Pentagon doubles down on Canada rebuke with demand for NATO spending road map, F-35 decision

The Pentagon wants to escort Canada vocalise a top design on how the rural area intends to meet NATO's new military spending benchmark before resuming binational defence planning co-operation.

The absence of a plan to spend 3.5 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product on the military, plus an additional 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence infrastructure, appears to be at the heart of this week's suspension of the U.S.–Canada Permanent Joint Board on Defence (PJBD).

Senior Pentagon officials, speaking on background Thursday to mostly Canadian journalists, also cited the absence of a decision on whether to proceed with the full purchase of American-made F-35 fighter jets as another major irritant.

The freeze on co-operation under the PJBD was revealed this week on social media by the U.S. Department of War’s senior policymaker, Elbridge Colby. The suspension was accompanied only by vague references to Canada not pulling its weight.

Senior U.S. Defence officials filled in slightly more detail Thursday, saying the government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has yet to deliver a plan to meet NATO’s new targets, which were agreed to last summer at a leaders' summit in The Hague.

"Canada has yet to articulate a path to reach NATO’s new defence spending targets," said a senior official who agreed to be quoted only on background. "A plan backed by resourced investments that will put Canada on pace to spend 3.5 percent on core defence by 2035 would be a good place to start."

The federal government poured $9.3 billion into the Department of National Defence (DND) last year in order to meet NATO’s old benchmark of two per cent of GDP. Asked by journalists for figures on how that goal was achieved, DND released a somewhat vague backgrounder that included ongoing equipment purchases and previously accounted-for items, such as a downpayment on new River-class destroyers.

Canada’s defence budget for the last fiscal year, which ended March 31, was expected to top $63 billion. Projections going forward are harder to come by.

In the federal budget last November and in the more recent spring economic update, DND did not map out how defence spending will grow over the next five years, a departure from previous practice. 

On more than one occasion, the department has refused to release those projections despite follow-up requests by multiple journalists.

At the time of the spring economic update on April 28, defence analyst Dave Perry expressed frustration at the absence of solid numbers.

"The government committed a pretty substantial extra chunk to get to the two per cent mark last fiscal year, and provided only very high-level fidelity about exactly where those dollars went," said Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

"We're now on a path to spending 3.5 per cent … but we don't have any detail, really, about where the path is between where we are now and where we have to get on core defence, or really what it’s going to take Canada in terms of its military investment."

The senior U.S. Official also accused Canada on Thursday of falling short "on deploying the necessary resources to rebuild its Armed Forces" since 2014, a general complaint that many other allies including the United Kingdom have privately levelled for years.

Announcing the plan to reach two per cent last year, Carney described much of the investment as "foundational" and intended to rebuild Canada's defence infrastructure, such as bases and training, in order to grow the size of the military.

"The [U.S.] is monitoring Canada’s defence investment and will re-engage in this forum when it is possible to have a serious discussion about our mutual security," said the senior U.S. Official.

U.S. Officials also complained about the length of time it’s taking for the Carney government to decide whether it will continue with the full purchase of the F-35 stealth fighter.

It’s been over a year since the review was ordered, and while the military aspect was completed quickly, the consideration of industrial benefits and the advantages of switching the Swedish-manufactured Gripen fighter have left the file in limbo. 

"The Canadian government’s delays and lack of transparency around its ongoing F-35 review are just one example of the prioritization of politics over our shared responsibility for North America’s defence," said the U.S. Official. "The [U.S.] welcomes a rapid conclusion to this review."

The American official underlined that the PJBD pause "does not impact operations of our binational North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)."

What wasn’t said was how the pause will affect policy planning between the countries for U.S. President Donald Trump’s "Golden Dome" anti-missile system. In Canada, it’s known as Integrated Air and Missile Defence.

At the moment, U.S. Space Command is in charge of the missile defense shield. How the system will operate alongside NORAD hasn’t been established, but was undoubtedly one of the policy points that needed to be ironed out.  

Last week, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office released a detailed study suggesting the system could cost roughly $1.2 trillion to develop, deploy and operate for 20 years.

Canada has been invited to participate and Carney’s government has expressed interest, but has not delivered a firm commitment.

Senior reporter, defence and security

---

---