Once a ‘crass mathematical calculation,’ NATO’s spending target is now an article of faith for Liberals

The NATO two per cent defence spending target, once dismissed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “crass mathematical calculation,” has now become a focal point for Liberal leadership hopefuls aiming to succeed him. The shift in attitude towards this benchmark, which was previously viewed as arbitrary and insignificant, highlights a significant change in perspective within the governing party.

Last summer, Trudeau openly questioned the value of the two per cent GDP goal while committing to reach it by 2032. However, in light of recent developments and the impact of the presidential election, the Liberal candidates are now actively competing to exceed this target. With estimates ranging from $55 billion to $81.9 billion per year, achieving the two per cent mark has become a top priority for those vying for leadership.

Former central bank governor Mark Carney has set an ambitious target of reaching the goal by 2030, while Chrystia Freeland, the former deputy prime minister, believes Canada can achieve this milestone by 2027. The newfound emphasis on defence spending reflects a broader recognition of the importance of security in shaping foreign relations.

With Canada currently spending approximately 1.37 per cent of its GDP on defence, there is a clear need to increase funding to meet the NATO target. Freeland has proposed expanding the military to 125,000 members and offering a substantial pay raise to the regular force. Defence Minister Bill Blair has echoed this sentiment by emphasizing the need to invest in the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

However, despite these ambitious proposals, there are significant challenges to overcome. The military continues to face recruitment and training bottlenecks, resulting in a shortage of personnel. The goal of reaching 125,000 members is unlikely to be achieved in the near future due to capacity constraints within the system.

Moreover, efforts to revamp defence procurement and reduce reliance on the U.S. defence industry face practical limitations. While Carney and Freeland have pledged to diversify procurement sources, the reality is that many high-end military capabilities are primarily manufactured in the United States. Disentangling Canada from the U.S. defence industrial complex poses a complex and long-term challenge.

In conclusion, the renewed focus on meeting the NATO defence spending target underscores a shift in priorities within the Liberal Party. While the goal of reaching two per cent of GDP is ambitious, achieving it will require strategic planning, investment, and a comprehensive approach to defence procurement. The path to meeting this target may be challenging, but the commitment to enhancing Canada’s defence capabilities is a crucial step towards bolstering national security and strengthening international alliances.