to acquire new capital equipment. And our allies know this, as do our adversaries.
Canada has stepped up alright...to training missions. Canada LOVES training missions. They are low risk, low impact, and low cost. The bulk of the training we do is individual training to third and fourth tier trainees. Essentially we are teaching people to dig trenches, walk in a straight line, and shoot straight, essential skills for WW-II. All the while lecturing our allies about feminist principles, diversity, and inclusion, great stuff for progressive woke soundbites bit utterly meaningless to real warfighting capability.
But lets put the culpability where it squarely belongs. It's not the successive governments which have beasted the Armed Services, it's the Canadian People. The people want a lightly armed constabulary that responds to "climate emergencies," and plucks the hapless from the seas; they do not want a credible fighting force, never have. It's long past time we admitted it openly.
Mr. Quinn has succinctly summarized the position in which Canada now finds itself. The current government, and possibly a majority of Canadians, seem to think that we can continue to spend money on all manner of new domestic programs to the exclusion of defense. That may have been the case several years ago, but is no longer.
As has been pointed out in so many places, the world is a very different place than it was 10 years ago. Canada depends on a peaceful world in order to thrive since so much of our economy is based on world trade. We will need to make some hard choices in the near future. We do not have enough money to pay for everything.