It won't be easy but here is how Mark Carney can pay for his promise to hike defence spending
Last week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies agreed to a new defence investment pledge — investing 5 per cent of annual gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. That figure includes 3.5 per cent on core military capabilities and 1.5 per cent on defence and security-related infrastructure, such as ports and emergency preparedness systems.
This is an historically significant commitment and is rationalized by NATO political leaders in the context of rising global security threats and a need to increase contribution from non-U. S. members.
Opinion articles are based on the author's interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
3 hours ago
- Canada Standard
How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times - and will continue to do so
Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April's federal election. Mark Carney's new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history. Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation. Read more: Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump's trade war - but it's important not to take national pride too far Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed. For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin. Read more: This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about 'land back' Both perspectives - and the public discussion of Canada's national identity more generally - remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve. In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together. In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as "imagined communities," since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens. These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community. There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers. A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase "the people" is often used as a synonym for the national community. While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state. In Canada, there is the Quebecois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada's national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments - from Confederation onward - to build the society that Canadians live in today. The character of a particular nation is not fixed. The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence. Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community's past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better. A distinction is sometimes drawn between "patriotism" and "nationalism," with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell. For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one's nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one's nation. Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as "liberal nationalism." The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress. In 1867, George-Etienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a "political nationality." He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity. More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy. Cartier's concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead. In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada's post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada's national identity. Read more: 40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the "deux nations" origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out. As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada's national identity wasn't nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples. The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada's identity. Canada's national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community. This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time - including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's threats against Canada. In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada's political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation - and it's work worth doing.
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Mark Carney promised internal free trade by Canada Day. Is that enough?
Daniel Schwanen is senior vice-president of the C.D. Howe Institute. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff threats have focused much needed attention on making trade within Canada easier. Prime Minister Mark Carney made a promise soon after the election: To have free trade by Canada Day. To that end, the federal Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, part of Bill C-5 which became law on June 26, aims at promoting the free movement of goods and services interprovincially. Under the Act, the federal government will recognize provincial requirements such as product standards as meeting federal requirements, when both levels of government regulate the same aspect of a good or service traded interprovincially. Federal regulatory bodies must also recognize provincial regulatory bodies' authorizations to practise an occupation as satisfying their own comparable requirements. For Mr. Carney, it's a promise kept. But helpful though these provisions would be, they are not enough for Canada to truly have internal free trade. Mr. Carney's bill should be viewed as only part of a broader project. Opinion: Internal free trade by Canada Day? It'll take longer than that A guide to The Globe's Canada Day coverage By itself, recognition by federal regulators of provincial requirements as equivalent to their own does not facilitate trade or labour mobility between provincial jurisdictions with different standards and approval or certification processes that impede trade or labour mobility. For that, the provinces need to get in on the action. Helpfully, legislation in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Manitoba adopted this year offers to recognize other provinces' standards and approvals processes when other provinces offer the same treatment to their goods and services. In turn, this has led to agreement between provinces (e.g. Ontario and Saskatchewan, Ontario and Alberta) to open trade in this way. Western provinces already have a similar arrangement in place between them under the 2010 New West Partnership Agreement. But even countrywide mutual recognition will not create an integrated market. For that, we need actual reconciliation of some standards and requirements. Even with mutual recognition, a truck transport company moving goods across provincial borders must still conform to many transportation rules unique to the province it is in – it cannot transpose them from the province it originally set out from or the provinces it has driven through. Similarly, construction or mining companies must operate according to the laws and regulations of the province they are in – not according to those in their home province. That is why harmonization among provinces is important. For example, Ontario harmonized over 1,700 technical requirements with the new national construction code in January. Single sets of rules for safety equipment in construction or mining, or for truck tire dimensions, are further examples on which the slow but sure mechanisms of the Regulatory Cooperation and Reconciliation Table operating under the 2018 Canadian Free Trade Agreement can help. One of the valuable features of the CFTA was its use of a 'negative list,' an approach pioneered in Canada by the 2007 Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta. This approach requires parties to list the specific sectors or measures for which the rules of open trade, investment or mobility do not apply – meaning that remaining discriminatory barriers are relatively transparent. Helpfully, the federal government and many provinces have reduced or eliminated their exceptions under the CFTA. Other important pieces of the internal trade puzzle that need to be solved include greater freedom for Canadians to purchase products, such as alcoholic beverages, from producers across the country, while still conforming to tax and other rules in their province of residence. Only Manitoba allows such sales now, although a 2024 agreement between Alberta and British Columbia allowing B.C. wineries to sell direct to Albertan consumers shows a path forward. Canada's market cannot be truly open to products from across the country until allocation of production quotas by province under our supply managed systems is ended. Given the need to 'de-risk' our economic prospects in an uncertain world, Canadian governments should continue to expand mutual recognition, remove discriminatory barriers, and push for greater harmonization of rules affecting businesses and workers. All Canadians should have access to economic opportunities regardless of where they emerge in Canada – and ultimately all Canadian governments are responsible to make sure that they do not thwart access to such opportunities.
CTV News
4 hours ago
- CTV News
‘Nations not opposed to economic development': Treaty 6 Confederacy responds to passing of Bill C-5
Prime Minister Mark Carney is joined by members of his cabinet and caucus as he speaks at a news conference in the Foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa, after Bill C-5 passed in the House, on Friday, June 20, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang The Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations released a statement after Bill C-5 received royal assent last week, saying they continue to have several concerns over it. Also referred to as the One Canadian Economy, the act gives Ottawa the power to fast-track projects meant to boost the economy by side-stepping environmental protections and other legislation. 'Since its introduction, we have consistently raised the alarm about this legislation,' said the statement sent out Monday afternoon. 'We continue to have serious concerns about the lack of meaningful prior consultation, the sweeping powers it grants cabinet, and the risk it poses to constitutionally protected treaty rights.' First Nations across the country have called out the federal government for not consulting with them properly on the bill. People rally against Bill C-5 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang People rally against Bill C-5 on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Justin Tang But as the bill gets implemented, the Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations is calling on Ottawa to ensure they are involved in the creation and mandate of an Indigenous advisory group and that they are included in conversations going forward. 'We require transparency about identified 'projects of national priority' and early inclusion in discussions,' said the confederacy. 'Our Nations are not opposed to economic development. We welcome opportunity when it is grounded in respect, equity and sustainability.'
