Prefer to listen? Follow the FP Live podcast for the entire conversation, plus other in-depth discussions, wherever you get your podcasts.
As leaders from NATO countries gather in Washington this week to mark the security alliance’s 75th anniversary, a majority of member states are proudly proclaiming how they are spending more than 2 percent of their GDPs on defense—a response not only to years of U.S. pressure but also to the reality of Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. One country is facing tough criticism for allocating a relatively small 1.3 percent of its GDP to defense spending: Canada.
On Monday, speaking at the Hudson Institute, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson called Ottawa out directly: “Talk about riding on America’s coattails. … I think that’s shameful.”
Canada presents an interesting case study among NATO countries. Like the United States—and unlike many European states—it is blessed by geography, with vast oceans to its east, west, and north. Perhaps that’s why it has shown less urgency to meet NATO’s professed floor for defense spending. But as the Arctic ice melts, the threat of new direct routes to Russia opens up more reasons for Ottawa to take security seriously. I spoke about these issues with Canadian Defense Minister Bill Blair at the FP Security Forum, an event conducted on the sidelines of the NATO summit this week. What follows is a condensed and edited transcript.
Ravi Agrawal: This week, one of the big themes is that spending 2 percent of GDP on defense is the floor and not the ceiling. And Canada is at about 1.3 percent and change.
Bill Blair: It is, at the moment. I introduced a new defense policy update for my government with a budget that will see my defense budget rise by 27 percent next year.
RA: That’s still only 1.7 percent.
BB: Every member of NATO has to do more, and we’re committed to doing more. We are also committed to the 2 percent expenditure in GDP. One of the challenges is that it’s not just a matter of how much you spend—but it’s a matter of spending it well and making sure that you can produce real value for our armed forces, for our NATO alliance, but also for our taxpayers.
I need to be able to demonstrate that I’ve got a very clear path. I know exactly what I need to invest in. I’ve got to replace my destroyers, my naval ships. I’ve got to replace our submarines. I’ve signed contracts for almost 200 new aircraft for my Air Force just in the past year and a half. But I’ve got to make sure that we can credibly deliver on those commitments. I’ve often said that the two great challenges every defense minister has is getting the money and spending the money well.
All that is to say, Canada understands its obligation. I feel that responsibility gravely. And we’re working really hard. The defense policy update that we’ve just produced moves us forward very substantially and doesn’t get us entirely where we need to go. But there are things in that document about the investments we know we have to make: replacing the submarines, for example, and creating a new integrated air missile defense system for Canada’s responsibility in North America. All of those things will inevitably take me over 2 percent.
RA: There are people in this town who would say, “That’s just a lot of words.” You’re saying you will be more efficient—with a possible subtext that other countries are not. But America’s defense spending is way north of 2 percent, so the criticism might be that Canada is a free-rider.
BB: And I have no intention of Canada being a free-rider.
First of all, we’ve already made a commitment to NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command]. NORAD is our most important relationship here in North America with the United States. We’re investing nearly $40 billion into NORAD modernization, including over-the-horizon radar systems, new satellite systems, a number of very significant capabilities. We understand our responsibility to that relationship. Similarly in Europe and in NATO, Canada is leading the Enhanced Forward Presence in Latvia. We’re making very significant investments there.
I’m in complete agreement with my allies that Canada must do more. From the day I got this job, I’ve publicly taken that position. We must do more, and we will do more. I’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure that we spend that money well, that we create the capabilities that we require. One of the challenges I’m also facing is we’ve got some real staffing challenges in the Canadian Armed Forces. I’ve got to address that problem so I can have sailors on those ships, people to fly those planes, soldiers to do the important work that we are asking them to do. We have a very aggressive plan to move forward. I’m very confident that it’s going to bring us to that threshold. But I think it also has to be a credible plan. It has to be verifiable to our allies. It can’t just be an aspirational approach. I’m hoping that, over the course of the next few days, I’ll be able to share that credible, verifiable plan with our allies, to provide them with assurances that Canada understands its responsibility and that we’re going to live up to our responsibilities.
Read More
NATO’s Northern Flank Has Too Many Weak Spots
Key alliance members are failing to uphold their obligations in the face of Moscow’s unflagging interest in the High North.
NATO Wants Everyone to Help Deter Russia
Every country needs a plan to keep calm and carry on in the event of a Russian attack.
This Time, NATO Is in Trouble for Real
After years of false alarms, the Western military alliance is finally approaching a precipice.
RA: It’s been two weeks since the first U.S. presidential debate. Anything could happen, but polls suggest that there’s a greater likelihood that Donald Trump will be president again. This is a former president who has called your prime minister two-faced. He has called him a whole bunch of other words as well. How worried is your government about a potential second Trump term?
BB: I was a minister in government during the first Trump term. First of all, with respect to the American election, I have great confidence in Americans to make their decision. And I’ll respect, we’ll all respect, whatever decision they may make. But I also know the strength of America. It includes the White House, obviously, and the president, but it’s also the institutions. It’s your Congress; it’s your judiciary.
I remain confident. Canada will always be a good partner of the United States, and the United States has been our closest ally and our dearest friend.
RA: I want to talk about the Arctic, which is part of Canada’s defense arena and an increasing priority for NATO.
