At Issue - What hitting NATO's spending target means for Carney and Canada

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

The benefits, and challenges, of Canada finally meeting its two per cent NATO spending target. The uphill political battle facing the next NDP Leader. And, the growing provincial divide over how judges are appointed in Canada. Rosemary Barton hosts Chantal Hébert, Andrew Coyne and Althia Raj.

Life moves fast, and when you need more room, XYZ storage is here. Whether you're moving, decluttering, or just need extra space, clean, secure units are ready when you are. Students heading home or switching apartments between semesters, save 50% off your first three months. Make space for what's next. Visit xyz storage.ca. This is a CBC podcast. I'm Rosemary Barton. This week on at issue, the podcast edition for Thursday. March 26th.

As a result of these efforts this morning, NATO confirmed that Canada has achieved its 2% defense expenditure target half a decade ahead of the original schedule. Our defense industrial strategy is designed to create over 125,000, not just jobs, but high-paying careers. And all the while, double our investment in defense. We were supposed to be here as a nation more than two years ago. We shouldn't have been dragging our feet and dithering and not making the investments into the equipment that we need to make sure that our forces can do the job that they're called upon to do. So this week we're asking what's to be made of Canada reaching its NATO spending targets.

Plus, the NDP picks a new leader this weekend. What challenges could they face guiding the party forward? So how important a milestone is this? And will this focus on defense spending sit well with Canadians? I'm Rosemary Barton. I'm Rosemary Barron. I'm Rosemary Behr. Andrew Koyne, out the Arrage.

Good to see you all after a week away. for me. Andrew, I'm going to start with you. I mean, obviously the conservatives would say we should have got here sooner. I think Mark Carney would agree. And we certainly talked enough about why we were lagging behind. How big a deal is it that we've now met this target? Well, it's a step. I mean, they are right. We are late. We did make commitments to have it done earlier. Carney says, you know, we're five or six years ahead of the schedule, the schedule that Justin Trudeau set, which originally informally behind the scenes, he told other NATO partners that we would never meet it. So we're ahead of never.

But look, 2% only brings us up to where we should have been years ago. The rest of NATO is moving on. Many of them are already well ahead us. We're way back in the pack, as usual. The longer-term target for, I think, it's 2035, is 3.5%, or 5% if you include infrastructure. This is a very large work in progress. We are heading back to a level of defense spending as a percentage.

of our total spending at the federal government level to levels we haven't seen since the early 60s when we get to 3.5. We'll be looking at something like 20 to 25 percent of federal spending on that one department. This is going to present enormous challenges. It's going to be, first of all, just getting the money out the door. Our track record, even with the meager spending we've done in the past is, billions comes back unspent. Our procurement system has been basically broken. That needs to be fixed to ensure that we get the money spent at all, never mind spent well. But then we've got to look at how are we going to pay for this?

Are we going to be prepared to make cuts in spending to make room for it and other spending to make room for it? Are we going to pay for it with higher taxes? Are we just going to borrow it with the levels of debt that we already have? I do think the public is notionally ready more so than they were in the past. I think people are properly scared by what's happening in the world right now. But the real test will be what are they prepared to sacrifice to finance it? And we don't know at this point. Yeah, I think that's sort of the question, Althea. People seem to be talking about and far more interested in security and defense matters than we have been in a long time. And maybe that's enough to sort of persuade people that it's the right time to spend billions and billions of dollars.

I think people feel the threat or felt the threat from Donald Trump and understand where the prime minister is going and you see that in public opinion polls. I think it's worth noting that even with the 2% that we're going, we reached, we are just still in the bottom, I don't want to say laggards, because we reached a threshold, but we're still at the bottom. And if we hadn't met the 2%, we would be dead last. I also think it's worth noting that we don't actually really have a good idea of where the money is going in fine detail. And that begs more question about the next tranche of money. The government laid out in its November budget, a very huge plan to spend 350 billion extra dollars because Justin Trudeau had pledged about $100 billion before. Where is all that money going to go? And I think that, you know, people are not yet making the ties and, you know, we journalists are not yet making the ties,

but more money in defense meant that there was less money for pharmacare. There was no extra money for pharmacare. And there's a lot of provinces that I'm not signed on to the pharmacare program. So eventually, people will start tying spending decisions to policy outputs. Sure. I mean, it's a government making choices at the time we're in. And to your point, with the extra spending, there's things like submarines that still have to be perched this, and we're told that that decision is coming probably in the second quarter.

