Canada could cut deal with U.S.—increase defence spending, remove tariffs

Because we live in dangerous times, and because an honest country keeps its word, Canada should meet its NATO commitment to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP on defence. But there’s another reason to live up to that promise—it’s good for trade.

Countries that are able to defend themselves earn the respect of their allies. That respect can provide tangible benefits. Consider Cyprus and the Auto Pact.

In the winter of 1964, in the depths of the Cold War, violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots threatened to escalate into war between Turkey and Greece. President Lyndon Johnson, anxious to prevent war between two NATO members, was hugely grateful when Prime Minister Lester Pearson agreed to dispatch a peacekeeping force to the island.

“You’ll never know what this may have prevented,” said Johnson. “Now what can I do for you?” As Pearson noted in his memoirs, “I had some credit in the bank.”

A year later, Canada and the United States signed the Auto Pact, which guaranteed minimum levels of production for the Canadian auto industry. “I believe that Johnson’s willingness to agree to the Auto Pact the next year, an agreement that hugely benefited Canada’s auto sector, may well have been Pearson’s reward for Cyprus,” wrote historian J.L. Granatstein years later.

Canada’s relations with its NATO allies cooled in the years when Pierre Trudeau was prime minister. Trudeau considered pulling out of NATO entirely, but in the end contented himself with greatly reducing Canada’s troop presence in Europe. But Trudeau began to show new respect for NATO when he sought to diversify Canada’s trading relationships. “No tanks, no trade,” West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt reportedly told him. Trudeau subsequently boosted defence spending and Canada acquired German Leopard tanks.

In the 1980s, as Brian Mulroney sought to improve relations with the U.S., his government maintained defence spending at or near 2 per cent of GDP, even as the government reduced spending in other areas to bring down a chronic deficit. On Mulroney’s watch, Canada retained a robust commitment to NATO and NORAD. In February 1990, former Cold War antagonists agreed to a process for German reunification during the Open Skies conference in Ottawa; six months later, Canada joined a U.S.-led coalition that ejected Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

And in the midst of this stalwart support, Canada and the U.S. negotiated their historic free trade agreement.

Then came the so-called Decade of Darkness, as Jean Chretien’s government cut funding to the military to help balance the budget. In the 2000s, Stephen Harper ensured that the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was properly equipped, but his government further cut spending in the wake of the 2008-09 financial crisis. By the time Justin Trudeau came to power, defence spending was at 1 per cent of GDP.

While it appears Justin Trudeau’s government increased defence spending, part of that is the accounting trick of putting veterans’ benefits in the budget. In fact, Canada remains virtually the sole outlier among NATO members in having no credible plan to get to 2 per cent any time soon.

Last spring, 23 U.S. senators (both Democrat and Republican) issued a letter taking Canada to task for failing to meet its defence commitments. And they spoke plainly. “We are concerned and profoundly disappointed that Canada’s most recent projection indicated that it will not reach its two percent commitment this decade.”

In that sense, Donald Trump was speaking for everyone in Washington when, as president-elect, he told reporters that “we basically protect Canada… we’re spending hundreds of billions a year to take care of Canada.”

That doesn’t in any way excuse the punitive tariffs the administration imposed on Canada and Mexico over the weekend. Those economic sanctions are capricious, vindictive and mutually damaging. Canada had no choice to but to respond in kind.

But it’s also true that other countries no longer take this country seriously. During the Biden administration, the U.S., the United Kingdom and Australia entered into the AUKUS security pact. Canada wasn’t invited. And QUAD security dialogue involving Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. is not QUINT, because we weren’t asked to join.

Canada will have a new federal government within months. Its highest priority must be to restore free trade with the U.S. One way to negotiate seriously with the Trump administration may be to offer a specific concrete program of investment in the NORAD partnership, in exchange for the removal of tariffs.

If the Americans agree, it wouldn’t be the first time that trade and defence were intertwined.