BB: We obviously have responsibilities in Europe, in NATO, and in the Indo-Pacific because we’re both an Atlantic and Pacific nation. But I think most closely related to our national identity is we’re an Arctic nation. For very many years, we relied on the fact that we are surrounded by three oceans, one of which was mostly frozen most of the time. And we also had the benefit of a superpower and a very friendly neighbor.
RA: And amazing geography.
BB: We have remarkable geography. Almost everything the Canadian Armed Forces has done over the last 150 years has been expeditionary. We’ve never been really invaded as a country. And so we recognize, with climate change in particular, our Arctic is becoming far more accessible. First of all, the Arctic is warming at four times the global rate. Secondly, the Arctic Ocean by 2050 could very easily be the main point of passage between Europe and Asia. It creates both opportunity and challenge.
What we are seeing among adversaries—Russia and China in particular—is a far more assertive approach into what we have always considered our Arctic. The incursions that we’re seeing are the effort of China, which now calls itself a near-Arctic nation. They’re sending ships into the region. They’re dual-purpose ships, but they’re gathering intelligence. They’re also working very hard to try to invest in critical infrastructure, our critical minerals. It is a concern to us. And frankly, I believe that we have a responsibility not just to assert our sovereignty but to be prepared to defend it.
RA: Have things changed with Sweden and Finland joining NATO?
BB: Very positively, in my opinion. First of all, I’ve met a number of times with all of the Nordic and Arctic nations. Within NATO, there’s an obvious and necessary focus on the eastern front with Russia. But we’re also recognizing the northern frontier of NATO. Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, us, and America all have a responsibility there. Canada has the largest maritime border with Russia of any country in the world. And frankly, we’re not persistently present there. And so one of the things in our new national defense policy is a significant new investment in capability to create northern support hubs to build out our domain awareness through over-the-horizon radar investments, to create integrated air and missile defense systems, new maritime capabilities, new maritime sensors. Lots of very significant investments are necessary. There’s acknowledgment among all the Arctic nations that we can do better together.
RA: Increasing defense spending by 27 percent is a lot. Have you been able to convince the Canadian population of the importance of these investments?
BB: When I first got into this job, we did some polling. And less than a third of Canadians really supported defense spending. But we’ve had a very robust conversation with Canadians over the past year. Frankly, I don’t like scaring people. But at the same time, you need to make them aware of the challenges that we face and of our responsibilities. Just over the past year in Canada, support for defense spending has more than doubled. It’s over 65 percent right now. It’s gone from not being on the top 20 list of spending priorities to the top five. And so I think there’s a good understanding that we have to make these investments.
The threat is coming to our door because the Arctic, as I’ve said, is becoming far more accessible than it was ever in the past. The nature of technology and conflict is changing as well. We saw it with the use of drones, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles in Iran’s attack on Israel. We see it every single day in Ukraine. And we see it through asymmetrical warfare, which includes cyberattacks.
All of these things make our security a greater challenge. We need to make our adversaries think twice before they just come and take advantage of the opportunity that exists in North America.
I’m also very mindful that I have responsibilities to my American colleagues as well. They’ve made a huge investment in security for the Beaufort and the Bering [seas] in Alaska. Right now, there’s not an awful lot between Alaska and Greenland, and that’s my responsibility.
RA: Here in Washington, there has been a real shift in attitudes toward China in the last five years. The United States has become more hawkish. Europe is a bit more mixed on that. Where does Canada sit?
BB: I met with the Chinese defense minister. I told him that I’ve been sending my ships for the Taiwan Strait with a number of allies because we believe in the importance of defending the principle of freedom of navigation in international waterways. I had a very candid conversation about foreign interference in our elections, against our critical infrastructure. And we talked about the, frankly, coercive activities that they engage in against our citizens who may be of Chinese descent. None of that is acceptable. And I think it’s important to have those conversations.
But at the same time, I’m not trying to start a fight. I’m trying to prevent one. I think everybody’s trying, certainly in the Indo-Pacific, to find that right place to be between America and China. I know where my place is in that relationship, and of course it’s with our closest ally and partner; it’s obviously with the United States.
RA: India is an area of great divergence between Canada and the United States. While Washington and New Delhi have been improving their relationship over the last 20 years, Ottawa has seen its relations with India decline precipitously. It’s a difficult relationship. Why?
BB: It’s a difficult relationship, but it’s an important relationship. Canada needs India, and I believe India needs Canada as well.
First of all, we have a very substantial Indian diaspora in Canada. And it’s an important relationship to those Canadians as well. But I think we’ve got some work to do on the trade relationship. There have been some challenges with respect to the actions and the evidence of the Indian government engaging with part of our Indian diaspora in Canada.
RA: This was an alleged assassination of a Sikh Canadian. You claim that India was responsible; they deny it.
BB: But at the same time, I would also acknowledge that the relationship is an important one. What mature governments do is what we’re doing now, which is working through that relationship. Yes, we have strong areas of divergence where we just fundamentally disagree. But at the same time, I think we have a responsibility to the future of both of our countries to work it out and to find a way to reconcile. So it’s mutually respectful. And at the same time, we’ve got work to do.