Will Canada's double whammy of tax cuts and defence spending hurt its AAA credit rating?
Canada currently holds some of the highest possible credit ratings among advanced economies — AAA from S&P, Aaa from Moody's and AA+ from Fitch — making it one of the best-rated bond issuers in the G7. Desjardins' report says that standing appears safe for now, despite growing fiscal pressures.
'The likely substantial increase in borrowing ahead probably doesn't mean much for the government of Canada's top-notch credit rating, at least in the near term,' it said.
A sovereign credit rating is both an absolute and a relative assessment. On an absolute basis, it reflects a sovereign country's outstanding debt and its capacity to manage it, while also taking into account the relative credit developments of other sovereign countries.
At NATO meetings at the end of June, member countries agreed to increase defence spending up to five per cent of their GDP by 2035. The spending is to be divided into core defence expenditures of 3.5 per cent and 1.5 per cent in defence-adjacent spending, according to Desjardins.
For Canada, which lags behind its fellow NATO members in spending, this is a significant increase from its current defence outlay of 1.4 per cent of GDP. It has now committed to raising that number to two per cent by the end of the 2025-26 fiscal year.
Randall Bartlett, chief economist at Desjardins, said that the spending could impact Canada's AAA credit rating.
'Canada has a lot of things going for it on the fiscal front. But over time, if our fiscal situation erodes, particularly if we can't find those savings, that does put Canada in a precarious position of potentially putting our AAA credit rating at risk,' he said.
Bartlett noted that Canada has a long way to go to close the gap with its NATO partners, and a much further way to go than most other members to meet the new requirements.
'For the amount of spending that requires, the share of GDP is going to be a lot higher in Canada than it is in other countries, and that's certainly going to increase the debt burden of the federal government,' he said.
According to IMF forecasts cited in the report, Canada's gross general government debt as a share of GDP would need to be about seven per cent higher if defence expenditure is to reach 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2030. This is assuming no new spending and/or revenue cuts are introduced in other sectors to offset military spending.
Bartlett reiterated that, in the near-term, Canada's rating is safe due to its strong fiscal positioning. However, he emphasized that the debt to GDP ratio will move higher.
The new NATO defence spending framework could prove to be an issue for countries like Canada who have committed to meeting the targets and might find it hard to live up to that commitment, Bartlett said.
He also raised concerns regarding Canada's fiscal path moving forward, citing the lack of information from the government.
'I think the fiscal path in Canada is certainly headed in the wrong direction at this point. Not only is spending higher, but the federal government has decided to cut taxes at the same time. That could put us in a very challenging situation in the future, which would potentially require deeper savings through spending cuts and lead to some very difficult choices,' Bartlett said.
Michael Wernick: Canada needs a Defence and Security Tax to meet its new NATO commitments head on
Expect higher deficits to meet Canada's 5% NATO defence spending target
He further emphasized that the lack of a fiscal plan is a major concern, especially considering the dynamics of the global economy.
'I think it is deeply concerning, because not only does our forecast and those of others show that the GDP ratio is rising consistently over time, but it speaks to a lack of transparency in financial reporting (from the government)' he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kyle Connor's Impending Payday Set To Challenge Jets' Financial Philosophy
The Winnipeg Jets have done a terrific job of building a core that has happily accepted less money than they could get on the open market. Whether it's superstar goalie Connor Hellebuyck, star center Mark Scheifele or star defenseman Josh Morrissey, Winnipeg's top players have chosen to stay in Winnipeg for considerably less money than other teams would've gladly paid them. However, there's a situation on the horizon that could upset the apple cart when it comes to the Jets' financial food chain. And it all has to do with star left winger Kyle Connor. For the past six seasons, the 28-year-old Connor has earned $7.14 million. And in return for that money, Connor has thrived on offense. In five of the NHL's last five full seasons, Connor has never produced fewer than 31 goals. And this past season, Connor posted 41 goals and set new career-highs in assists (56) and points (97). You really couldn't ask for more from Connor, who was named to the NHL's First All-Star Team for his efforts. But here's the issue: Connor will be a UFA at the end of the coming season, and if he does get to the open market, teams will be lining up to pay him at least $10-million per season, if not much more than that. And if Winnipeg intends on keeping Connor for the long haul, they're going to have to make Connor the big dog in terms of the salary structure for the Jets. Right now, no Jets player makes more than the $8.5 million Scheifele and Hellebuyck make. Even a top talent like Morrissey only makes $6.25-million per season, while veteran D-man Neal Pionk earns $7-million per year. And young winger Gabe Vilardi just signed an extension that will pay him an average annual amount of $7.5 million. So, with the salary cap rising to $95.5 million next season, do the Jets really want to play with fire and try to shortchange Connor on his next contract? Even limiting Connor to $8.5-million per year on an eight-year