Canada has been urged to boost its military budget significantly to align with NATO’s target of allocating 2% of GDP to defense, a goal repeatedly discussed by international observers and policy commissions. In recent estimates, a Canadian commission representative suggested a cumulative increase of 75.3 billion dollars over the next five years to meet that 2% benchmark, tying a country’s defense spending to its economic size rather than a fixed number. This view surfaces in analyses tied to Yves Giroud’s budgeting framework, as cited by Age Times.
According to Giroud’s projections, Canada’s military budget would need to rise from about 36.3 billion dollars in fiscal year 2022-2023 to roughly 51 billion dollars by 2026-2027 to reach the NATO-aligned spending rate. While the numbers imply a substantial uplift, some policymakers acknowledge that reaching the 2% mark may represent an aspirational ceiling for Canada, even as they expect the gap to narrow over a five-year horizon. This framing reflects the ongoing debate about fiscal capacity, national priorities, and alliance commitments.
Historical spending trends show Canada’s defense outlays as a share of GDP dipping to a historically low level among alliance members, with 2021 figures placing the country at about 1.36% of GDP for armed forces maintenance. This position places Canada near the bottom tier of NATO members, ahead of only a handful of countries in Western Europe, and underscores questions about how to scale capabilities in a prudent, sustainable way.
In parallel to budget discussions, reforms aimed at addressing misconduct within the Canadian Armed Forces have been prominent. Anita Anand, who served as defense minister, signaled a sustained effort to address issues of sexual misconduct and violence within the ranks. Following a comprehensive review of military conditions, Anand pledged decisive action guided by a set of 48 recommendations proposed by former Supreme Court Justice Louise Arbour.
Justice Arbour’s study examined the roots of harassment, sexual violence, and misogyny across national armed forces and highlighted a “closed culture” as a contributing factor within the Canadian military. The resulting recommendations emphasize structural changes, including transferring all sexual assault investigations to civilian courts, refining definitions of harassment and misconduct, and enhancing training and recruitment practices. The report also questions whether institutional pathways, such as officer training colleges, should be restructured or reimagined given the persistence of hostile behavior among some trainees.
Beyond investigations, the Arbour framework advocates practical approaches to accountability. It calls for engaging external human resources experts and expanding the use of civilian technology to enable officers to resolve problems more effectively. The aim is to create transparent processes, strengthen trust within the ranks, and ensure that accountability mechanisms reflect contemporary standards of conduct. The conversation around reforms continues to shape both policy and culture inside Canada’s defense establishment.
Taken together, the budgetary discourse and reform efforts reveal an ongoing tension between sustaining effective national defense and maintaining fiscal responsibility. Proponents argue that allocating resources commensurate with NATO expectations will strengthen readiness, interoperability with allied forces, and strategic deterrence. Critics worry about the macroeconomic impact of large-scale increases and call for a careful, phased approach that balances security needs with other national priorities. The debate, therefore, centers on how best to translate alliance commitments into concrete capabilities while preserving prudent stewardship of public funds.
As Canada navigates these questions, the evolving policy landscape will continue to shape budget decisions, personnel policies, and oversight mechanisms. The overarching objective remains clear: to ensure the armed forces are capable, accountable, and well integrated into the broader alliance framework, while maintaining the confidence of taxpayers and citizens who support a measured, transparent approach to national defense.