Boosting military spending while imposing restraint everywhere else could be a tough sell with the electorate, but it’s what Canada needs to navigate a more dangerous world.
Since the country started emerging from the global financial crisis, Canada’s budgets have been heavy on the ‘butter,’ and short on the ‘guns.’
Military spending as a percentage of GDP dwindled in the latter years of the Harper Government, and remained low throughout the Trudeau era, with Canada falling short of our NATO commitments even as overall federal spending surged.
This wasn’t due to any sort of impossible external constraint. Canada’s borrowing costs have remained low compared to many peer nations, our debt situation is manageable (especially if you consider our net-debt position), and even a modicum of federal spending restraint would have left room for increased defence spending.
However, then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau chose not to go in that direction, leaving it to Prime Minister Mark Carney to begin the rebuilding of the Canadian Armed Forces. Carney quickly changed course, announcing that Canada would hit the 2% NATO target this fiscal year, and that Canada would hit the 5% target (3.5% on core defence spending, 1.5% on defence-related spending) by 2035. Considering that former Prime Minister Trudeau was only willing to commit to hitting the 2% target by 2032, this represents a significant shift.
It’s also a shift that comes amid an overall posture of federal spending restraint following the profligate spending of the Trudeau years. The Prime Minister has ordered cabinet ministers to find significant savings, and he’s even using ‘austerity’ to refer to the upcoming October budget:
“It’s a budget of austerity and investment at the same time and that’s possible if you have discipline,” said Carney.
Austerity and investment may seem contradictory, but Carney has made clear he intends to reduce operational spending to make room for investment. For example, cutting the federal bureaucracy and reducing program spending while increasing investment in military procurement (purchasing more Canadian-made ships or drones) would strengthen long-term job creation and military-industrial capacity, which could lead to long-term spinoff benefits.
A tough sell, but a necessary one
When given the choice, voters tend to prioritize ‘butter’ (social programs) over ‘guns’ (military spending). Sometimes, however, a country has little choice. When spending is already elevated, citizens feel overtaxed, and countries like Russia and China pose an escalating military threat to Canada and our allies, a responsible government must simultaneously raise defence spending while imposing restraint everywhere else.
Had government spending been more restrained in years past, and had our country invested adequately in the armed forces, we wouldn’t face such difficult changes today. But that’s not what happened. Instead, Budget 2025 is likely to represent a shift to guns over butter, representing a long-overdue realignment towards the kind of seriousness Canada needs to navigate a much more dangerous world.
Spencer Fernando
Image – YouTube
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.