defence spending

The office of Finance Minister Francois-Phillipe Champagne is refusing to release data supporting Prime Minister Mark Carney’s claims that Canada will accelerate defence spending to four per cent of GDP by 2030. A spokesperson for Champagne told Global News the office is “not in a position to scoop forthcoming announcements” and will not provide details beyond the prime minister’s statements.

Why is the government refusing to provide defence data?

Finance Minister Francois-Phillipe Champagne’s office has declined requests for data from Budget 2025 or the Spring Economic Statement that would verify Prime Minister Mark Carney’s spending claims. Carney stated at the CANSEC Defence conference in May and at a June press conference that the fiscal framework is provisioned to reach the 4 per cent GDP target ahead of NATO’s timetable.

The government also declined to provide data supporting Carney’s claim that Canada already meets the 1.5 per cent infrastructure threshold. This threshold covers critical defence infrastructure, such as roads and ports with dual military use, as part of a broader 5 per cent GDP target by 2035 committed to at last year’s NATO Summit in the Netherlands.

Did You Know? Canada’s total defence spending target of 5 per cent of GDP by 2035 is split into two parts: 3.5 per cent for “core” defence spending and 1.5 per cent for critical infrastructure.

How does the spending gap impact the federal budget?

A Global News analysis of the Spring Economic Statement indicates Canada must spend $163 billion annually to meet the 4 per cent GDP goal by 2030. This represents a significant increase from the $63 billion spent in the 2025–26 fiscal year, which met the previous 2 per cent NATO target established in 2014.

To hit the 2030 target, Ottawa would need an additional $34.9 billion annually in core defence spending. For context, this annual increase is higher than the total amount budgeted for the Canada Child Benefit in any of the next five years.

Expert Insight: The refusal to provide specific figures creates a transparency gap that complicates fiscal forecasting. When a government commits to a massive spending increase without a clear ledger, it risks credibility with international allies and domestic auditors.

What are the reactions from economists and officials?

Don Drummond, a public policy professor at Queen’s University and former associate deputy finance minister, called the lack of transparency the worst he has seen in 49 years as an economist. Drummond told Global News, “I’ve never seen a case of less transparency over a budget thing… Just show us the number.”

PM Carney announces Canada will boost defence spending to 2% of GDP this fiscal year

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page described the decision to prioritize spending without sharing details as a “failure” in transparency. Similarly, a Pentagon official claimed the government’s plans are not “credible,” while other U.S. defence officials and military policy experts criticized the lack of clarity.

In response to these criticisms in May, a spokesperson for Defence Minister David McGuinty stated Canada would spend more than $82 billion over five years on Canadian Armed Forces capabilities.

What happens next with NATO and the PBO?

Prime Minister Carney is scheduled to travel to Ankara, Turkey, on Monday for the annual NATO leaders’ conference, followed by a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) may continue to seek clarity, as three letters on the PBO website show requests for information on NATO targets that remain unanswered by the Liberal government. If the government pursues the 3.5 per cent core spending target, the PBO estimated in February that it would require $33.5 billion in additional annual cash expenditures, potentially increasing the budgetary deficit by $63.0 billion by the 2035-36 fiscal year.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Canada’s current defence spending level?
According to information provided by the government, Canada spent $63 billion on defence in the 2025–26 fiscal year, meeting the 2 per cent GDP target committed to in 2014.

What is the difference between “core” and “infrastructure” spending?
Core spending refers to traditional defence expenditures (targeted at 3.5 per cent of GDP), while infrastructure spending covers dual-use military assets like ports and roads (targeted at 1.5 per cent of GDP).

Has the PBO received the requested spending details?
No. The PBO website indicates that the government has not yet responded to requests for details on defence spending and NATO targets.

Should the government be required to release budget data before making international spending commitments?

The geopolitical landscape of Southeast Asia is undergoing a profound transformation. As Washington pushes for increased defense spending from its regional partners, experts warn that a heavy-handed approach may be backfiring. By pressuring nations like the Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia to prioritize military budgets, the U.S. Risks eroding the very trust necessary to maintain its influence against a rising China.

The Cost of Coercion: Why U.S. Strategy Faces a Backlash

For many Southeast Asian nations, the choice between U.S. Security guarantees and Chinese economic integration is no longer binary. Analysts like Joshua Kurlantzick argue that punishing allies for failing to meet arbitrary defense spending targets is counterproductive. When Washington focuses solely on military burden-sharing, it ignores the complex economic realities these countries face.

Beijing has been quick to capitalize on this friction. By positioning itself as a stable, predictable economic partner, China is actively courting ASEAN members. This “charm offensive” is gaining traction, particularly as regional leaders perceive U.S. Trade policies as inconsistent or overly volatile.

Pro Tip: When analyzing geopolitical shifts, look beyond military budgets. Trade agreements, critical mineral supply chains, and infrastructure investments are often the true indicators of where a nation’s long-term loyalties lie.

Leveraging Comparative Advantage: A New Defensive Play

Southeast Asian states are not passive observers; they are becoming masters of leverage. Rather than bowing to pressure to increase military budgets, these nations are highlighting their unique assets to avoid U.S. Coercion. Whether it is Indonesia’s role in the global critical minerals supply chain or the strategic access offered to U.S. Military forces, these countries are diversifying their “value proposition.”

Trump’s defence pick Pete Hegseth grilled about ASEAN

By offering non-military assets, these states hope to maintain their security partnerships without compromising their domestic economic priorities. This creates a delicate balancing act, where countries seek to avoid being forced into a “battleground for influence” between the two superpowers.

The Rise of the Middle Powers

To mitigate the risk of being squeezed by U.S.-China tensions, Southeast Asian nations are increasingly turning to a “hedging” strategy. By deepening ties with middle powers—such as India, Japan, Australia, and Türkiye—ASEAN members are building a safety net.

This strategy aims to:

Reduce reliance on a single security provider.
Create a multipolar regional framework.
Provide alternatives to the binary pressures of Washington and Beijing.

Did you know? Many Southeast Asian nations now report higher favorability ratings for China than for the U.S. In recent polling, largely due to perceptions of economic stability and regional engagement.

FAQ: Navigating the U.S.-China Regional Tug-of-War

Q: Why is the U.S. Pressuring Southeast Asian nations on defense spending?
A: Washington seeks to enhance “collective defense” in the region to counter China’s military expansion, expecting partners to shoulder a larger share of the financial burden for security.

Q: How are ASEAN nations responding to this pressure?
A: Many are choosing to deepen bilateral cooperation in non-military sectors or strengthening ties with middle powers like Japan and India to avoid being forced to choose sides.

Q: Is the U.S. Likely to abandon its presence in Southeast Asia?
A: Unlikely. Analysts note that alliances, particularly with the Philippines, remain too critical for U.S. Force projection in the Pacific for Washington to walk away.

What are your thoughts on the shifting power dynamics in the Indo-Pacific? Will economic integration ultimately outweigh security alliances? Subscribe to our newsletter for deeper dives into global strategy, or join the conversation in the comments below.

Liberals Deny Proof of Carney’s NATO Spending Claims