In the shadow of escalating global tensions, Canada has taken an unconventional approach to meeting NATO’s defense spending targets. While traditional military expenditures remain below the alliance’s 2% GDP threshold, Ottawa is making a compelling case that infrastructure investments should count toward its defense contributions—a position that has sparked both support and skepticism among alliance members.
“Infrastructure is the backbone of any effective defense strategy,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated during last week’s NATO summit in Washington. “Roads, ports, and energy systems that can withstand threats are just as crucial as tanks and aircraft in today’s security environment.” This assertion comes as Canada faces mounting pressure to increase its military spending, which currently stands at approximately 1.33% of GDP—well below NATO’s agreed target.
The Canadian government has proposed that billions allocated to critical infrastructure projects—particularly those in the Arctic and along key transportation corridors—should be recognized as legitimate defense expenditures. These investments include reinforced northern ports, modernized railway networks capable of rapidly moving military equipment, and hardened telecommunications systems designed to withstand cyber attacks.
Defense Minister Bill Blair has emphasized that these infrastructure developments serve dual civilian and military purposes. “When we strengthen a bridge to handle heavier vehicles, that’s not just for commercial transport—it’s ensuring our military can move heavy equipment when needed,” Blair explained during parliamentary discussions on defense policy. “This dual-purpose approach maximizes every dollar while enhancing both our economic and security capabilities.”
NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has acknowledged the merit in Canada’s argument but maintains that the alliance’s primary metric remains direct military spending. “While resilient infrastructure undoubtedly contributes to collective security, we must ensure all allies are equitably sharing the burden of conventional defense capabilities,” Stoltenberg noted during a press conference following bilateral talks with Canadian officials.
Military analysts point out that this approach is not without precedent. Several NATO members, including Norway and Iceland, have previously incorporated civilian-military dual-use infrastructure into their defense accounting. Dr. Margaret Wilson, defense economics specialist at the Canadian Institute for Strategic Studies, explains: “The line between purely civilian and purely military infrastructure has always been somewhat arbitrary. What matters is whether these investments genuinely enhance defensive capabilities and operational readiness.”
The debate reflects broader questions about how modern security challenges should reshape traditional definitions of defense spending. With hybrid warfare and gray-zone operations becoming increasingly common, resilient infrastructure represents a critical component of national security that traditional accounting methods may undervalue.
Critics, however, argue that Canada’s position is merely creative accounting to avoid politically difficult decisions about military funding. Opposition defense critic James Harrison has called the approach “an elaborate shell game” and insists that “proper military funding cannot be substituted with roads and bridges, no matter how strategic their location.”
International security experts note that Canada’s vast geography presents unique defense challenges that may justify this alternative approach. “Defending Canadian sovereignty, particularly in the increasingly contested Arctic, requires different capabilities than those needed by European allies facing more conventional threats,” says Dr. Elena Kowalski, professor of international relations at the University of Toronto. “Infrastructure that enables rapid deployment across enormous distances may indeed be more valuable to Canadian security than additional weapon systems.”
As NATO continues to evolve in response to changing global threats, the debate over what constitutes legitimate defense spending will likely intensify. For Canada, the challenge remains balancing fiscal priorities with alliance commitments in a way that meaningfully contributes to collective security while addressing its unique geographic and strategic realities.
As this discussion unfolds in the coming months, a fundamental question emerges: In an era of multifaceted threats ranging from climate change to cyber warfare, should we reconsider how we define and measure national contributions to collective defense beyond traditional military metrics?
