We can do more than just remember. Let’s actually support those who serve.

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Richard Shimooka

Many veterans transition to civilian life feeling rudderless and alone and missing necessary support structures

Remembrance Day is the one time in the year that the lives and issues facing soldiers and veterans intrude into the public consciousness in any substantial way. Yet the image that is evoked is heavily based on the Second World War and Korean War experiences—conflicts that have directly affected a dwindling generation of individuals. Meanwhile, the lives and challenges of our current generation of soldiers and veterans are very different and not well understood.

The reality can be grim. A 2014 Statistics Canada Study showed that 48 percent of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members will experience a major mental health condition or alcoholic abuse in their lifetime. While currently serving personnel do not see an increase in suicide rates relative to the population, the suicide rate for male veterans after their release is 50 percent higher than the general population, 200 percent higher for female veterans, and 250 percent higher for male veterans under the age of 25.

These sorts of statistics, backed up by anecdotal evidence, cast a dour light on their overall military experience. I think the problem can be distilled down to a series of lies that exist at the heart of Canada’s relationship with its military members.

The government asks members of the Canadian Armed Forces for unlimited liability, and in return, CAF members trust the government to provide them with the tools to do their jobs and the policies and systems to take care of them in their most vulnerable times. This social contract is at the core of military service—and the government is essentially lying when it claims that it is upholding its side of the agreement. And due to that failure, soldiers often suffer a lifetime moral injury as a result.

First, it is fairly evident that military personnel are not being provided the resources required to carry out their jobs properly. In procurement, for example, considerations such as “social license” and “industrial and technical benefits” edge out the needs of soldiers, often leaving them with inadequate capabilities to achieve their missions. It often leaves soldiers across the CAF feeling disrespected despite their ongoing sacrifices,

But this is only one part of the issue. The CAF and Veterans Affairs Canada’s (VAC) personnel policies towards current and former military members are simply inadequate. It takes a certain type of person to join the CAF and remain in service for any length of time. In most cases, those very skills, knowledge, and work habits that are in demand within the CAF today are also highly sought after in the Canadian workforce—and often at significantly higher pay scales than what is offered within the military. CAF members are often shuttled to remote bases in places like Cold Lake, Shilo, or Oromucto, then sent on months-long deployments abroad. The continued outsourcing of key military benefits, such as housing and movement grants, and the inability to have a credible grievance mechanism, have produced a military experience that varies wildly from soldier to soldier in an already complex and stressful job.

Furthermore, spouses and families often bear the brunt of the challenging military lifestyle. Many of Canada’s bases are located far from major metropoles. Remember, with the CAF requiring more highly trained soldiers, it is likely that their spouses also have similar educational and employment skill sets—ones that cannot be met in remote military towns. While official statistics are scarce, there is some evidence suggesting that divorce rates for current and former military members are significantly higher than in the general population.

Most destructive is just how inept the government’s personnel management policies are. First, systems for overseeing current members and veterans employ antiquated data management systems, which creates barriers to accessing services.

This brings us to a broader point: the relationship between the bureaucracy and soldiers and veterans is not a harmonious one. At best it can be described as adversarial. At every step, current and former military members have to prove their eligibility for programs to skeptical public servants and/or contractors. They must become records packrats as they never know when a key piece of information will become critical to proving the validity of their claim.

The focus of the “system” seems like it is less there to assist individuals in need and more there to prevent the almost minuscule possibility that fraud may occur. This lack of trust manifests itself in so many different ways, altering health benefits for dependents, even for the widows/widowers of soldiers and veterans, cost of living rebates, and more.

Furthermore, even the programs and policy alternatives that are available are deliberately left unpublicized, perhaps in a misguided effort to keep departmental costs down. It is often through word of mouth or online communities that the existence of these policies (and how to access them) is disseminated amongst veterans or serving members. This illustrates the reality of the situation and the lie that the government is doing its best to help current and former military members. Rather, it actively works against them in some important instances.

