Canada to meet NATO's 5% target, will cost $150B annually
Canada, having lagged on its NATO spending commitments for years, was one of the last NATO members to address the 2% spending pledge. Now it is among the first to back the 5% target.
Taxpayers will be on the hook for $150 billion annually should Canada meet NATO's new defence spending target, reported CBC News.
Prime Minister Mark Carney confirmed this in an interview with CNN International. "It is a lot of money," he said.
NATO members agreed to raise defence spending to 5% of GDP on Wednesday, with 3.5% going directly to the military, with 1.5% for infrastructure.
Prime Minister Carney swiftly detailed the numbers. His government added $9.3 billion to this year's Department of National Defence budget to meet the initial 2% target, raising annual military spending to $62 billion.
The Liberal government needs an extra $50 billion for defence to hit the 3.5% GDP military spending target. Carney pledged more funding in current or future federal measures.
On Tuesday, Carney announced Canada would meet spending goals by developing critical minerals and their market infrastructure. "That's something that benefits the Canadian economy but is also part of our NATO, our new NATO responsibilities."
Last year, NATO listed 12 critical minerals essential for defence, including aluminum for lightweight planes and missiles, graphite for tanks, and cobalt for jet engines and submarines.
Canada has some of the world's largest deposits.
NATO leaders agreed on a focused agenda this week to avoid angering U.S. President Donald Trump, who called for a 5% target last month.
Britain, France, the Netherlands, Germany, and others committed to the 5% goal, while Belgium, Spain, and Slovakia were skeptical.
NATO boss Mark Rutte was "fairly confident" the goal could be met. "We have [to] ramp up the defence spending," he told CBC at the G7 Summit.
The 2% GDP target, which Canada recently agreed to meet, is no longer enough. It may have been enough in 2025, but not in three to five years, Rutte said.
Canada, having lagged on its NATO spending commitments for years, was one of the last NATO members to address the 2% spending pledge.
In 2014, NATO set a 2% spending target. This year, all 32 member nations are projected to meet it—a significant increase from the original three (U.S., U.K., and Greece) that met the mark in 2014.
"Now is the time to act with urgency, with force, with determination," Carney earlier told reporters June 9. "As the world grows more dangerous, Canada will ensure our country is protected."
Canada signed on to the "ReArm Europe" initiative Monday, supporting European NATO military readiness, amid wavering U.S.-Canada defence ties.
Sixty percent of Canadians favour closer ties with Europe over the U.S., while only 23% prefer aligning with the U.S., with the remainder undecided.
Carney told CNN that allies were looking at a 10-year horizon on the 5% target. Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand did not specify a timeline.
Recent polling indicates a surge in Canadian support for increased defence spending, with 68% favouring 2% of GDP or more, and 17% wanting to exceed that. This marks a near doubling of those supporting higher spending since March 2024.
Asked how the government should pay for the increase, 62% said it should be covered by cuts to other federal programs.
A secret DND presentation, obtained by CBC News, revealed only 58% of the Armed Forces could mobilize if NATO allies declare war.
Nearly half (45%) of Canada's military equipment for Europe's defence, including potential Russia-Ukraine war involvement, is "unavailable and unserviceable."

Alex Dhaliwal
Journalist and Writer
Alex Dhaliwal is a Political Science graduate from the University of Calgary. He has actively written on relevant Canadian issues with several prominent interviews under his belt.
Help fund Alex's journalism!

COMMENTS
-
Bruce Atchison commented 2025-06-25 19:56:19 -0400Idiot Liberals will just print up money and wonder why inflation is rising. That’s how stupid they, and the folks who voted them in, actually are. Wasn’t Weimar Germany enough of a lesson?