For years, Canada has coasted on a vague promise to meet NATO’s 2 percent of GDP defence target, more out of polite obligation than conviction. Now, in a sudden and dramatic pivot, we’ve not only pledged to meet that goal—we’ve set our sights even higher. Five percent of GDP on defence. That’s a staggering $150 billion a year. Even by Ottawa standards, that’s not pocket change.
Which brings us to the real, unavoidable question: Where do we find the money?
Let’s set aside the politics of whether we should spend that much. Assume for a moment that we are serious about national security in an increasingly unstable world. Assume that the government’s newfound clarity isn’t just rhetorical. Assume we mean it this time.
If so, we have a problem. And it’s not just the price tag—it’s the deeply ingrained Canadian habit of treating every government dollar already spent as sacred and untouchable.
Some will argue, predictably, that we simply shouldn’t try. Certain socialists see the money as better spent elsewhere, or not spent at all. Libertarians are consistent in their refusal to fund any state expansion, including a military one. But for the rest of us—for the majority who agree that we must defend ourselves and our values—the question is practical: how do we fund a new era of defence without driving the country into fiscal collapse?
The prime minister suggests “growing the economy” will pay for it. That’s a convenient answer, and a popular one among politicians. But let’s be honest: if economic growth alone could fund ballooning government budgets, someone would’ve cracked that code by now. Mulroney didn’t. Neither did Reagan.
So we come back to the uncomfortable truth: we will have to cut. And not just nibble around the edges. Not just scrap a few underused programs or trim some travel budgets. We’re talking major, structural cuts. Bureaucracy. Social programs. Entire departments, possibly.
That might sound radical. But take a step back. In 2015, Canada’s federal budget was under $300 billion. Today, it’s close to $500 billion. And can anyone honestly say the government is twice as effective or the country twice as well-run as it was a decade ago?
Much of that spending has been on things that, at best, accomplish little and, at worst, hinder prosperity. Yet even many conservatives quietly believe that the welfare state is a fragile buffer between civilization and chaos. Meanwhile, Keynesians continue to argue that almost any spending stimulates the economy, whether it’s on daycare or dubious diversity consultants.
Here’s the reality: we’ve been overspending for years, and the cracks are showing. Debt servicing alone is nearing $50 billion annually, and it’s not optional. Add $150 billion in new defence spending and you’re on the road to insolvency—unless you start making hard choices.
Cutting is not just necessary—it’s an opportunity. It’s a chance to reimagine government, to focus it on what really matters. That includes national security, yes, but also economic competitiveness, resilience, and public trust.
The PM says these investments won’t require “sacrifices.” In a strange way, he’s right—just not in the way he imagines. Because a lot of what we’d need to sacrifice isn’t helping anyone. It’s costly bureaucracy. Redundant programs. Ineffective subsidies. Sacred cows that long ago stopped delivering milk.
Of course, there’s still the risk that we’ll talk big and do little. Canada’s political class is gifted at confusing announcements with action. We could easily slip back into the old habits—smiling at summits, making grand promises, then hoping nobody checks the receipts.
But if we’re serious—and we should be—we have to make bold, deliberate choices. We need to go “where the ducks are,” as Ralph Klein once said, and that means hunting in the overgrown thickets of federal spending.
Cutting won’t be painless. But it doesn’t have to be catastrophic. In fact, done right, it could make us leaner, stronger, and better prepared for the world ahead.
We can afford to spend more on defence. But only if we admit what we can no longer afford to ignore.