extension would represent a huge discount Connor would be giving to Winnipeg. Connor is in his prime, and he has a degree of leverage right now that he may never have again. Why would he accept a hometown discount of sorts when he and his agent are fully aware he could be earning at least $1-$2-million more per year? The answer is clear: he's not going to accept a hometown discount. Indeed, spread out over an eight-year deal, Connor would be leaving $16 million or more on the table to stay in Winnipeg by taking an $8.5-million AAV deal. We can understand why Jets GM Kevin Cheveldayoff would try his best to keep Connor's pay raise to a minimum, but he'd be running the risk of alienating a cornerstone player at a time when he could easily accommodate a $10-million-per-season payday for a star forward who can't be replaced in free agency or through trades. On the other hand, Cheveldayoff doesn't want to insult Scheifele, Hellebuyck and Morrissey by backing up the money truck for Connor when Cheveldayoff didn't do the same for those veterans. It's all an extremely delicate balance for Jets management, and it could wind up reshaping the Jets' roster. Only six NHL players had more goals than Connor had this past year, and only six players in the league had more points last season than Connor had. He's been a consistent menace with the puck and a savvy playmaker, and he deserves to have a significant raise. If Cheveldayoff can convince Connor to take, say, $9-$9.5 million on an extension, it will be a clear victory for the Jets, and it won't cause much, if any, friction with Winnipeg's other top stars. But there's no guarantee Connor will accept such a deal. In any case, Connor's next payday will likely reset the financial bar for Jets players. At a time when the business of the league is thriving, Connor should reap the benefits of it. And if and when Connor agrees to a new deal, Winnipeg's salary structure almost certainly is going to be significantly altered as a new financial era begins for the organization. Get the latest news and trending stories by following The Hockey News on Google News and by subscribing to The Hockey News newsletter here. And share your thoughts by commenting below the article on

CNBC
13 minutes ago
- CNBC
Why a great company's beat and raise was sold, and what I plan to do with the stock
When is a beat and raise not a beat and raise? That's a question that has frustrated us this earnings season. Case in point: How about Honeywell 's beat and raise last week? Here's a conglomerate splitting into three different companies, which also has a quantum computing business that's probably more advanced than any of the publicly traded quantum entities. Honeywell has an amazing aerospace business that handles the cockpit for most commercial airlines and a host of other accoutrements, including propulsion. It will very much participate in the aerospace boom and is only being held back by how many planes Boeing is allowed to make each month. That number will be going up soon. The automation business is about, among other things, industrial cybersecurity, smart grid, and regulated energy. There are underperforming divisions that if they are not fixed will be sold. The chemicals and materials businesses, including sustainable refrigerants, chemicals needed to make semiconductors and materials for carbon capture. Boring stuff but stuff that tends to be No. 1 in its category. The advanced materials business seems to be the legacy of Allied Chemical, which became Allied Signal, before merging with Honeywell. On last week's earnings call , management updated the timing on the breakup, saying the spinoff of advanced materials will happen in the fourth quarter. The other two are slated for the second half of 2026. At no point will these divisions be static. When there is something that can be done to make each better, it will be done, like the acquisition of Carrier 's global security business for $4.9 billion last year, a great price because Carrier needed to get to investment grade and did so by selling the division to Honeywell. Vimal Kapur, who became Honeywell's CEO in June 2023, takes after Dave Cote, the CEO before Darius Adamczyk. Cote is a legendary figure when it comes to creating value. I give you that history because Honeywell's stock, as of Friday's close, was down 0.7% year to date versus the S & P 500 's gain of 8.6% in 2025. Shares of Honeywell are trading nowhere near where they will trade as the split comes to fruition. Oddly, if it weren't breaking up, I think, at this point, it would trade higher than it does right now after that astonishing collapse last week based on, well, nothing. There was a margin issue in one division that will be fixed. There were two underperforming segments that will most likely go. There will be three companies that will either stand on their own or be bought by private equity, although the scarcity in aerospace company coupled with a pro-merger Federal Trade Commission will probably make that company a takeover target almost immediately. HON 1M mountain Honeywell 1-month performance While I have no idea why Honeywell's stock really collapsed, I can take the conspiratorial view, that some of the hedge funds who were short Kohl's decided to blow me up using a complex method of call buying and shorting. I know it seems phantasmagorical. But, when I started my Charitable Trust, whose holdings make up the CNBC Investing Club portfolio, I played open-handed and took fire quite often — even dealing with some who hinted that's exactly what they were doing. That's a dangerous game. I know what I am doing. I make mistakes, but a company like Honeywell — and Dover and DuPont , for that matter — are not among them. The Club owns all three. Another possible reason: Honeywell's structure could be too hard to understand. There are a huge number of divisions within divisions. You could ChatGPT these all