The Canadian Global Affairs Institute provides credible, open access expertise on global affairs. With your support, we can continue to spark impassioned nation-wide discussions designed to help Canadians better understand their role in the international arena.
S U P P O R T   U S

In The Media

While there's no new money for defence in the budget, there are other ways to measure military effectiveness

by Chris Kilford (feat. David Perry)

Ottawa Citizen
March 23, 2017

Now that the 2017 federal budget has been released, it’s clear the Canadian government has bravely determined not to heed Donald Trump’s call for NATO partners to spend more on defence. One can imagine that other NATO countries, facing similar financial challenges to Canada, are now waiting to see what reaction, if any, will be forthcoming from Washington.  

Of course, with the recent release of the NATO Secretary General’s 2016 Annual Report, it’s clear to see why the United States is fed up with most of its NATO allies, whom it accuses of spending far too little on defence. When NATO members re-pledged, at the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales in 2014, to reach a defence spending target of two-per-cent of GDP by 2024, very few took the pledge seriously.

Then again, as Craig Stone recently noted in a Canadian Global Affairs Institute report, “how much a nation spends on its armed forces as a percentage of GDP is not a good measure for determining actual military capability.” Some NATO countries, for example, spend huge amounts on salaries and pensions with little left over for arms, ammunition and training. That’s one reason NATO members also pledged in 2014 to spend a minimum of 20 per cent of their defence budgets acquiring major new equipment. 

According to NATO estimates, Canada spent about $20.6 billion on defence in 2016 with approximately 46 per cent going towards personnel costs, 18 per cent for equipment, five per cent for infrastructure upkeep and the rest on such items as operations, training and maintenance. Overall, it’s not a bad record although our defence spending has remained fixed at around one per cent of GDP for several years and, given the latest budget, that’s not about to change.

But other NATO countries have much to answer for when it comes to how their defence budgets are distributed. NATO estimates show that 77 per cent of Belgium’s defence budget went to personnel costs in 2016 and only 4.6 per cent for equipment. Portugal spent 78 per cent of its defence budget on personnel costs, Slovenia 76 per cent, Greece 70 per cent and Italy 69 per cent. The result is people in uniform but often with aging equipment, no money for training and the potential for a very leaky roof overhead.

Elsewhere, Turkey spent an estimated 1.69 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2016 and fielded an impressive 380,000 troops. But a good deal of that combat power was simply not available for NATO’s use because much of the army and air force remained focused on combatting the Kurdish PKK in Turkey’s southeast.

While the NATO defence spending debate will no doubt continue, at the same time the United States needs a gentle reminder that the alliance is not the one-way street the U.S. routinely makes it out to be. For example, in return for Washington’s defensive umbrella, many NATO allies have provided troops in support of American-led post-Cold War interventions in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.  As a consequence, countries such as Germany, Greece, Italy and Turkey are now responsible for millions of refugees. Yet soon after assuming office, President Trump was quick to slash the number of refugees the United States will take in this year from a planned 110,000 to just 50,000.

The point is that burden-sharing among NATO members is more than just spending two per cent of GDP on defence.  Besides, as Stone importantly notes, “Canada’s military is far more capable than those of other nations that spend much more on defence as a percentage of GDP.” Of course, Canada should never rest on its military laurels; it would not be in our national interest to do so. But we, like many of our NATO allies, are simply not in a position to spend two per cent of GDP on defence for the foreseeable future, if ever.

Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

Biden’s push for EV revolution is a ‘win’ for Canada: Policy Analyst

by BNN Bloomberg (feat. Eric Miller), BNN Bloomberg, January 20, 2021

New US Arctic strategies ignore climate risks in focus on geopolitics, experts say

by Melody Schreiber (feat. Tim Choi), Arctic Today, January 20, 2021

From Alberta’s oilsands to tariffs, how Biden’s presidency could change Canada

by Graham Slaughter, Ryan Flanagan, and Rachel Aiello (feat. Sarah Goldfeder, Stephen Saideman, and Laurie Trautman), CTV News, January 20, 2021

Challenges ahead despite major shift in Canada-U.S. relations under President Biden: expert

by Cormac Mac Sweeney and Kathryn Tindale (feat. Colin Robertson), News 1130, January 20, 2021

How Biden’s Made-in-America plan could impact Canadian companies

by Brett Bundale (feat. Colin Robertson), BNN Bloomberg, January 20, 2021

Biden’s plan to cancel Keystone pipeline signals a rocky start with Canada

by Amanda Coletta (feat. Eric Miller), Washington Post, January 19, 2021

The road ahead for Biden’s unnamed ambassador to Canada

by Charlie Pinkerton (feat. Eric Miller), iPolitics, January 19, 2021

Trump’s political legacy: How will the U.S. president be remembered?

by Meredith MacLeod (feat. Sarah Goldfeder), CTV News, January 19, 2021

Canadian Conservatives reckon with fallout from Capitol Hill riot

by Maura Forrest (feat. Peter Donolo), Politico, January 18, 2021

Project Syndicate Commentators’ Predictions for 2021

by Project Syndicate (feat. Robert Muggah), The Washington Diplomat, January 16, 2021

Minding the gap

by CBA National (feat. Lawrence Herman), National Magazine, January 15, 2021


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Suite 1800, 150–9th Avenue SW
Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 3H9


Canadian Global Affairs Institute
8 York Street, 2nd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 5S6


Phone: (613) 288-2529
Email: contact@cgai.ca
Web: cgai.ca


Making sense of our complex world.
Déchiffrer la complexité de notre monde.


© 2002-2021 Canadian Global Affairs Institute
Charitable Registration No. 87982 7913 RR0001


Sign in with Facebook | Sign in with Twitter | Sign in with Email