Canadians have never been more gung-ho about defence spending.

According to a recent EKOS poll, 72 per cent of respondents supported the Carney government’s plan to meet the NATO target of spending the equivalent of five per cent of the country’s annual GDP on defence by 2035. That compares to 36 per cent less than a year ago in a separate Angus Reid poll.

If these targets were met today, defence spending would nearly triple. Pure defence spending would be roughly double the value of the federal health transfer.

Such a rapid change in public opinion should come as no surprise, given that the global security context continues to deteriorate and that U.S. President Donald Trump continues to fantasize about Canada becoming the 51st state.

However, what little discussion there has been regarding defence spending has been one-sided. There has been virtually no public pushback against Canada’s commitment to NATO’s astronomically high target and no robust debate about how to get there by 2035.

There should be.

It’s becoming clear as announcements trickle out that beyond shoring up sovereignty, the development of a domestic industry of arms manufacturing and military technology will be equally as important as industrial and labour policy.

However, Canadians should be cautious about marrying economic priorities with security priorities.

Instead of simply tying defence spending priorities to a percentage of GDP, Ottawa should clearly define and communicate strategic objectives, such as streamlining procurement, modernizing existing infrastructure and investing in dual-use technology and infrastructure.

 Strong regulations needed

The inevitable result of increased defence spending will be the planned development of a military-industrial complex and likely an entrenched private economic incentive to increase Canada’s market for arms, which would make supporting international conflict more politically viable, particularly if MPs have defence contractors in their ridings.

Without serious guardrails on how this emerging industry is regulated, military conflicts —with or without direct Canadian involvement — will become economic opportunities. Jobs will become dependent on doing business with governments out of step with our philosophy on human rights and international law.

We’ve heard this before.

In the lead up to the Gulf War, James Baker, then the U.S. secretary of state, made an economic argument to justify American aggression saying, “To bring [the war] down to the level of the average American citizen, let me say that means jobs.”

While uncouth, in a country with such a large private military contracting industry, it was also true. Baker was chastized for weeks. His biggest transgression? He said the quiet part out loud.

Though many Canadians are currently all-in on defence spending, likely believing that our politicians will be clear-eyed about future conflicts even in the face of economic pressure, we should think again.

Risk to other sectors

Consider dairy farmers. No matter what one may think about supply management, at less than one per cent of GDP, the power that the dairy lobby has been able to mount is unquestionable. A relatively small, organized group of farmers in a few ridings can bring politicians to their knees and change political fortunes. Just ask Maxime Bernier.

What happens when we create a more powerful and significantly larger sector of the economy — one that will be advocating something more serious than protectionism?

Defence spending, while necessary to a certain degree, is far from one of the most efficient ways to achieve overall economic growth.

The multiplier effect of defence spending pales in comparison to investments in health care, education or infrastructure — all of which will be at risk as Canada tries to reach its new, ambitious defence spending targets.

Directing so much spending to defence could also have a detrimental, unseen effect on other sectors of the economy.

Pulling researchers, engineers, workers and capital out of our already struggling technology, construction and manufacturing sectors could have serious inflationary impact. Russia’s overheating wartime economy is a cautionary tale.

There is also a growing risk of corruption and waste. The Canadian military has been notorious for its cumbersome procurement process. While the federal government has said repeatedly that improving this is a priority, defence contracts by their nature demand secrecy, meaning the sector is ripe for corruption and budget overruns.

The U.S. is no stranger to this problem. The Pentagon has been unable to pass an audit for years and billions of dollars continue to be unaccounted. It’s hardly a bastion of economic efficiency.

Counterintuitively, while Canadians have been rallying around the flag in recent months, such a drastic increase in military spending could have the opposite effect on the willingness to defend the country should, God forbid, real conflict be at our borders.

Canada needs more defence autonomy in a less reliable world

How Mark Carney is turning military spending into a force for economic renewal

Lessons from the American 1950s defence boom for Canada today

War is fought by the young, but young Canadians have shown a declining interest in the armed forces. This is of course, totally understandable because younger Canadians continue to be left behind economically.

The inevitable decrease in investment in housing, health care, education and infrastructure will almost certainly further alienate a generation that is increasingly asking themselves what there is to defend.

Still, sovereignty and security continue to be top of mind for Canadians and it’s clear that greater defence investments will be made. But serious discussions are necessary to ensure that such a drastic increase in defence spending doesn’t distort democratic decision-making or lead to unintended impacts on the economy and national unity.

Critically, this means reviewing the five-per-cent spending target. Among NATO allies, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has been a lone voice, rejecting what he calls an unreasonable target that would be incompatible with his country’s social and economic priorities.

What Canada should prioritize

Tying defence spending priorities to strategic objectives would encourage smart spending, not just more spending, and would incentivize more streamlined procurement and modernization of existing infrastructure.

Shoring up supply chains and reshoring defence manufacturing should be done in such a way as to prevent the development of a Canadian military-industrial complex.

Investments in dual-use technology and infrastructure should be prioritized, building the manufacturing capability and capacity, while limiting the economic attractiveness of conflict.

Spending should also be distributed evenly and judiciously to avoid the development of any “military metropolis” and to ensure that no region becomes economically dependent on weapons or military technology manufacturing.

More broadly, more intense scrutiny should be put on Canada’s arms-exporting policy, with stricter limitations on the countries to which we can sell. This should be of particular concern because Canada is already selling arms abroad at some of the highest levels in history, even as UN experts name Canada as a country fueling civil war abroad, via arms shipments to combatants.

Experts agree international aid has a huge impact on conflict prevention. This government seems to think that ship has sailed, but it’s not too late to ensure that we don’t self-impose economic incentives that would make conflict profitable for Canada.

It’s time for a robust debate on all these issues.