Despite all of this, it can be surprising that so many members choose to remain in service to their country. Certainly, the higher calling that comes with public service is an important motivator: they strive hard to uphold their side of the social contract.

Another issue, though, is that there is also a “big lie” that current soldiers and veterans tell themselves to make it through: that everything is alright.

I can’t tell you how many allied personnel will rave about the relentless resourcefulness of Canadian military personnel. This is colloquially referred to as the “can-do” attitude. A culture of essentially getting things done regardless of the risk.

But there is more to it than that. Certainly, there was an element of masculinity that has inhibited soldiers from seeking help. Furthermore, the fears exist among personnel that acknowledging mental defects could impact their future service progression. The failure to repeal or mitigate Paragraph 98 (c) of the National Defence Act, which criminalizes self-harm, is one of several policies that stigmatizes those who suffer mental health episodes.

At its root, the broader CAF culture explains some of the relationship dynamics between superiors and subordinates. If soldiers are conditioned to not express how they feel, it makes it difficult for them to then turn around and be effective at dealing with the issues within their organization. We can laud the perceptive leaders who intrinsically understand the corrosive effect these issues have on their subordinates’ lives and try to rectify them, but it is a challenge for many in command positions because they have been conditioned within this culture to avoid these questions.

Moreover, there’s the pervasive reality that the CAF requires a unique culture to undertake its primary task of providing for the security and defence of Canada and its interests. As I mentioned in a previous column, the CAF’s culture is the glue that holds the force together in extremely difficult operations. Yet that focus on conformity can also result in destructive effects on some members’ psyche.

Given all of these considerations, it is not at all surprising that soldiers essentially lie to themselves about their situation in order to get through each day. Fortunately, they have a clear sense of purpose while serving their country; often, however, veterans do not. Many transition to civilian life feeling rudderless and alone, without the support structures that allowed them to operate at high levels while in the service. Even worse, some veterans are deliberately made to feel the burden of a system that was created to treat service-related injuries.

In the end, usurping these lies is not insurmountable, but it will require dedicated time, effort, and resources to overcome them. In short, robust political support across all parties has been lacking for many decades. Overhauling the relationship will have practical benefits that will go far beyond just meeting the needs of soldiers and their families. It will go a long way in addressing the retention and potentially the recruitment crisis that has deeply affected the CAF for the past decade.

But aside from that, it is just the morally right thing to do, and that really should be the guiding position for any policy in this area. Beyond just taking the time to remember their sacrifices for one day once a year, providing tangible improvements to the lives and working conditions of soldiers and veterans would be a meaningful way to thank them for their service.

Richard Shimooka is a Hub contributing writer and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute who writes on defence policy.

Related Topics:#CanadianArmedForces #CanadianVeterans #MacdonaldLaurierInstitute #RichardShimooka Soldiers

Up Next

Five Canadian premiers demand Trudeau scrap carbon tax for all provinces and not just a few

Don't Miss

Flagellantism Is the New Political Ritual

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Why the West’s separatists could be just as big a threat as Quebec’s

Business / 5 hours ago

Massive government child-care plan wreaking havoc across Ontario

Crime / 6 hours ago

Suspected ambush leaves two firefighters dead in Idaho

armed forces

Mark Carney Thinks He’s Cinderella At The Ball

Published on June 26, 2025

Todayville

Trish Wood is Critical

And we all pay when the dancing ends

How to explain Mark Carney’s obsession with Europe and his lack of attention to Canada’s economy and an actual budget?

Carney’s pirouette through NATO meetings, always in his custom-tailored navy blue power suits, carries the desperate whiff of an insecure, small-town outsider who has made it big but will always yearn for old-money credibility. Canada is too young a country, too dynamic and at times a bit too vulgar to claim equal status with Europe’s formerly magnificent and ancient cultures — now failed under the yoke of globalism.