Chantal. Yes, you say government making choices, I believe most of the hard choices are still way ahead of this government, as opposed to what this happened. But if you're going to be spending more on defense, I can't think of a time when public opinion was more on side with this in my time. Usually you win elections by saying you're going to cancel procurement military procurement projects at this point. And thanks to Donald Trump, but I would also argue thanks to his threat on Greenland, which convinced many Canadians that the threat was real. there is an openness in public opinion.

But the trade-offs, once they become obvious, we will see where people land and they may not land where the government would like them to be. I'll just ask one last question on this to you, Andrew, about the industrial strategy attached to this. You know, the government seems to be making the bet as well that if it can create thousands of jobs by onshoreing the defense industry here,

that that will also make it more palatable. And I wonder what you think is the likelihood of that happening? It may be that that's what they're going to do. I don't think it's good policy. It's never been good policy to put regional development and jobs for the boys ahead of military preparedness. We got away with it because we didn't have a serious military. We didn't need, we thought, a serious military

because we could free ride on the rest of NATO. NATO's fed up with that, not just the United States, but the rest of NATO. The world is a much more dangerous place. we cannot afford this nonsense anymore. We need to be putting bang for the buck, the best weaponry for the cheapest price, as the absolute, you know, cynic one-on

ahead of everything else. And it's disappointing to see the industrial strategy sticking to that old saw. I don't think that's well advised. Can we remember that it created deep splits when governments were handing out in the name of industrial strategies, contracts like this,

between regions who were competing for the money and arguing rightly in many instances that the choices were political. So this is not something easy to accomplish without creating regional jealousies. Okay, I want to switch things up here if I can. And I'll let you go first, Althea, because you're in Winnipeg. And that is where the NDP is convenient over the weekend. They're going to choose a new leader. there is a lot of, I think, a lot tied up in this decision in terms of who wins and their ability to turn things around for the party. What are you hearing about how people are feeling about this

choice and whether it can be sort of momentum building for them? Well, I think they're hoping that it will be momentum building. There is, you know, they're starting a pretty low floor, so hopefully for them it will be. I think the bigger challenge, frankly, is depending on who wins on Sunday, can they unify the party? And I don't just mean the federal party, but I especially mean its provincial wings. If Avi Lewis wins on Sunday, what does that mean for the provincial parties in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, even in Manitoba and in British Columbia? can the party unite around him as a leader? If he doesn't win, it will be quite a surprise, frankly.

And that also will send a message about how prepared the NDP is to embrace a different pathway that is being offered to them or promised to them in terms of victory, in terms of the dreaming big and more idealism, or is the membership more interested in tangible policies and influencing the governments of the day in terms of their policy choices? It's going to be interesting. I mean, one of the things that has struck me over the past couple of days

is all those numbers sort of looking at recognition factor of any of the candidates. And even the perceived frontrunner Avi Lewis is not super well known to Canadians, which is maybe something you can overcome, just ask Mark Carney, but it is a problem. and if he's not going to get a seat in the house quickly, and he doesn't seem to see that as a priority,

I think an even bigger problem. But give me your sense, Chantal, of what the challenges are here. I think the main challenge is to find a way in the main conversation, which has not been happening for the NDP. And it's not necessarily true fault of their own. The same could be said about the Black Quebecois. The same was said about Pierre Puelev.

Canadians at this point are really focused on one central conversation. This is not business as usual. They're into the Canada, U.S., Canada and the world versus Trump conversation. And it's really hard for third parties to find a way in there. As for the seed thing, well, there will be an opening in beaches, East York, I think it's called, in Toronto, when NATO is conspent, who's already announced that he wants to run provincial. This is a writing where the NDP used to do well. So I suspect if the next leader doesn't have a seat,

he will be, or she, under a tremendous pressure to get that seat. Andrew, talk about how the NDP might respond to the moment we're in, because right now they clearly aren't taking up much space and clearly don't know how to respond to it. Yeah, I really think they have to focus on survival at this point. And that, to me, militates in favor of a certain pragmatism. The NDP is kind of the inverse of the liberals. Liberals are very strong federally or basically nowhere provincially.

I think they have one, maybe two provincial governments. The NDP is the government in BC and Manitoba. They're the official opposition in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario. They are a presence. And those parties tend to be fairly pragmatic, very results oriented, pretty much in the mainstream. How are they going to work with an Avi Lewis insurgency at the federal level? What kind of base is that going to help them?

