The federal budget was released in early November — and it left a lot to be desired. As detailed in our reaction, it falls short of what Canadians and the environment need. We called on the federal government to fund real solutions that address the challenging realities Canadians are facing — lack of affordability, increasing rates of unemployment and a convergence of climate, biodiversity and toxic crises that threaten the ecological foundations of what humans and other species need to survive and thrive.
The federal budget fails to meet the moment and prioritize funding for the programs and services that are most needed to support the health and wellbeing of Canadians and the environment.
As Director of Law Reform, Muhannad Malas noted, “Public programs and funding that protect human health, ecosystems and societal wellbeing are not ‘nice to haves’; they are the essential building blocks to a strong and resilient domestic economy.”
Unfortunately, those essential building blocks are not prioritized under this budget. Rather, significant funds are being directed to further resource extraction, defense, policing and what this government is framing as “productivity and competitiveness”. At the same time, we are seeing cuts to departments and programs that protect the environment, ensure justice and serve those that have been most impacted by the current linear, extractive economy, including Indigenous Peoples.
Carney has stated that Canadians will have to make sacrifices under this budget. But who and what is being sacrificed, and who stands to benefit? Significant funds are being provided to support extractive and polluting industries, increase militarization and policing, and attract wealthy private investors. While the budget frames these as investments that will benefit all Canadians and ensure our country’s prosperity, there is no evidence that benefits will actually trickle down to the average Canadian and lead to a healthier and more prosperous future. To the contrary, this budget risks further entrenching existing inequities and ecological destruction.
Another path forward: Wellbeing Economies
There is another way. As discussed in an earlier blog in this series, governments around the world are starting to do things differently. Instead of being beholden to the idea that a strong economy is one based on resource extraction, defence and a hyper-fixation on growth and gross domestic product (GDP), they are creating economies and budgets that are designed to support the health and wellbeing of their citizens and the environment. This means building budgets and economies that ensure the social foundations of a healthy and prosperous life are met while staying within the limits of what the earth can provide and doing so in an equitable and just manner.
We can look to examples in Wales, New Zealand, and even more locally in Nanaimo and the Nisga’a Lisims Government, where quality of life and wellbeing are being centred in budgeting and decision-making.
The federal government has also taken meaningful steps to advance this approach. Most recently, it established a Cabinet Committee on Quality of Life and Well-being, although how the Committee will advance its mandate remains unclear. There is also the Quality of Life Framework, which was established in 2019. The Framework includes a host of indicators that are reflective of wellbeing objectives along various social, health, ecological and economic dimensions. So far, however, these wellbeing indicators have not been fulsomely integrated into government budgeting and decision-making. The recent federal budget is a case in point.
While the federal budget does provide a simple analysis of the quality of life impacts of the budget, the analysis is quite deficient, with claims made about how the budget will advance various quality of life indicators without sufficient evidence in support. For example, in the budget, the federal government concludes that funding the Major Projects Office will benefit all Canadians and contributes to long-term prosperity without providing any evidence to back up that claim. To the contrary, we view the Major Projects Office and the pro-development approach taken by this government under the Building Canada Act to be harmful to all people living in Canada and our long-term prosperity. This highlights the need for an independent body to provide advice and oversight to ensure Canada’s budgets actually advances wellbeing objectives.
Moving forward, there is an opportunity for governments — at all levels — to fully integrate wellbeing objectives and indicators into budgeting and decision-making and demonstrate to its citizens how the budget will meaningfully advance those objectives, by prioritizing funding for institutions, programs and services that actually support the health and wellbeing of people and planet.
A key path forward would be for Canada to enact a Canadian Quality of Life and Wellbeing Act, which places obligations on all government departments to meaningfully incorporate wellbeing objectives into their plans, policies and decision-making. This obligation would go beyond simply taking wellbeing objectives and indicators into account; there would be a legal requirement to demonstrate how every department is actually advancing these objectives. The Act would also establish an institutional structure — a Quality of Life and Wellbeing Commissioner — to provide advice and oversight to ensure government departments are complying with their wellbeing obligations, including in the development of the federal budget. Our recommendations with respect to advancing a wellbeing economy align with what has been put forward by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternative in the Alternative Federal Budget.
So, while we are disheartened with the 2025 federal budget, we see a path forward. A wellbeing budget and economy can help us build a future where the health and wellbeing of all people living in Canada — and the environment — are truly prioritized.
