Budget does little to support Canada’s self-proclaimed global leadership

TORONTO–Chapter five in Budget 2023 is entitled, "Canada’s Leadership in the World." However, the budget shows little fresh commitment to our global role, let alone deconstructing how Canada is a world leader. Canada ranks 13th among the world’s wealthier countries in share of its economy that it devotes to international aid, at about 0.32 per cent of GDP compared to the target of 0.7 per cent. When it comes to meeting its NATO defence spending commitments, it ranks 24th out of the now-31 NATO members. The budget does nothing to change this. Canada as a world leader is more a conceit than a reality—in our last two tries, we were turned down for a seat on the UN Security Council. Other countries didn’t see an overwhelming case for us to be on the Security Council. While Canada does play a useful role in world affairs, in many different ways, these do not constitute "leadership." Other countries like us, and find us a useful partner. The U.S. finds us especially useful right now as a poodle-like cheerleader for its dangerous zero-sum effort to unite the world against China and impede its development. But there’s little evidence that the world looks to Canada for new ideas and leadership for a safer, sustainable, prosperous, and equitable planet. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly, though, sees Canada as "a diplomatic powerhouse," less a source of ideas and actions, but a country good at "convening and making sure diplomacy is happening." Even so, in launching our Indo-Pacific Strategy, she declared that "the goal was not just to engage, but to lead." To lead? As a NATO member, Canada has been committed since 2006, and reaffirmed in 2014. Clearly we won’t. Canada currently spends about 1.27 per cent, according to NATO. But the federal budget for 2023 fails to set us on a path to meet this commitment, with the defence budget barely mentioned. "One could argue that another measure should be used, but this is the one agreed upon by the heads of government of all members in 2014 and repeatedly reconfirmed by them at every meeting since then," retired Col. Charles Davies points out in a pre-budget publication by the CDA Institute. "It bothers me that Canada has consistently failed to make any meaningful effort to meet the commitment made by prime minister Stephen Harper and repeated several times by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. How do you belong to a club and not carry your agreed fair share of the load?” This, as Davies argues, "is not a good place for Canada to be." And our own failure to act, especially in North American defence, means that the U.S. could someday take matters into its own hands, acting in Canadian airspace and the Arctic, and simply ignoring Canadian sovereignty if it feels unprotected. The parliamentary budget officer estimated last year that Canada’s forward projections on defence spending still mean we will be $15.1-billion below target in 2026-27, even if defence spending rises from $36.3-billion in 2022-23 to $51-billion in 2026-27, as fiscal projections suggest. "It is a sad thing for a country of our capacity, and the stature we want to have in the world, to be welching on our commitments," Davies contends. Our policy on China, or more accurately, our lack of a clearly enunciated policy on China, is another example of failure. Our Indo-Pacific Strategy—and there can be no Indo-Pacific strategy without engaging with China—appears to reject any effort to engage with China. “We will challenge China when we ought to, and we will cooperate with China when we must,” it says, leaving little room for anything else. In fact, it seems to discourage business from dealing with China. "China right now poses a geopolitical risk, and the business community needs to know it," Joly says. None of this amounts to forward-looking China strategy, leaving Canada behind as other countries recognize China is too big to be contained and too important to be isolated or ignored. Europe is a good example. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, before departing with French President Emmanuel Macron for a mission to China last week, set out in a carefully-worded speech to define Europe’s strategy towards China and what success should look like. She minced no words about Europe’s disagreements with China. But "our relationship with China is far too important to put at risk by failing to clearly set the terms of a healthy engagement." It was vital the international system itself be strengthened, she said, and that cannot be done without China. "This is why it is vitally important that we ensure diplomatic stability and open communications with China. I believe it is neither viable—nor in Europe’s interest—to decouple from China. Our relations are not black or white—and our response cannot be either." While on her visit with Macron to Beijing, von der Leyen said Europe would not be shy about rising “deeply concerning issues." But it was also vital to "leave space for a discussion on a more ambitious partnership and how we can make competition fairer and more disciplined. And more broadly, we need to think about how we can work together proactively in the global system in the future, and on which challenges." So Europe does not want to cut economic, societal, political or scientific ties. Contrast this with Joly’s tone, which seems openly hostile to a re-engagement with China and intended mainly to please the U.S. It may be that our foreign policy is set in Washington, not Ottawa, these days. For all the boasting of Canada as a leader on the world stage, while we are a supportive player, there is scant evidence that we really are the major player we see in our self-image. What we should do is define where we can be most useful—and deliver. David Crane can be reached at crane@interlog.com. The Hill Times

Budget does little to support Canada’s self-proclaimed global leadership

While we are a supportive player, there is scant evidence that we really are the major player we see in our self-image. What we should do is to define where we can be most useful and deliver.

Canada’s aging crisis and a call for reform in eldercare

As COP29 wraps up, will Canada finally stop funding fossils this fall?

Addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance

The wisdom of Homer Simpson and Aaron Sorkin

Climate finance should target resilient food systems

Trump’s ‘America First’ plans may undermine global trade

Trudeau’s Indo-Pacific Strategy already raising serious doubts

Armed with a strategy, is Canada talking with or talking past Asia?

Experts eager to see Canada’s African strategy brought forward to address perception of neglect

New envoy ‘happy’ to see Taiwan in spotlight, Canada’s new China approach in Indo-Pacific strategy

Is it too little too late to see the Indo-Pacific light?

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Get free news updates

Submit a guest opinion article

Budget does little to support Canada’s self-proclaimed global leadership

While we are a supportive player, there is scant evidence that we really are the major player we see in our self-image. What we should do is to define where we can be most useful and deliver.

Get The Foreign Policy Newsletter