Hysterical foreign policy, unchecked immigration, burgeoning censorship and massive income disparity have conquered much of the continent that many of us used to admire and were even somewhat intimidated by. But we’ve moved on. And yet Carney seems stuck, seeking approval and direction from modern Europe — a place where, for most countries, the glory days are long gone.

Carney’s irresponsible financial commitment to NATO is a reckless and unnecessary expenditure, given that many Canadians are hurting. But it allowed Carney to pick up another photo of himself glad-handing global elites to whom he just sold out his struggling citizens.

From the Globe and Mail

“Prime Minister Mark Carney has committed Canada to the biggest increase in military spending since the Second World War, part of a NATO pledge designed to address the threat of Russian expansionism and to keep Donald Trump from quitting the Western alliance.

Mr. Carney and the leaders of the 31 other member countries issued a joint statement Wednesday at The Hague saying they would raise defence-related spending to the equivalent of 5 per cent of their gross domestic product by 2035.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said the commitment means “European allies and Canada will do more of the heavy lifting” and take “greater responsibility for our shared security.”

For Canada, this will require spending an additional $50-billion to $90-billion a year – more than doubling the existing defence budget to between $110-billion and $150-billion by 2035, depending on how much the economy grows. This year Ottawa’s defence-related spending is due to top $62-billion.”

You’ll note that spending money we don’t have in order to keep President Trump happy is hardly an elbows up moment, especially given that the pledge followed Carney’s embarrassing interactions with Trump at the G7. I’m all for diplomacy but sick to my teeth of Carney’s two-faced approach to everything. There is no objective truth to anything our prime minister touches. Watch the first few minutes of the video below.

Part of the NATO top-up we can’t afford is more billions for Ukraine which is pretty much considered a lost cause. NATO must keep that conflict going in order to justify its existence and we will all pay dearly for it.

The portents are bad. This from the Globe:

We are poorer than we think. Canadians running their retirement numbers are shining light in the dark corners of household finances in this country. The sums leave many “anxious, fearful and sad about their finances,” according to a Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan survey recently reported in these pages.

Fifty-two per cent of us worry a lot about our personal finances. Fifty per cent feel frustrated, 47 per cent feel emotionally drained and 43 per cent feel depressed. There is not one survey indicator to suggest Canadians have made financial progress in 2025 compared with 2024.

The video below is a basic “F”- you to Canadians from a Prime Minister who smirks and roles his eyes when questioned about his inept money management.

He did spill the beans to CNN with this unsettling revelation about the staggering numbers we are talking about:

Signing on to NATO’s new defence spending target could cost the federal treasury up to $150 billion a year, Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday in advance of the Western military alliance’s annual summit.

The prime minister made the comments in an interview with CNN International.

“It is a lot of money,” Carney said.

This guy was a banker?

We are witnessing the political equivalent of a vain woman who blows her entire paycheque to look good for an aspirational event even though she can’t afford food or rent. Yes, she sparkled for a moment, but in reality her domaine is crumbling. All she has left are the photographs of her glittery night. Our Prime Minister is collecting his own album of power-proximity photos he can use to wallpaper over his failures as our economy collapses.

The glass slipper doesn’t fit.

Trish Wood is Critical is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Trish Wood is Critical

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy Trish Wood is Critical, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

armed forces

It’s not enough to just make military commitments—we must also execute them

Published on June 26, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

To reach 2 per cent of GDP this year, the federal government is committing an additional $9.3 billion towards the military budget. Moreover, to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, it’s estimated the government will need to raise yearly spending by an additional $50 billion—effectively doubling the annual defence budget from $62.7 billion to approximately $110 billion.

As part of this year’s NATO summit, Canada and its allies committed to increase annual military spending to reach 5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. While this commitment—and the government’s recent push to meet the previous spending target of 2 per cent of GDP—are important steps in fulfilling Canada’s obligations to the alliance, there are major challenges the federal government will need to overcome to execute these plans.

