Lang and Rigby: At the NATO summit, Canada needs to pay for its ticket
Despite being one of the alliance's founding members, Canada has become one of its biggest free riders. Our allies have noticed. Here's how we change course.
By: Eugene Lang and Vincent Rigby
Next week’s NATO Summit in Washington marks the 75th anniversary of the trans-Atlantic Alliance. Yet despite being one of the original 12 founding members, Canada’s credibility within the alliance will be at an all-time low.
There is no question Canada has a proud history with NATO. Canadian statesmen — including Lester B. Pearson, Louis St. Laurent, Hume Wrong and Escott Reid — were architects of the alliance in the late 1940s, and helped author Article Two of the North Atlantic Treaty calling for political and economic collaboration among member-states, the so-called “Canadian Article.”
Over the decades, the Canadian military has made significant contributions to NATO missions in western Europe, the Balkans and Afghanistan. But that was then and this is now, and two years ago, Michel Miraillet, France’s ambassador to Canada, put things bluntly: “You are riding a first-class carriage with a third-class ticket. If you want to remain in the first-class seat, you need to train and expand (the military) and to go somewhere.”
Sentiments like these have been fuelled by Canada’s stubborn refusal to meet NATO’s defence spending target of two per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) — a commitment Ottawa has signed onto twice in the past ten years but is far from achieving. Last year, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed frustration over this recalcitrance: “Canada has not conveyed a precise date but I expect (it) to deliver on the pledge to invest two per cent of GDP on defence, because this is a promise we all made.”
Stoltenberg’s comments evidently had little impact in Ottawa. While Canada’s recent Defence Policy Update (DPU) placed greater emphasis on the Arctic (NATO’s northern flank) and promised new defence investments, its pledge to increase defence spending to 1.76 per cent of GDP by 2030 fell well short of the NATO target. Canada, currently spending 1.37 per cent of its GDP on defence, remains among only a handful of NATO members which have failed to reach the two per cent threshold and have no plan to do so.
The Defence Policy Update’s silence on this issue did not go unnoticed among allies. Criticism of Canada’s NATO posture reached new heights last month when 23 U.S. senators wrote to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, stating “we are concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its two percent commitment this decade.” Canadians can be forgiven for failing to recall the last time nearly a quarter of the U.S. Senate wrote to the Canadian government on anything.
These reproaches from allies come at a time when the importance of NATO in the collective defence of the West is at a 30-year high. The summit is taking place amidst ongoing global upheaval, as war continues to rage in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and tensions rise in the Indo Pacific. While NATO is focused on Euro-Atlantic security, it is no secret that China, Iran and North Korea are supporting Russia with weapons and technology in its war against Ukraine. As the Secretary General recently stated, there is no regional security, only global security. NATO member states need to send a clear message to Russia, China and other autocratic states that they are not only politically united in the face of aggressive behaviour but are willing to share the burden of providing for their collective defence.
What can Canada do in this respect? How can it restore its reputation within the alliance at the summit? We suggest four things.
First, Canada should commit to hitting the two-per-cent defence spending target in the next five years. This would tacitly acknowledge that Ottawa received the post-DPU message from NATO allies. Defence Minister Bill Blair has intimated that the purchase of new submarines — a project that is currently unfunded — will get Canada there. If so, it is time for the government to put its money where its mouth is.
NATO states have also agreed to spend 20 per cent of their defence budgets on research and capital equipment. Canada is one of only two member states that have failed to meet this objective. The DPU states that Canada is "on target" to achieve the goal but does not specify a timeframe. The government should set a deadline of two years.
As part of the two-per-cent commitment, Canada should also provide $1 billion per year in Ukrainian military assistance over the next five years. The alliance needs to demonstrate long-term support to Ukraine in its war with Russia, and yet Canada’s funding pledge as part of the recent ten-year Canada-Ukraine Security Agreement was limited to 2024.
Finally, the government should make an extended commitment to Op Reassurance, Canada’s military contribution to NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia. The prime minister has announced funding for this mission only until 2025-26. Canada has played a leadership role in Latvia — it should therefore commit for another ten years, which would also support the pledge to reach two-per-cent defence spending.
None of these measures would immediately put Canada back in NATO’s good books. But they would at least send a signal that Canada is prepared to do its share, shoulder-to-shoulder with allies, in responding to a world in distress. The next step would be to follow up words with concrete action. That would be the ultimate demonstration of Canada’s commitment to alliance security, and its own.
Eugene Lang is assistant professor, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, and senior fellow, Bill Graham Centre for Contemporary International History, Trinity College, University of Toronto. Vincent Rigby is the Slater Family Professor of Practice at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University and a former National Security and Intelligence Advisor to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
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.
Canada has a culture of being a small part of a much bigger entity. First the British Empire and now the American umbrella. We figure the modern equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine will protect us.
The only way Canada will change is if the culture changes from the top, and the only way that will happen is if the Americans turn the screws on Ottawa and our elites. That means visa cancellations, border disruption, tariffs or even the nuclear option, choosing between American dairy access or paying up for defence immediately.
We will pay up when Canadian dairy supply management regime is under the gun, literally. Not before. (To foreigners reading this, I'm not kidding and this isn't hyperbole)
If our government were to stop throwing money away on pet projects like DIE initiatives or supporting gender diversity in war zones, just maybe we would hit our target, and then some.