Isn’t this the “long-term vision” that the title of the article is asking for? Why does the Carney government need to diverge from the strategy of previous governments? I would have liked the article to be more centered around how the new budget compares with the priorities set out in the document
Mark Carney’s first budget has delivered the biggest increase in defence spending in decades, as the government seeks to rebuild the military at a time when the Prime Minister says Canada can no longer rely on the United States for protection.
The fiscal plan, tabled a week before Remembrance Day, includes $84-billion to the Department of National Defence over five years, believed to be the biggest short-term cash infusion for the military since the Korean War. The new spending will go to pay raises, precision-strike capabilities, upgrading aging infrastructure and cyberdefences, among other things.
It’s a dramatic reversal of fortune for the Canadian Armed Forces, which has been dogged for years with problems that include recruiting new members, rusting-out equipment, declining levels of combat readiness and sexual misconduct allegations that led to significant churn in top leadership.
[…]
The government’s fiscal plan said the new spending would give the Armed Forces “the tools they need to defend every square foot of our sovereign territory, from the sea floor to the Arctic to cities to cyberspace, and to protect Canadians from present and emerging threats.”
The budget earmarked new money for recruiting, training, equipment, military infrastructure and cyberdefence capabilities, as well as a stand-alone agency to handle procurement, and money to beef up Canada’s military industrial base. It also set aside $2.7-billion for three years to pay for Operation Reassurance − the Forces’ largest overseas mission − which supports deterrence measures on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank through a deployment in Latvia.
Mr. Carney, speaking to a Toronto audience Friday, pitched the defence spending as an economic play in which more of the money gets spent in Canada.
[…]
The fiscal plan only offers a 30,000-foot view on how the money will be spent – with many details still to come.
The new Department of National Defence cash was the budget’s biggest single funding for any department by cash outlay, John Fragos, spokesman for Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said.
David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute think tank, said as far as he can determine this represents the largest short-term boost in military funding since the 1950s, when Canada was fighting in the Korean War.
For instance, the year-over-year increase for the Department of National Defence between the current 2025-26 fiscal year and the year prior is about 38 per cent, he said. That pushes DND’s budget alone – not including defence-related spending in other departments – to about $48-billion this year, up from about $34.5-billion in 2024-25, Mr. Perry said.
Consistent scarcity in the military has led to a litany of problems that include delayed procurement. “We’re sailing ships 10 years or more longer than they were designed for. We’re flying fighter aircraft 15 to 20 years beyond their expected operational life,” Mr. Perry said.
In 2023, an external review warned Canada’s CF-18 fighter aircraft force was “in crisis” and suffering from low morale, high rates of departure among instructor pilots and a shortage of maintenance technicians, impairing its ability to meet defence obligations to allies.
In hearings last year, the Commons defence committee was warned by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, which represents more than 400,000 retired and active members of the Armed Forces, that while NATO countries should have more than 30 days of ammunition on hand, Canada had only enough for a few days.
2 Comments
coming from an outsider perspective:
“Back in 2024, a [defence policy update](https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/north-strong-free-2024.html) under then prime minister Justin Trudeau laid out top spending priorities, many of which will remain.”
Isn’t this the “long-term vision” that the title of the article is asking for? Why does the Carney government need to diverge from the strategy of previous governments? I would have liked the article to be more centered around how the new budget compares with the priorities set out in the document
Archived version: [https://www.proquest.com/canadiannews/docview/3269794006/8814DB140424F43PQ?sourcetype=Newspapers](https://www.proquest.com/canadiannews/docview/3269794006/8814DB140424F43PQ?sourcetype=Newspapers).
Mark Carney’s first budget has delivered the biggest increase in defence spending in decades, as the government seeks to rebuild the military at a time when the Prime Minister says Canada can no longer rely on the United States for protection.
The fiscal plan, tabled a week before Remembrance Day, includes $84-billion to the Department of National Defence over five years, believed to be the biggest short-term cash infusion for the military since the Korean War. The new spending will go to pay raises, precision-strike capabilities, upgrading aging infrastructure and cyberdefences, among other things.
It’s a dramatic reversal of fortune for the Canadian Armed Forces, which has been dogged for years with problems that include recruiting new members, rusting-out equipment, declining levels of combat readiness and sexual misconduct allegations that led to significant churn in top leadership.
[…]
The government’s fiscal plan said the new spending would give the Armed Forces “the tools they need to defend every square foot of our sovereign territory, from the sea floor to the Arctic to cities to cyberspace, and to protect Canadians from present and emerging threats.”
The budget earmarked new money for recruiting, training, equipment, military infrastructure and cyberdefence capabilities, as well as a stand-alone agency to handle procurement, and money to beef up Canada’s military industrial base. It also set aside $2.7-billion for three years to pay for Operation Reassurance − the Forces’ largest overseas mission − which supports deterrence measures on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s eastern flank through a deployment in Latvia.
Mr. Carney, speaking to a Toronto audience Friday, pitched the defence spending as an economic play in which more of the money gets spent in Canada.
[…]
The fiscal plan only offers a 30,000-foot view on how the money will be spent – with many details still to come.
The new Department of National Defence cash was the budget’s biggest single funding for any department by cash outlay, John Fragos, spokesman for Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne said.
David Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute think tank, said as far as he can determine this represents the largest short-term boost in military funding since the 1950s, when Canada was fighting in the Korean War.
For instance, the year-over-year increase for the Department of National Defence between the current 2025-26 fiscal year and the year prior is about 38 per cent, he said. That pushes DND’s budget alone – not including defence-related spending in other departments – to about $48-billion this year, up from about $34.5-billion in 2024-25, Mr. Perry said.
Consistent scarcity in the military has led to a litany of problems that include delayed procurement. “We’re sailing ships 10 years or more longer than they were designed for. We’re flying fighter aircraft 15 to 20 years beyond their expected operational life,” Mr. Perry said.
In 2023, an external review warned Canada’s CF-18 fighter aircraft force was “in crisis” and suffering from low morale, high rates of departure among instructor pilots and a shortage of maintenance technicians, impairing its ability to meet defence obligations to allies.
In hearings last year, the Commons defence committee was warned by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, which represents more than 400,000 retired and active members of the Armed Forces, that while NATO countries should have more than 30 days of ammunition on hand, Canada had only enough for a few days.