How is he going to appeal to blue-collar workers if he's basically saying we're not going to build anything, we're not going to drill anything? How is he even going to appeal to soft left voters who've deserted the NDP for the liberals and who might be called back if they thought there was a sensible voice? I don't think it's a given he's going to win. of the race are such that, you know, you can rack up all the votes you want in downtown riddings, but if you're not appealing across the country, because every riding is equally weighted, and if you can't get second. No, it's not. I beg your partner, is it. No, it's not. It's not.

It's not weighted. I can bring all my friends and win. Okay. But if you don't get second and third choices on a preferential ballot, yeah, yeah. Then I think he's got a real concern there. Okay, Althea. So I don't think they, like, I think one of the reasons we haven't heard so much of them is because they were in the middle of a leadership contest. And, you know, if you think back to when Jack Layton was elected in 2004, he went to the house. And even though he didn't have a seat, he had a press conference basically after the end of every question period and tried to inject himself in every single story. And the party was very aggressive, you know, like, you didn't ask us for a quote. And they wanted to, like, sneak into there, you know.

And I do think the longer the Carney government is in office, the more of an opening they seem to be giving to left parties. And there's a lot of space for the NDP to occupy at the moment. You know, today, for example, on CBC, David McGinty was, the defense minister was talking about possible contributions to the war in Iraq that Canada could be doing. We could be helping with demining, for example. Or in Iran, yeah. Sorry, in Iran. You can easily see the NDP goal. grabbing onto a whole bunch of issues where they are the only voice,

and Elizabeth May from the Green Party, with one seat, but, you know, that is kind of playing that traditional division that you saw in the center-left part of the liberals. There is criticism within liberal circles of some of the Kearney government's actions, but it's mostly coming from outside of caucus, and voices inside of caucus are still, you know, not as loud as some people might have expected them to be.

So I do think there's an opening for that party. Yeah, I agree with you, but I wonder, Chantal, if it's, you know, if they go too far to one side where that leaves people, because it's about being center left as opposed to too far left, right? If you're trying to pick up those votes. Last word to you, there, Shantau. Yeah, well, demining in Iran would also involve a ceasefire, So I'm trying to find a rationale for the NDP to oppose us trying to make things better in the event of peace breaking out.

But it's a hard choice because it is not as if the alternative, Heather McPherson, to name her who has a seat in the House of Commons, is being seen as someone who makes a deep impression in the house. you kind of think it would probably play even more on the fault lines within the NDP to have someone from Alberta who is not going to share the views of many NDP members on pipelines, for instance, or resource development as leader. So I don't think they have an easy solution. They had in the past, Alexa McDonough, Jack Layton were easy solutions. But I'm not sure they have a unifier, whatever way they pick on the weekend. We have to take a short break. When we come back, we'll talk about some provinces calling for more input on judicial appointments and how Ottawa is responding to those calls. That's next.

We haven't changed our point of view that we believe that the judicial appointments process is functioning. We welcome provincial government's participation in that process and proactively reach out after we receive recommendations. If provinces want a greater role, we welcome them to take part in that consultation process when we reach out. So what's been made of this call for a change to judicial appointments? judicial appointments. Let's bring everyone back. Chantal, Andrew, and Althea. I should say the province is also saying they'd like a say in the appointment of Supreme Court judges.

Chantel, I know you were paying attention to Bill 21, which is front of the Supreme Court right now, but I also know you pay a lot of attention to justice issues. What did you make of the provinces making this request? And what is it actually about? That's the part I'm trying to figure out here. Somewhere, somehow, it does have to do with what we've been watching in the Supreme Court this week with the provinces who are pushing for this, arguing, for instance, for judges to butt out of any say on laws that are protected by the escape laws from the

Charter of Rights and Freedom, the notwithstanding clause. But there is still an element, I'm a bit puzzled to tell you the truth. I do believe there are consultations at both the Supreme Court than the higher provincial court level. But also, when you look at the appointments, they're mostly drawn from the lower courts, judges that are already in exercise. Who picks those judges at the lower court level? Provinces. So the pool that the federal government tends to choose from, with exceptions, and that's okay, tends to be judges that provincial governments have appointed. So it looks to me like something that is being coming back recurrently, but at the end of the day, the point of how it would improve the system

and make the justice system better is not clear, that it might make it more political, is clearer. Is it, Andrew, then, an overreach by provinces, and to Chantal's point, really about, because of the provinces that wrote this letter, about the notwithstanding clause, and sort of their ability to control things? I think it's about partisan politics, among other things. I'd be interested to see if these same leaders would be as keen on a Pierre Pallierre government having to choose from appointees nominated by, let's say, Kathleen Wynne, if she were still Premier of Ontario.