John Ibbitson

Related Topics:#FraserInstitute #Norad CanadaDefenceSpending CanadaNATOCommitment CanadaUSTariffs JohnIbbitson TrumpTariffs

Up Next

Poilievre Says Both Sides Lose Trade Wars, Promotes Inter-Provincial Trade

Don't Miss

A Lone Federal Political Voice Opposing Retaliatory Tariffs

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate

International / 6 hours ago

RFK Jr. tells Tucker how Big Pharma uses ‘perverse incentives’ to get vaccines approved

Censorship Industrial Complex / 6 hours ago

Global media alliance colluded with foreign nations to crush free speech in America: House report

armed forces

Mark Carney Thinks He’s Cinderella At The Ball

Published on June 26, 2025

Todayville

Trish Wood is Critical

And we all pay when the dancing ends

How to explain Mark Carney’s obsession with Europe and his lack of attention to Canada’s economy and an actual budget?

Carney’s pirouette through NATO meetings, always in his custom-tailored navy blue power suits, carries the desperate whiff of an insecure, small-town outsider who has made it big but will always yearn for old-money credibility. Canada is too young a country, too dynamic and at times a bit too vulgar to claim equal status with Europe’s formerly magnificent and ancient cultures — now failed under the yoke of globalism.

Hysterical foreign policy, unchecked immigration, burgeoning censorship and massive income disparity have conquered much of the continent that many of us used to admire and were even somewhat intimidated by. But we’ve moved on. And yet Carney seems stuck, seeking approval and direction from modern Europe — a place where, for most countries, the glory days are long gone.

Carney’s irresponsible financial commitment to NATO is a reckless and unnecessary expenditure, given that many Canadians are hurting. But it allowed Carney to pick up another photo of himself glad-handing global elites to whom he just sold out his struggling citizens.

From the Globe and Mail

“Prime Minister Mark Carney has committed Canada to the biggest increase in military spending since the Second World War, part of a NATO pledge designed to address the threat of Russian expansionism and to keep Donald Trump from quitting the Western alliance.

Mr. Carney and the leaders of the 31 other member countries issued a joint statement Wednesday at The Hague saying they would raise defence-related spending to the equivalent of 5 per cent of their gross domestic product by 2035.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the commitment means “European allies and Canada will do more of the heavy lifting” and take “greater responsibility for our shared security.”

For Canada, this will require spending an additional $50-billion to $90-billion a year – more than doubling the existing defence budget to between $110-billion and $150-billion by 2035, depending on how much the economy grows. This year Ottawa’s defence-related spending is due to top $62-billion.”

You’ll note that spending money we don’t have in order to keep President Trump happy is hardly an elbows up moment, especially given that the pledge followed Carney’s embarrassing interactions with Trump at the G7. I’m all for diplomacy but sick to my teeth of Carney’s two-faced approach to everything. There is no objective truth to anything our prime minister touches. Watch the first few minutes of the video below.

Part of the NATO top-up we can’t afford is more billions for Ukraine which is pretty much considered a lost cause. NATO must keep that conflict going in order to justify its existence and we will all pay dearly for it.

The portents are bad. This from the Globe:

We are poorer than we think. Canadians running their retirement numbers are shining light in the dark corners of household finances in this country. The sums leave many “anxious, fearful and sad about their finances,” according to a Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan survey recently reported in these pages.

Fifty-two per cent of us worry a lot about our personal finances. Fifty per cent feel frustrated, 47 per cent feel emotionally drained and 43 per cent feel depressed. There is not one survey indicator to suggest Canadians have made financial progress in 2025 compared with 2024.

The video below is a basic “F”- you to Canadians from a Prime Minister who smirks and roles his eyes when questioned about his inept money management.

He did spill the beans to CNN with this unsettling revelation about the staggering numbers we are talking about:

Signing on to NATO’s new defence spending target could cost the federal treasury up to $150 billion a year, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday in advance of the Western military alliance’s annual summit.

The prime minister made the comments in an interview with CNN International.

“It is a lot of money,” Carney said.

This guy was a banker?

We are witnessing the political equivalent of a vain woman who blows her entire paycheque to look good for an aspirational event even though she can’t afford food or rent. Yes, she sparkled for a moment, but in reality her domaine is crumbling. All she has left are the photographs of her glittery night. Our Prime Minister is collecting his own album of power-proximity photos he can use to wallpaper over his failures as our economy collapses.

The glass slipper doesn’t fit.

Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Trish Wood is Critical

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Trish Wood is Critical, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

armed forces

It’s not enough to just make military commitments—we must also execute them

Published on June 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

To reach 2 per cent of GDP this year, the federal government is committing an additional $9.3 billion towards the military budget. Moreover, to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, it’s estimated the government will need to raise yearly spending by an additional $50 billion—effectively doubling the annual defence budget from $62.7 billion to approximately $110 billion.

