By: Phone Min Thant, Arts & Culture Editor
On June 25, fresh from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that Canada would fulfill its commitments to the alliance’s new defence budget of 5% of annual national GDP by 2035. This was more than double the increase from the previous commitment of 2%, a target set in 2014. Canada’s defence spending has since reached 1.45%, and is expected to increase. Carney commented that the increased spending will be allocated to acquiring new equipment, diversifying Canada’s alliances, and improving pay for Canadian soldiers. Remarks by Carney and his foreign affairs minister, Anita Anand, reveal a vague yet determined drive towards an increasingly militarized Canada.
While the government frames this as a necessary commitment to global security, the proposed defence spending comes at a staggering cost. Such an enormous financial commitment could limit future investment in urgent domestic needs. Instead of dedicating $150 billion annually to militarization, the federal government should invest in programs that directly improve people’s lives, including housing, healthcare, food security, and education.
Carney has already hinted that defence spending will come at the expense of government funds from other sectors of Canadian society, a view confirmed by the parliamentary budget officer. It was also speculated that it would result in tax hikes or more government debt. With the Canadian military’s financial management historically having a lot of room for improvement, these costs are only anticipated to spiral upwards. Carney also said that Canada will partially fund these costs through increased mining of minerals and development of infrastructure like ports. While no official defence policy has been published, minister Anand said her main concern is not the possibility of the spending hike but rather the timeline.
Even ignoring the huge amount of environmental degradation and social costs associated with more mineral mining in Canada, an ironic betrayal of the Liberal party’s empty environmental promises, the new defence spending remains problematic. Canadian leaders should think twice before committing the country to spending money on defence when numerous social and economic challenges sadly remain unsolved.
It is time for the government to realize that instead of funding massive and unnecessary militarization, they should choose to invest in the people.
The Canadian government can invest in initiatives that impact communities inside the country. For instance, just by extrapolating data from a BC government social housing initiative in Surrey, an affordable apartment complex around $500,000 ea — a direct reallocation of the annual defence funds to such projects could create over 300,000 such housing units across the country, notwithstanding the numerous divergences in costs across different regions. Even if it does not completely resolve the housing crisis in Canada, it will prove to be of great help to houseless communities, with amplified impacts on the economy.
Talking about the economy, the average yearly grocery costs of a family of four in Canada in 2025 is around $17,000. If redirected, the defence funds could subsidize grocery costs for over 88 million families of four for an entire year. This alone can help address Canada’s record-high levels (22.9% of all Canadian households) of household food insecurity today.
Let’s say the same money is invested in healthcare — attempting to solve Canada’s physician shortages, for instance — the same billions of dollars can fund the recruitment payments of over 10 million urban physicians and more than 4.9 million physicians in rural areas. While these numbers may seem unrealistic, given that Canada only has around 96,000 doctors across the country, a better recruitment budget can mitigate the physician shortage issue. Those funds can, instead, go towards education services, training and incentivization supporting future doctors.
The list doesn’t stop there — the costs of defence could be channelled towards mitigating many more social issues in the country: shortages of teaching staff and social workers; gaps in emergency services; unemployment benefits; education initiatives, and many more. In every case, this investment would strengthen the well-being and security of individuals — not just the state.
It is time for the government to realize that instead of funding massive and unnecessary militarization, they should choose to invest in the people.
