Called the most powerful alliance in history by the United States (U.S.) President Joe Biden, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) prides itself as a beacon of democracy. Since Putin’s seizure of Crimea in 2014, each member nation has been required to pledge 2 per cent of its GDP to defence spending. Yet Canada, who eagerly signed the agreement a decade ago, has never once met this target and will not in the near future. As a result, Canada faces increasing pressure from its allies, and its international image has suffered. This reluctance highlights not simply a missed financial target, but a systemic issue with how Canada views defence and its habit of free-riding off its allies.  

The Pressure on Canada

The problem of the 2 per cent rose to public prominence during the 2024 NATO Summit, held in Washington D.C. There, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly announced that Canada would meet the target by 2032.  This decision comes in response to mounting pressure from allies. Canada currently only spends 1.34 per cent of its GDP on defence—by contrast, the U.S spends 3.5 per cent. In May 2024, Trudeau received a letter from 23 U.S senators criticizing Canada’s unwillingness to reach the threshold and expressing their disappointment at the country’s spending strategies. Just days before, Canadian Minister of National Defence Bill Blair had traveled to Washington to promote Canada’s new defence strategy, and returned claiming it had been a “productive trip.” This highlights a fundamental difference in standards between the two countries and what it means to contribute to defence. For Canada, their new defence strategy, “Our North, Strong and Free,” is sufficient to prove military capabilities. However, the US remains unconvinced and intends to see the 2 per cent threshold met. 

Valid criticism or political stalling?

In response to this and similar comments at the NATO Summit, Trudeau called into question the validity of the 2 per cent at assessing contributions to NATO and military readiness. Calling it a “crude mathematical calculation,” Trudeau argued it bears no real implication and tells allies nothing of the capability of the armed forces. As justification, Trudeau stated that “…we continually step up and punch above our weight,” referring to Canada’s rich contribution to past international military efforts, such as leading the establishment of peacekeepers in the 1960s. Yet in recent decades, Canada has secluded itself from the international community, seeing a noticeable decrease in global prominence. This is evident in its two failed bids for a temporary seat on the United Nations Security Council. Commentators have also described Canada’s foreign policy as “confusing” and “compromised” with no clear goal. Given this decline and unclear direction, Canada appears to be freeriding off its allies instead of contributing to the international community as it has done in the past or coming up with its own concrete foreign policy plan. 

Another element to consider is the current global climate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has once again spotlighted NATO, giving it a renewed sense of purpose. With increased attention, NATO strengths and quick response have been in the spotlight, as have the shortcomings of its members. As well, the upcoming U.S election presents more pressure for Canada. Trump has historically emphasized the need for NATO members to meet their defense commitments. If he is reelected, Canada may become a key target of his pressure. This could potentially strain the U.S.-Canada relations, given Canada’s apparent unwillingness to pull their weight in NATO.

Inside the Black Box of Canada

So, why hasn’t Canada contributed despite all this tension? The answer is indicative of current Canadian domestic politics: people don’t care about defence spending. As a result, a party running for election will not get many eager voters if they promise to devote billions of tax dollars into the military.

Adding to these issues are the problems facing the Department of National Defence. Among other issues, it suffers from poorly organized procurement processes and overly complicated accounting models. Internally, 54 per cent of the navy’s vessels, including submarines, patrol boats, and frigates, were deemed unserviceable, as were 55 per cent of the air force’s equipment. This results from the problems of maintaining older equipment and a lack of funding for newer models. As such, not only does Canada face a problem with lack of public support for defense spending, but the operational challenges of the military prove difficult to overcome. 

Where does this leave us? Overall, Canada has pulled back internationally in the last few decades, failing to meet NATO’s 2 per cent commitment. Canadian national sentiment is firmly focused on domestic problems first and foremost, and until this focus shifts, significant increases in defense spending should not be anticipated. The question remaining is how long Canada can continue this trend, and what the consequences of neglect to NATO and its own military will be. 

Edited by Catriona Hayes Morris

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.

Featured image by the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service