Canada's defense spending commitment presents unsavory choices
Higher defense expenditure could increase deficit
Could force major spending cuts across programs
Raising taxes to fund defense could prove unpopular
By Promit Mukherjee
OTTAWA, July 12 (Reuters) -Canada's promise this week to increase defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2032 was welcome news to the country's NATO allies, but meeting that commitment could push Canada deeper into deficit or force major cuts in spending, economists said.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed Canada to the timeline to meet the 2% target after coming under mounting pressure from the United States and other NATO powers, including sharp criticism from some prominent U.S. lawmakers, to spell out its intentions.
But economists say Canada will have to make some uncomfortable choices if it is to keep its promise, even as the commitment boosts the country's standing among its allies at a time when Russia's invasion of Ukraine has put the alliance on high alert.
Canada currently spends around 1.4% of its GDP on defense.
In the nine years that Trudeau has served as prime minister, total government spending has increased by 75%, with the additional funds going primarily toward public health programs, social services and salaries of government employees.
A multibillion-dollar home-building scheme and a pharmacy care plan are expected to add pressure over the coming years.
The increase has swelled the country's deficit from C$550 million ($403.43 million) to almost C$40 billion and inflated its debt to 42% of GDP last year from 31.5% in 2014-15.
The rising debt could bring Canada close to breaching its own fiscal anchors, recently adopted to stop government debt from ballooning further.
"If it had to do it today, it is quite difficult in terms of how the government can actually manage the funding," said David Perry, a defense expert who serves as president and CEO of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
To be sure, the goal of achieving the 2% target by 2032 is too far into the future to accurately forecast the state of the government's finances, but from the perspective of 2024, there is no smooth path to follow.
Economists have said that taking on more debt or bad deficit management could hurt Canada's stellar credit ratings.
A 2% defense spending goal by 2032 would require an additional allocation of C$15 billion to C$20 billion over the next eight years, and that cannot be met by increasing taxes alone, economists said.
Canada plans to increase its spending on defense to 1.76% of GDP by 2030. Of the 32 NATO member countries, 23 are on track to meet or exceed the 2% goal this year, according to NATO's latest estimates.
"Unless you do it all in one year, you have to slowly crank up your spending," said Pedro Antunes, chief economist of the Conference Board of Canada, an independent think tank.
A gradual approach would mean taking on more debt and higher interest payments every year, which could bump Canada over its fiscal guard rails, he said, adding it could make the fiscal situation precarious from the next budget.
Increasing taxes to bump up revenues will not go down well with the electorate at a time when Trudeau's Liberal government is already showing weakness in public opinion polls, Atunes said.
Last year Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland adopted new fiscal anchors, capping the fiscal deficit at C$40.1 billion, lowering debt as a share of GDP this year and keeping the ratio declining thereafter. The aim is to keep the deficit from exceeding 1% of GDP from 2026-27.
"The federal government risks violating at least one of its fiscal anchors by increasing defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2032," said Randall Bartlett, senior director of Canadian economics with Desjardins Group.
To stay within the fiscal anchors as spending rises, Freeland earlier this year raised the amount of capital gainssubject to tax for wealthy individuals and made all capital gains realized by companies subject to tax, which was criticized by investors, economists and business owners.
Craig Alexander, president of Alexander Economic Views, an independent economic research organization, said Ottawa would have to eliminate or slash spending on some programs, such as business subsidies or the size of its federal service if it wanted to meet the 2% target
Business subsidies under Trudeau increased by 140% over the last nine years as compared with 17% over the previous nine years, John Lester, an economist with the C.D. Howe Institute, wrote in April.
Similarly, the Public Service Commission of Canada said in a report that the size of the federal work force, which gobbles up a big portion of government spending, swelled by 40% in the same period. Canada now employs more federal workers than ever before.
($1 = 1.3633 Canadian dollars)
Canada's current defense spending plan till 2030 Canada's current defense spending plan till 2030 https://reut.rs/3W38IiY
Reporting by Promit Mukherjee; Editing by Frank McGurty and Leslie Adler
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