day long and not figure out how they come together. But that's OK. That's what is being rectified by the planned split. But all of them are part of the reshoring and the reindustrialization of America. When you hear President Donald Trump getting $550 billion from the Japanese, Honeywell will get its share, whether it is from plane orders, or industrial buildings, or the myriad chemicals it takes to make things safely. Honeywell's split could be too far off. We call it spin purgatory , a period where nothing happens other than the back off separation of the divisions. Like with Honeywell, we're seeing that happen in DuPont, too, which trades like death. So, did Kenvue , when Johnson & Johnson spun it off. There's all of this red tape about new boards and new procedures that aren't everyday occurrences. No one can explain the length of time it takes. But it takes time and people aren't patient. They really want to wait until they see the whites of their separation eyes. It could also be the lack of real data center exposure. The only industrials that are working are the ones with data center exposure. While building automation within Honeywell has some, it is obviously not enough. What's my conviction based on then? How can I believe in Honeywell's stock, which does a beat and raise and it gets clobbered anyway; or that it has had a previous ones that were also poorly received, too? I give you a few reasons. First, discouragement is not a good quality to base an investment decision on. That's what I did with Emerson . It had two shortfalls, and I decided that its reorganization based around electrification wasn't going to work. I bolted after the second one. My total bad. They got it together even after a hostile bid that they won, and this very difficult to understand ugly duckling became a swan. I felt the same way with Oracle . The company had made a somewhat dispiriting acquisition of medical records company Cerner, and I had no idea what the hell that was about. Then it decided to get into data centers. Not once, but twice, they disappointed in their data center goal. I was livid. So, I kicked it out. It then ran higher. I had isolated two fantastic stock ideas. And, just when they got hammered a second time, I fled, right before they were recognized as great situations by everyone. I can't let that happen again. Curiously, the pain was the greatest after that second miss, when people were truly fed up. This one is the worst and, yet, I would argue it wasn't as bad a miss, if it were a miss at all. Second, people don't believe that Kapur can actually improve each of the three companies that are developing. They fear lost focus. They fear economic cycles. They fear that he is in the "wrong" industries even as private equity firms are routinely in the wrong industries, yet they are fine. Kapur knows how to multitask. Three, there is tremendous fright here in the way Honeywell stock trades, The moves are particularly vicious. They are from peak to trough, tremendously ugly, devoid of any support whatsoever. I wish I had an answer to this one. All I can say is that the decline has to be bought because the overreaction is ridiculous. I know when a stock is down nearly 14 points on a given day, as it was after Thursday's earnings print, it is typically not done going down. The selling from the previous day tends not to be finished. Too many sellers. And, that's what happened. Friday's opening hours were hideous as the sellers from Thursday finished. The stock market typically gives you clues about what a stock will do. When I find a stock breaking down as much as Honeywell, I know the queue to get out is a deep one and the process, if heavy institutional selling, means that a broker usually buys stock to work it by finding clients. If they can't be found you get what you got Thursday and Friday, the brokers just throw out what's left. Hence the Day 2 ugliness. Barring some craziness from the president, Honeywell is recharged and ready to go because, you see, it was a beat and raise. It was real — as will the next move. Bottom line So, what am I doing? Standing pat initially, waiting for my restrictions to run out. Remember, when I mention a stock on television, the Club must wait three days to trade it. Then, I am going to buy some because I am being given a chance to do so, like I did with Oracle and Emerson, and I didn't take them. Were they unique? Who knows? I do know this. I had done the work. I had conviction. Out of pique and frustration, I gave up. I am doing the opposite this time. (See here for a full list of the stocks in Jim Cramer's Charitable Trust.) As a subscriber to the CNBC Investing Club with Jim Cramer, you will receive a trade alert before Jim makes a trade. Jim waits 45 minutes after sending a trade alert before buying or selling a stock in his charitable trust's portfolio. If Jim has talked about a stock on CNBC TV, he waits 72 hours after issuing the trade alert before executing the trade. THE ABOVE INVESTING CLUB INFORMATION IS SUBJECT TO OUR TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND PRIVACY POLICY , TOGETHER WITH OUR DISCLAIMER . NO FIDUCIARY OBLIGATION OR DUTY EXISTS, OR IS CREATED, BY VIRTUE OF YOUR RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTING CLUB. NO SPECIFIC OUTCOME OR PROFIT IS GUARANTEED.


Bloomberg
13 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Futures Climb After Trump Agrees EU Tariff Deal: Markets Wrap
US equity futures climbed after the US and European Union struck a deal that will see the bloc face 15% tariffs on most exports, averting a potentially damaging trade war. S&P 500 contracts rose 0.4% after the index notched its fifth-straight all-time high on Friday. Asian equity futures were muted as investors braced for a busy week of data including a Federal Reserve meeting and the Aug. 1 deadline for American trade pacts. The euro was slightly higher against the dollar.