A Budget Prioritizing Infrastructure and Defense, But Leaving Many Behind
This federal budget reveals a clear set of priorities: significant investment in physical infrastructure and a significant increase in military spending.However, a closer look reveals a budget that largely overlooks the needs of vulnerable Canadians and relies on a questionable narrative around deficit spending.
The budget allocates $5 billion over three years to a new health care infrastructure fund,requiring provincial matching. This focus on ”bricks and mortar” – building hospitals, emergency rooms, and urgent care centres – is characteristic of the current governmentS approach. Critically, the budget fails to address the core challenge plaguing the healthcare system: a severe shortage of staff.While expanded facilities are welcome, they are ineffective without adequate nurses, personal support workers, and competitive wages to ensure retention.
Long-term care receives no direct funding, despite a clear need for both infrastructure and staffing. Simply building new rooms won’t solve the crisis if there aren’t enough qualified personnel to care for residents.
Beyond healthcare, the budget offers a tax cut estimated at $27 billion over five years, benefiting approximately 400,000 Canadians in the middle- and upper-income brackets. This stands in stark contrast to the lack of targeted support for households struggling with the rising costs of food and rent.
The budget’s increased deficit, largely attributed to the $60 billion in new military spending and the aforementioned tax cuts, is presented as a cause for concern. Though, past context reveals this deficit is not unprecedented. Deficits of comparable or even larger relative size were common from the 1970s through the 1990s. Moreover,the debt-to-GDP ratio remains lower than it was for much of that period,and even lower than during the peak of the pandemic.
The budget’s deficit isn’t simply a matter of spending; it reflects a transfer of wealth. The surplus created by this deficit will likely accrue to high-income earners and large, notably foreign-owned, companies benefiting from increased defence contracts.Option approaches, such as bolstering Employment Insurance, increasing low-income transfers, or raising taxes on the wealthy, were not pursued.
This budget, while appearing to prioritize tangible infrastructure and national defence, operates with a hidden cost. It risks exacerbating existing inequalities and leaves critical social needs unmet. Its fate remains uncertain,potentially triggering a federal election or necessitating a deal with another party. Regardless of the outcome, this budget represents a significant moment in Canadian political and economic history.
