As Ottawa gears up to unveil its next federal budget, Canadians are once again being told to brace for a “substantial” deficit one that Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Prime Minister Mark Carney are calling a “generational investment.” But with so many of these new spending promises aimed squarely at security and policing, one can’t help but wonder: is this really an investment in Canada’s future, or a politically convenient exercise in optics?
Over the past few weeks, the Liberals have been in full pre-budget mode, rolling out measure after measure tied to “making communities safer.” This includes plans to hire 1,000 new RCMP officers and another 1,000 Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers lofty promises that were already part of their election platform. Yet, as Canada Border Services Agency parliamentary hearings revealed in September, the actual progress on these hires has been negligible. Only 66 new CBSA personnel have been brought on board, and those were funded from last year’s fall economic update, not the yet-to-be-tabled budget.
The government’s latest announcement $617.7 million over five years to boost CBSA staffing certainly sounds impressive. But hiring and training 1,000 new officers isn’t just about throwing money at the problem. It’s about finding qualified candidates, retaining them, and ensuring that our borders are not only secure but also efficient. Raising trainee pay and improving pensions are smart moves, but they also risk ballooning costs at a time when Ottawa’s fiscal room is shrinking.
The same can be said of the RCMP’s $1.8 billion boost. It doubles what the Liberals initially promised during the campaign and will increase cadet pay from $525 to $1,000 per week. The RCMP union had pushed for $1,200, citing better compensation in other forces, but the broader issue isn’t just about pay. It’s about whether the RCMP is structurally equipped to handle modern challenges like cybercrime, money laundering, and online exploitation all areas the government now says will get more funding.
At the same time, Ottawa’s legislative agenda is clearly leaning toward a “law and order” narrative. The introduction of two border security bills (C-2 and its successor, C-12) and the promise of a bail reform bill on October 23 suggest that this government wants to show toughness on crime. It’s a political sweet spot: security spending appeals to centrist and conservative voters alike, while also allowing the Liberals to claim they’re acting on national safety concerns.
But let’s be honest this security focus also plays well with our southern neighbours. The Trudeau–Carney government’s renewed emphasis on border control comes amid sensitive trade negotiations with the Trump administration. Washington has linked aspects of tariff policy to border security cooperation, and Ottawa’s moves may well be an attempt to smooth those talks.
Beyond security, a few softer measures round out the budget preview the return of the Canada Strong Pass (a feel-good tourism booster), the permanent National School Food Program, and automatic tax filing for low-income Canadians. These are all worthwhile, but they pale in scale and symbolism compared to the billions being poured into policing and enforcement.
Politically, the Liberals face an uphill battle in passing their first budget in a minority Parliament. The Bloc Québécois is demanding more money for housing and healthcare, while the NDP is calling for major worker supports and has ruled out any “austerity” measures. Meanwhile, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives are demanding tax cuts and a deficit cap of $42 billion far below the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s grim projection of $68.5 billion.
So here we are again: Ottawa talking tough on crime and security while quietly preparing Canadians for another year of red ink. The government says this is about generational investment but it’s hard to see how hiring more officers and creating new agencies will build the kind of future that truly justifies that phrase.
If anything, it feels more like a generational gamble one where political safety, not fiscal prudence or social transformation, is the real priority.
