Canada pledges to meet Nato's 2% defence spending target next year

Canada will significantly boost its defence spending to hit a Nato target of 2% of GDP years earlier than planned, Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced.In a speech at the University of Toronto on Monday, Carney said the action was required to ward off the "multiplying" threats from hostile governments, terrorist entities and cyber criminals. He also conceded his country was "too reliant" on the United States for defence, adding that Washington was "reducing its relative contribution to our collective security". Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is pushing for members to agree to a new spending target of 3.5% of GDP at a summit later this month.
In his address, Mark Carney said the world was at a "hinge moment" similar to the end of the Second World War. He said his country must act in the face of an aggressive Russia and China, and threats to Arctic security.He also accused Washington of looking to "monetise its hegemony" by making access to its market more costly.Canada spent 1.4% of its GDP on defence in 2024. GDP stands for gross domestic product, and is a measure of all the economic activity of companies, governments, and people in a country.During the election campaign earlier this year, Carney had pledged to hit the 2% spending target by 2030, while the previous government under Justin Trudeau had promised to meet it by 2032. However on Monday, Carney said the spending goal would be hit by March next year.The prime minister said Canada's equipment had aged, "hindering our military preparedness".Only one of four submarines were seaworthy and less than half the maritime fleet and land vehicles were in good working order, he said. Carney said the new strategy would have four pillars - investing more in soldiers and equipment, expanding the military's capability, strengthening the domestic defence industry, and diversifying Canada's defence partnerships. This is an age where "middle powers" must act to defend themselves knowing "if they're not at the table, they're on the menu", Carney said. Carney's announcement comes just a week before Canada hosts the G7 Summit from 15 to 17 June. Speaking to reporters later, Carney said the government's new plan includes a cash increase of C$9.3bn ($6.5bn, £4.8bn) for this fiscal year, which he said will bring Canada's defence spending to the Nato threshold. Some of it would be immediately "spendable" on personnel and equipment.This would include investing in new submarines, aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and artillery, as well as new drones and sensors to monitor activity in the Arctic and seafloor approaches to the country, he said. Carney said the government would also create a new defence procurement agency, following criticisms of the current process as slow and unwieldly. The agency would "move more quickly in making procurement decisions" and would focus on building domestic capacity.A report by a parliamentary committee in June 2024 highlighted that delays, cost overruns, bureaucratic hurdles, a shortage of personnel and the politicisation of the defence procurement process raised concerns about the government's ability to provide the armed forces with the equipment it needed "in a timely and cost-effective manner". Nato members have for years pledged to meet the 2% target - now seen as the bare minimum - but Canada has long lagged behind its allies. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte arrived in London on Monday where he said the military alliance needed a "400% increase in air and missile defence" to maintain a credible defence deterrence. Last week, Rutte proposed that Nato members spend 5% of their GDP on defence - something US President Donald Trump has called for in the past.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

