Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canadians will have to be prepared to make 'sacrifices,' ahead of the delivery of his first budget.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
David Moscrop is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail.
The upcoming federal budget won’t be routine. While budgets are political exercises as much as economic ones, the political exigencies of the day call for a plan to not only manage state finances and to set core policy goals, but to define the nature and purpose of the country itself. As the Trump administration continues its trade war against Canada – and the world – while we stare down threats to our sovereignty, a lingering affordability crisis and a potential recession, the Liberals must make a serious effort to answer the questions “What do we want this country to be about?” and “How do we wish to build the nation – and for whom?”
Canadians typically value the welfare state, recognizing that part of the purpose of a country ought to be mutual care. For all its faults, public health care, while not unique to Canada, is touted as a point of pride and a mark of distinction – particularly compared to the U.S. But from the 1970s onward, the welfare state in Canada atrophied. The Justin Trudeau years saw a bit of resurgence with the Canada Child Benefit, a proto-pharmacare program, the beginning of a national school food program and means-tested dental care. The programming wasn’t perfect, but the direction was, to say the least, laudable – and successful.
Andrew Coyne: The art of no deal: Canada’s only winning move is not to play
The Canada Child Benefit lifted hundreds of thousands out of poverty, for instance. And new data to be published by the National Institute on Ageing in their upcoming Ageing in Canada Survey finds a five-point improvement in the number of Canadians over 50 years of age who say they’re unable to afford dental care, dropping from 16 per cent who said they couldn’t afford to visit the dentist in 2024, to 11 per cent in 2025. And yet, 1 in 5 still self-report deprivation – which is to say, poverty. The report comes as income inequality is rising, housing affordability remains a persistent concern and food insecurity plagues the country. Existing social programs help, but they’re not enough.
For instance, John Stapleton, a social policy expert and senior fellow at the NIA, says the federal dental care program is welcome, but insufficient, even as it shapes perceptions of what’s available by way of government support.
“The cost of complex dental care is not going to be met by the federal plan,” he says. “But it helps you along the way if you think you’re being helped along the way, if you think there’s nothing versus thinking there’s something, that can really make a big difference.”
There’s a bigger difference to be made still.
Ahead of the budget, Prime Minister Mark Carney has been saying Canadians will have to make “sacrifices.” He hasn’t specified who or what will be doing the bulk of the sacrificing, but it’s a safe bet it won’t be the Canadian Armed Forces, who are set to receive a funding boost, nor will it be border security or infrastructure. Mr. Carney has, to date, conceived of nation-building as securitization, trade diversification and infrastructure development, at once programs to distance ourselves from the Americans and appease Donald Trump, from whom the government would very much like tariff relief and a stable free trade deal.
Opinion: Should Carney, the businessman, really run Canada like a business?
In early October, Mr. Carney announced that the budget would make the National School Food Program permanent, which is no small win. There are also plans to modestly build out the already-modest pharmacare program but not too much. The dental care program isn’t expected to face cuts, though neither is it expected to grow. This is all welcome news, but it’s also insufficient.
Mr. Carney and his government are under pressure to build the nation, both as a good in and of itself and as a bulwark against an unpredictable American regime. The Liberals ought to put an expansion of the welfare state, including an expansion of pharmacare, dental care and food security programming at the centre of their nation-building strategy. Reducing income and wealth inequality ought to make the list, too, including programs designed to shift business ownership and control to the workers who run them, an idea that, as far as I can tell, is nowhere near the government’s radar, but which would, to borrow a term, catalyze economic growth.
As long as Canada is forced to nation-build in the face of present and growing threats, we ought to invest in taking care of one another, a commitment that is equal parts inherently just, politically savvy and economically prudent in the long run. Healthy, safe and comfortable populations make for healthier, safer and more comfortable countries – they make for more secure countries. If Canada is indeed concerned about security, and we ought to be, our national project should begin by securing the well-being and dignity of Canadians.