Analyzing reckless demands for Canadian military spending

Demands on Canada to dramatically increase its military spending are popping up almost daily. It makes one’s head spin. 

Here is the baseline. Military spending by the Canadian government in budget year 2024-25 was predicted to be about $40 billion. That is 1.4% of our Gross Domestic Product. GDP is the total value of all finished goods and services produced by a country during a specific period.

Spending 1.4% of GDP may sound modest, but that $40 billion represents 7.6% of the government’s entire budget. To compare, the Canadian Dental Care Plan is predicted to cost $2.6 billion annually beginning in 2024-25, about 6.5% of what we now spend on the military.

NATO’s shifting demands

Canada is frequently criticized by other NATO members as being a laggard. We are told that we should spend at least 2.0% of GDP on the military. If we did that tomorrow, it would add another $20 billion to our current military expenditure, an increase of 50%.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised NATO that Canada would meet a 2.0% of GDP target by 2032. The new prime minister, Mark Carney, has moved that date up to 2030.     

But the target has shifted again. NATO leaders now want member countries to spend up to 4.0 % of GDP on the military. They point to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the prime motivator. Yet NATO is already a heavily armed alliance. Its 32 member states collectively spend much more on the military than does Russia.

Demands for increased spending do not end there. President Donald Trump now wants military spending to be 5.0% of GDP. If the Canadian government did that today, it would consume 27% of the entire budget.

Why military should military spending be pegged to the GDP in the first place? GDP tends to grow year-by-year. Threats to our security do not necessarily grow in tandem with the GDP, so the benchmark assumption is flawed.  

Golden Dome or Golden Doom?

In the latest twist, President Trump is promoting the Golden Dome, which might be better described as the Golden Doom. It would see the US placing weapons in space to defend against possible missile and drone attacks. Years ago, Ronald Regan fantasized about a similar system dubbed Star Wars. It was an impractical mirage and never built, but now Trump wants to resurrect it.

He claims the Golden Dome could be built in three years at a cost of US$175 billion. But the Congressional Budget Office has estimated those costs could reach US$542 billion, depending on the details.  

Trump wants Canada to pay $84 billion in Canadian dollars toward the Golden Dome. That represents almost twice the entire military budget in Canada, and Trump’s purported figures on Golden Dome costs are likely far too low.     

Carney may negotiate

Canada wisely said no to participation in Reagan’s Star Wars fantasy. But Trump claims that the new Canadian government has asked to join the Golden Dome.

Prime Minister Carney has acknowledged that Canada is ready to negotiate. He says that Canada may face threats from missile attacks, including some that come from space. Perhaps channeling Mackenzie King, Carney was also quoted as saying, “We are in a position now where we co-operate when necessary, but not necessarily co-operate.” Let’s hope he is stalling until Trump’s latest fixation vanishes.  

Lloyd Axworthy weighs in

Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister, was blunt about both Trump’s musings and Carney’s response. Writing in the Globe and Mail, Axworthy said that the Golden Dome proposal is, “Mr. Trump’s latest cockamamie idea,” and that it would be a “ruinously expensive and strategically reckless mistake.”       

Axworthy called Carney’s stated willingness to negotiate more than baffling. “It’s a betrayal of the vision Canadians voted for. [He] pledged to focus our defence priorities on protecting the Arctic from great-power incursions and building constructive partnerships with countries led by more rational and stable leadership. Yet now, his office confirms that Canada is in discussions about participating in a scheme that could cost hundreds of billions of dollars, turbocharge a dangerous arms race in space, and entangle us in a sprawling and speculative technological morass.”

We need a peace lens

We should not glibly oppose all military spending, particularly if used to prevent wars, rather than starting them. But do we want to feed an arms race, and divert precious resources from spending on health care, housing, reconciliation, refugee support, and any number of crying needs?

Occasionally, I read the US-based magazine Foreign Affairs in which articles by self-described realists talk about preparing for inevitable wars with Russia, China, or Iran. Really? Is that what Canada is being asked to support through vastly increased military spending?

We need a peace lens, which places a greater emphasis upon peacebuilding and diplomacy, along with military preparedness.