{"id":7235,"date":"2026-03-11T13:21:46","date_gmt":"2026-03-11T17:21:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.alternatives.ca\/?p=7235"},"modified":"2026-03-11T13:21:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-11T17:21:46","slug":"military-escalation-a-threat-to-our-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alternatives.ca\/en\/2026\/03\/military-escalation-a-threat-to-our-security\/","title":{"rendered":"Military escalation: a threat to our security"},"content":{"rendered":"
Several Quebec civil society organizations, including Alternatives, have co-signed this letter to denounce Canada’s forced remilitarization through the Canadian Defense Industrial Strategy. This policy, which has far-reaching consequences, was decided without democratic debate and to the detriment of many vital sectors of our society.<\/h5>\n

On February 17, Mark Carney unveiled Canada’s Defense Industrial Strategy. Although it has been criticized for its lack of clarity, based on comments and opinions reported in the media, few people are questioning the idea of adding hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax dollars to military spending. However, this eminently political direction amounts to prioritizing the war economy at the expense of other investments that are important to the Canadian people. We deplore the lack of democratic debate surrounding this direction, which has a lasting impact on the country’s social, economic, environmental, and political future.<\/p>\n

Canada has recently accelerated its military spending to meet NATO’s target of 2% of GDP and has committed to moving toward a target of 5% of GDP by 2035. Ultimately, military spending could account for one-third of the federal budget. For the year 2025-2026 alone, nearly $45 billion will be allocated to the Department of National Defense, a sum that is set to grow steadily. This level of spending alone seriously undermines our collective priorities.<\/p>\n

By way of comparison, the Department of Housing, Infrastructure, and Communities has approximately $9 billion at its disposal, the Department of the Environment has $3.1 billion, and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has $3.9 billion. A single year’s military budget would, for example, be enough to double investment in social and community housing for several years, provide massive funding for energy transition and climate adaptation, or sustainably strengthen the country’s food sovereignty.<\/p>\n

The Industrial Defense Strategy plans to create 125,000 jobs. However, research shows that investments in housing, ecological transition, health, education, and agri-food create more jobs per dollar invested across the country, while meeting basic needs and strengthening economic resilience.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the security argument used to justify this military escalation is based on false premises. Today, there are calls to break free from dependence on the United States in supply chains, even though the increase in military spending is a result of pressure from the US on NATO. NATO countries’ military spending already accounts for more than half of global military spending. However, recent history shows that the arms race exacerbates international tensions, fuels conflicts, and diverts resources that are essential to preventing the real crises of our time.<\/p>\n

Internationally, claiming to strengthen security by focusing on armament amounts to ignoring the root causes of global instability, namely wars, sanctions, and imperialist domination, which lead to the dramatic growth of social inequalities, the shameless exploitation of resources, climate change, food insecurity, poverty, and the collapse of ecosystems. Diplomacy, international cooperation, and truly fair trade\u2014which together represent a fraction of the military budget\u2014remain among the most effective tools for preventing conflict in the long term.<\/p>\n

Finally, the rapid increase in military spending is already putting downward pressure on investment in public services and normalizing a war economy discourse, while fundamental rights and democratic freedoms are being undermined. This trajectory carries major social, environmental, and political risks.<\/p>\n

The question is not whether Canada should ensure its security, but what kind of security we are talking about. Human and sustainable security is based on respect for the right to life and our basic needs, a decarbonized and resilient economy, strong local agriculture, effective public services, and active international solidarity.<\/p>\n

We are currently witnessing a huge shake-up that guarantees the military industry not only the lion’s share of federal spending, but also privileged, ongoing access to policy makers and the government apparatus, a myriad of special programs, priority in economic conversion measures to mitigate the impact of U.S. tariffs, and in workforce training. If the government were truly committed to the well-being of the population, it is in response to the climate emergency and the pressing social needs of civil society that such an all-out effort should have been deployed long ago.<\/p>\n

At a time when every public dollar counts and the population is bearing the brunt of rising living costs, making the military industry the driving force behind our economic strategy is neither obvious nor inevitable. Other choices are possible and necessary if we want to regain control of our collective future and meet the real needs of the population. It is urgent to open a public debate on this issue, which will have significant repercussions on our society!<\/p>\n

Authors*:<\/strong><\/p>\n