They might be singing a different tune. Look, it's not entirely unreasonable on the face of it, particularly of Supreme Court judges, when the Supreme Court is so often called upon to adjudicate between the federal and provincial governments. It's not entirely unreasonable to say there should be some kind of. collaboration, some joint approval process for the Supreme Court judges. It's particularly odd, you might see on the face of it in this country,

that senior provincial judges are appointed federally. But if you want to talk about how things are done in other federations in the United States or Australia, there's a lot of things that are anomalous in this country. It's anomalous that we don't have an interstate commerce commission the way they have in the United States, to regulate internal trade. It's anomalous that the provinces can borrow as much as they like in any currency they'd like without any inter-provincial coordination as there is in Australia. So if we're going to start talking about reshaping and rejigging the Federation

and exchanging these things, well, why only do the one thing that the provinces are demanding at this point? Why not bring some things to the table that you'd be prepared to give up? Well, and to Chantal's point, Althea, the provinces are sort of loosely consulted. They don't get to decide on things, but they are loosely consulted. What was interesting about this was that Melanie Jolie, I noticed in our story, had a different point of view and thought, oh, maybe this is a good idea. And I wonder how much that is because for Quebec, this would be another area where they also would like to get involved. But I don't want to presume there.

What are your thoughts on the timing and the why behind it? Well, like Chantal, I too am confused. I'm not sure what the problem is that we are trying to fix. Was there many cases of judging, ruling against the provinces? and they think that that was because the federal government put its heavy hand on the till. We have advisory bodies in every single province, seven member advisory bodies that include a majority of federal appointees. There's a provincial government rep. There is someone from the provincial society.

There's three federal appointees. I wrote myself a cheat list. A person from the Canadian Bar Association. A provincial court judge. That's the person I was forgetting. That's why I like you. But, you know, like, it is the federal government's power, responsibility laid out in the Constitution to make these superior and court of appeal

judge's decisions. So I'm, you know, we're at this moment where the provinces are saying, you know, but out of our jurisdiction, but now we want you to give us part of your jurisdiction. I'm slightly confused. And I do share the concern that actually even. bringing this up is rather politicizing for Canadians, the judiciary. Like, we have a really good system where judges are appointed on merit. There's been a few cases, and I think we can all think about them, and I can count them on

one hand, where it felt like people were appointed for political reasons rather than on merit. But they were all recommended. You know, they passed the vetting process, and that's a good thing. Like, we have a good system in this country. I don't know why we would want to cast out on it. Chantal? Maybe spend a bit of time watching the Bill 21 challenge this week and notice that some of the toughest questions that mirrored more closely the position of some of the conservative provinces or Quebec on the Supreme Court wading in to suspending the Charter for provincial legislation purposes came from Trudeau appointees to the court. and some of the questions that went to the other side came from Chief Justice appointed by Stephen Harper.

I for one find comfort in the notion that we have not matched the United States model, and I don't think politically that it's a good card to play on the part of the provinces that are asking for this, to say, why can't we bring ourselves closer to the United States system? It kind of defeats their own purpose to argue that. Last 30 to you, Andrew, which is kind of your point. If you're going to come up with ideas, maybe consider other ones as well. Well, I'm not necessarily as keen on the current process as my colleagues. I don't think it's been quite as free of partisanship as perhaps has been suggested over the years.

I do think it's far too centralized in the office of the prime minister. I do think we can afford to have more. I mean, there's consultation to everything, but I think real consultation where you actually have to get other people to sign on to it is not necessarily a bad thing. But again, the rule of the province is federalism is about give and take. The feds give and we take. They never, ever have anything they want to bring to the table to actually exchange for it. And I think as a matter of pragmatism, the federal government is right to say, let's talk in a broader sense than just giving you this one concession.

Got to leave it there. Thank you all. Good conversation this week. Appreciate it. That is at issue for this week. What do you think about the future of the NDP? Could a new leader move the needle for the party? Let us know what you think.

us an email at Ask at cbc.ca. You can catch me on Rosemary Barton Live Sundays at 10 a.m. Eastern. We'll be right back here in your feeds next week. Thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.