I'll begin the comment by noting the following. One of the reasons Canada has weathered this economic crisis better than other countries is because in the 1990s severe cuts were brought to federal government spending. One of the results of that was that the amount of money spent on defence in Canada was reduced significantly, which allowed the government to reduce its overall debt-to-budget ratio.
That only happened because we made significant cuts in military spending. It is easy to look at other countries and the amount they spend on their military, but then you have to look at that in the context of what the effect has been on their overall budgetary situation, the fact that they didn't actually cut where necessary at the time.
In a sense, the fact that Canada chose to get its fiscal house in order in the 1990s has been a good thing. It has been a good thing for our ability to invest in the military now. We have to always keep this in context.
Similarly, I would also note that in real dollars, which is really a measure of the overall capacity that you have, Canada ranks sixth in the NATO alliance. More to the point, percentage of GDP as a measure of spending measures your relative effort compared to other allies, but an equally good measure of relative effort is how you use the forces that you have. In that respect, I think Canada has been an exemplary member of the alliance, as compared to many other members that spend far more as a percentage of GDP.
The question overall is should Canada spend more? It should, if it believes that it is necessary to meet its ambitions and to meet its security requirements. We shouldn't necessarily allow those decisions to be made based on a number that needs to be put into a much larger context.
I'm hesitant to say that we need to meet a certain percentage of GDP, and I would look much more closely at how we use those forces, and why it is that we spend the amount that we spend.