an hour ago

• Times

‘No Carbon' Carney has left us high and dry

A bit like a sort of unreliable boyfriend. This, rather brilliantly, was the description of the record of the governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, by the Labour MP Pat McFadden, then a member of the Treasury select committee. That was in 2014, when the handsome Canadian, hailed as the 'George Clooney of central banking', was just a year into his tenure. McFadden was not talking about Carney's personal life: it was a metaphor for his policy of interest rate 'forward guidance', which was proving no sort of guidance at all. It was all over the place. In one respect, however, there was complete consistency in Carney's record over seven years as this country's most powerful unelected figure. He determinedly used his position to push Britain's banks into defunding the oil and gas industry, on the grounds that man-made climate change was of primary importance, and that financial institutions should base their investment decisions on the proposition that 80 per cent of the planet's hydrocarbon reserves were 'un-burnable'. His wise predecessor, Mervyn King, questioned the decision to make fighting climate change part of the Bank of England's remit, arguing that it made 'absolutely no sense' to add 'net zero' to its responsibilities, and that the Bank should stick to its knitting (interest rates and price stability) and leave environmental policies to the politicians. However, after leaving the Bank in 2020, Carney stuck to his mission. Under the auspices of the UN, he set up the Net Zero Banking Alliance, co-opting a large number of the world's biggest banks, representing $74 trillion in assets, into basing their lending on the mission to achieve 'net zero by 2050'. This, combined with the Labour government's policies under Ed Miliband, has meant that, as one British oil company executive put it to me, 'Not a single UK bank will lend to the North Sea industry'. The Net Zero Banking Alliance, more recently, has suffered an exodus of its American members, which have fallen in line with Donald Trump's agenda (summarised as 'Drill, baby, drill'). But surely, now that Carney has at last achieved his ambition of becoming Canadian prime minister, he is using all the power of that position to fight the good fight. Er, no. One reason Carney actually won the recent election was that he pledged to scrap the 'carbon tax' implemented by Justin Trudeau, for which he had previously proselytised. In office Carney has kept that promise — and in recent weeks gone much further in the opposite direction to everything he did when Bank of England governor. He appointed as energy minister a man who was an executive of an oil exploration and production company in Alberta, the heart of Canada's vast hydrocarbon reserves. These are known as the Alberta oil sands, covering an area the size of England and described some years ago by National Geographic (not a fan) as 'the world's largest industrial project … Especially north of Fort McMurray, where the boreal forest has been razed and bitumen is mined from the ground in immense open pits, the blot on the landscape is incomparable.' Carney has relaxed the emission restrictions that hampered this development (among others) and declared two weeks ago that he wanted Canada to be 'an energy superpower … in both clean and conventional energies. And, yes, that does mean oil and gas. It means using our oil and gas here in Canada to displace imports wherever possible, particularly from the United States. It makes no sense to be sending that money south of the border or across the ocean, so, yes, it also means more oil and gas exports, without question.' • The oil-rich Canadian cowboys who want their own Brexit What accounts for this remarkable transformation? Pure political expediency. Trudeau's policy had been profoundly unpopular, and the Conservative candidate, Pierre Poilievre, constantly referred to 'carbon tax Carney'. So, shamelessly disowning his own previous advocacy, Carney dumped it. Then there were the idiotic threats from Trump to annex Canada. While that will 'never happen' (to quote Carney), the prospect of Albertan secession was less improbable, as that province had been sorely provoked by the ecologically motivated threats to its hydrocarbon industry. Canada as a whole could not afford such a secession, and immediately after Carney's election win, the premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, introduced a bill to make a referendum on the matter much simpler to implement. She simultaneously called on Carney to make various concessions, which 'must include abandoning the unconstitutional oil and gas production cap'. He got the message. It was no coincidence that, as host of last week's G7 summit, Carney chose to hold it in Alberta. In the final communiqué, the topic of climate change was barely mentioned. To put it mildly, this has confused those who deeply admired Carney, not least in this country, for his previously passionate campaigning against oil and gas investment. But when I asked someone who worked closely with the man at the Bank of England what had happened to his old boss, he laughed and said: 'I must have told you before that Mark is fundamentally a trader, and therefore prepared to adapt principles to circumstances.' This was partly a reference to the fact that Carney's career before becoming a central banker was at Goldman Sachs. But what does this mean for the UK, still thoroughly enmeshed by the net zero policies in which Carney played such a central role? As Brendan Long, a Canadian energy analyst, told The Daily Telegraph last week: 'It means that while Canada's oil and gas industry is ramping up production under Carney, the UK remains aligned with the anti-oil and gas ideology he promoted when he was governor of the Bank of England.' Although Ed Miliband has now indicated a reversal of his opposition to the development of two North Sea fields, known as Rosebank and Jackdaw, the government is keeping its radical policy of banning all new exploration; across the median line, Norway has declared it will be boosting its North Sea exploration and production to the highest level since 2010. The crazy point, which fits in with the government's target but not the national interest, is that if we buy Norwegian gas, it does not come out of our 'carbon budget', as administered by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Similarly, when we've shut down our entire domestic oil and gas operation and are buying the Canadian hydrocarbons that Carney is now so keen to boost, we will make the (unelected) Climate Change Committee — charged with setting our carbon budgets and invigilating our progress to purity — happy. Not so much the British voters, I fear, come our own general election in a few years' time.

Times

an hour ago

• Times

Defence spending is increasing. Do we get bang for our buck?

B uckle up: the British state is about to commit a lot of money it does not really have to restore defence spending to levels last seen in the 2000s. Indeed it may have to go further: at the Nato summit this week the organisation's secretary general, Mark Rutte, will push member states to commit themselves to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence. For years the fall in defence spending was used to pay for a rise in healthcare and welfare costs — the peace dividend — but defence has come calling again, and that transfer cannot be reversed. Instead, by squeezing a few years of the foreign aid budget, the prime minister has managed to raise defence spending to 2.6 per cent of GDP by 2027-28. We will learn a bit more about where that money will be spent in a national security strategy to be published this week. But will 2.6 per cent make much of a difference? Will a 0.3 percentage point rise in spending over the next few years really result in a meaningful expansion of our armed forces?

The Independent

4 hours ago

• The Independent

Greenlanders celebrate national holiday under 24 hours of sunlight

Greenlanders celebrated their National Day on Saturday, marking the summer solstice with festivities under 24 hours of sunlight. The celebrations included traditional activities such as marches with national flags, songs, dances, and a cannon salute. A key event was the annual seal hunting competition, with the catch distributed to nursing homes and other parts used for clothing. The national Holiday, declared in 1985 following a 1979 home rule referendum, is a day of unity and cultural preservation for the island's 56,000 inhabitants. Despite past political interest from Donald Trump regarding the island, locals focused on enjoying the festivities and community spirit.