As part of this year’s NATO summit, Canada and its allies committed to increase annual military spending to reach 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. While this commitment—and the government’s recent push to meet the previous spending target of 2 per cent of GDP—are important steps in fulfilling Canada’s obligations to the alliance, there are major challenges the federal government will need to overcome to execute these plans.

Since 2014, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have committed to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP (a measure of overall economic output) on national defence. Canada had long-failed to fulfill this commitment, to the ire of our allies, until the Carney government recently announced a $9.3 billion boost to defence spending (up to a total of $62.7 billion) that will get us to 2 per cent of GDP during the 2025/26 fiscal year.

However, just as Canada reached the old target, the goal posts have now moved. As part of the 2025 NATO summit, alliance members (including Canada) committed to reach an increased spending target of 5 per cent of GDP in 10 years. The new target is made up of two components: core military spending equivalent to 3.5 per cent of GDP, and another 1.5 per cent of GDP for other defence-related spending.

National defence is a core function of the federal government and the Carney government deserves credit for prioritizing its NATO commitments given that past governments of different political stripes have failed to do so. Moreover, the government is ensuring that Canada remains in step with its allies in an increasingly dangerous world.

However, there are major challenges that arise once you consider how the government will execute these commitments.

First, both the announcement that Canada will reach 2 per cent of GDP in military spending this fiscal year, and the future commitment to spend up to 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, represent major fiscal commitments that Canada’s budget cannot simply absorb in its current state.

To reach 2 per cent of GDP this year, the federal government is committing an additional $9.3 billion towards the military budget. Moreover, to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, it’s estimated the government will need to raise yearly spending by an additional $50 billion—effectively doubling the annual defence budget from $62.7 billion to approximately $110 billion. However, based on the last official federal fiscal update, the federal government already plans to run an annual deficit this year—meaning it spends more than it collects in revenue—numbering in the tens of billions, and will continue running large deficits for the foreseeable future.

Given this poor state of finances, the government is left with three main options to fund increased military spending: raise taxes, borrow the money, or cut spending in other areas.

The first two options are non-starters. Canadian families already struggle under a tax burden that sees them spend more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined. Moreover, raising taxes inhibits economic growth and the prosperity of Canadians by reducing the incentives to work, save, invest, or start a business.

Borrowing the money to fund this new defence spending will put future generations of Canadians in a precarious situation. When governments borrow money and accumulate debt (total federal debt is expected to reach $2.3 trillion in 2025-26), the burden of this debt falls squarely on the backs of Canadians—likely in the form of higher taxes in the future. Put differently, each dollar we borrow today must be paid back by more than a dollar in higher taxes tomorrow.

This leaves cutting spending elsewhere as the best option, but one that requires the government to substantially readjusts its priorities. The federal government devotes considerable spending towards areas that are not within its core responsibilities and which shouldn’t have federal involvement in the first place. For instance, the previous government launched three major initiatives to provide national dental care, national pharmacare and national daycare, despite the fact that all three areas fall squarely under provincial jurisdiction. Instead of continuing to fund federal overreach, the Carney government should divert spending back to the core function of national defence. Further savings can be found by reducing the number of bureaucrats, eliminating corporate welfare, dropping electric vehicle subsidies, and many other mechanisms.

There is a fourth option by which the government could fund increased defence spending, which is to increase the economic growth rate within Canada and enjoy higher overall revenues. The problem is Canada has long-suffered a weak economy that will remain stagnant unless the government fundamentally changes its approach to tax and regulatory policy.

Even if the Carney government is able to successfully adjust spending priorities to account for new military funding, there are further issues that may inhibit money from being spent effectively.

It is a well-documented problem that military spending in Canada is often poorly executed. A series of reports from the auditor general in recent years have highlighted issues with the readiness of Canada’s fighter force, delays in supplying the military with necessary materials (e.g. spare parts, uniforms, or rations), as well as delays in delivering combat and non-combat ships needed to fulfill domestic and international obligations. All three of these cases represent instances in which poor planning and issues with procurement and supply chains) are preventing government funding from translating into timely and effective military outcomes.

The Carney government has recently made major commitments to increase military funding to fulfill Canada’s NATO obligations. While this is a step in the right direction, it’s not enough to simply make the commitments, the government must execute them as well.