Since 2014, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have committed to spend at least 2 per cent of GDP (a measure of overall economic output) on national defence. Canada had long-failed to fulfill this commitment, to the ire of our allies, until the Carney government recently announced a $9.3 billion boost to defence spending (up to a total of $62.7 billion) that will get us to 2 per cent of GDP during the 2025/26 fiscal year.

However, just as Canada reached the old target, the goal posts have now moved. As part of the 2025 NATO summit, alliance members (including Canada) committed to reach an increased spending target of 5 per cent of GDP in 10 years. The new target is made up of two components: core military spending equivalent to 3.5 per cent of GDP, and another 1.5 per cent of GDP for other defence-related spending.

National defence is a core function of the federal government and the Carney government deserves credit for prioritizing its NATO commitments given that past governments of different political stripes have failed to do so. Moreover, the government is ensuring that Canada remains in step with its allies in an increasingly dangerous world.

However, there are major challenges that arise once you consider how the government will execute these commitments.

First, both the announcement that Canada will reach 2 per cent of GDP in military spending this fiscal year, and the future commitment to spend up to 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence by 2035, represent major fiscal commitments that Canada’s budget cannot simply absorb in its current state.

To reach 2 per cent of GDP this year, the federal government is committing an additional $9.3 billion towards the military budget. Moreover, to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035, it’s estimated the government will need to raise yearly spending by an additional $50 billion—effectively doubling the annual defence budget from $62.7 billion to approximately $110 billion. However, based on the last official federal fiscal update, the federal government already plans to run an annual deficit this year—meaning it spends more than it collects in revenue—numbering in the tens of billions, and will continue running large deficits for the foreseeable future.

Given this poor state of finances, the government is left with three main options to fund increased military spending: raise taxes, borrow the money, or cut spending in other areas.

The first two options are non-starters. Canadian families already struggle under a tax burden that sees them spend more on taxes than on food, shelter, and clothing combined. Moreover, raising taxes inhibits economic growth and the prosperity of Canadians by reducing the incentives to work, save, invest, or start a business.

Borrowing the money to fund this new defence spending will put future generations of Canadians in a precarious situation. When governments borrow money and accumulate debt (total federal debt is expected to reach $2.3 trillion in 2025-26), the burden of this debt falls squarely on the backs of Canadians—likely in the form of higher taxes in the future. Put differently, each dollar we borrow today must be paid back by more than a dollar in higher taxes tomorrow.

This leaves cutting spending elsewhere as the best option, but one that requires the government to substantially readjusts its priorities. The federal government devotes considerable spending towards areas that are not within its core responsibilities and which shouldn’t have federal involvement in the first place. For instance, the previous government launched three major initiatives to provide national dental care, national pharmacare and national daycare, despite the fact that all three areas fall squarely under provincial jurisdiction. Instead of continuing to fund federal overreach, the Carney government should divert spending back to the core function of national defence. Further savings can be found by reducing the number of bureaucrats, eliminating corporate welfare, dropping electric vehicle subsidies, and many other mechanisms.

There is a fourth option by which the government could fund increased defence spending, which is to increase the economic growth rate within Canada and enjoy higher overall revenues. The problem is Canada has long-suffered a weak economy that will remain stagnant unless the government fundamentally changes its approach to tax and regulatory policy.

Even if the Carney government is able to successfully adjust spending priorities to account for new military funding, there are further issues that may inhibit money from being spent effectively.

It is a well-documented problem that military spending in Canada is often poorly executed. A series of reports from the auditor general in recent years have highlighted issues with the readiness of Canada’s fighter force, delays in supplying the military with necessary materials (e.g. spare parts, uniforms, or rations), as well as delays in delivering combat and non-combat ships needed to fulfill domestic and international obligations. All three of these cases represent instances in which poor planning and issues with procurement and supply chains) are preventing government funding from translating into timely and effective military outcomes.

The Carney government has recently made major commitments to increase military funding to fulfill Canada’s NATO obligations. While this is a step in the right direction, it’s not enough to simply make the commitments, the government must execute them as well.