Branded cinematically as the Masters of Our Destiny budget, the Carney government's 2026 fiscal plan responds ambitiously to threats to Canadian sovereignty from the United States and an increasingly uncertain world.

But, like the government's first budget, it does too little to address the affordability pressures Canadians face right now, especially younger generations. Seventy per cent of new federal transfer spending and nearly 80 per cent of new medical spending will go to seniors, who represent one-fifth of the population.

As a result, many young people increasingly feel their destiny is slipping out of their control. Individual grit can rarely compensate for housing costs detached from earnings. Carney’s 2026 budget does little to turn this around.

By 2030/31, Ottawa plans to spend $116 billion more than it did last year. Two-thirds of that new spending can be accounted for by just three programs:

1. Interest charges on the growing debt (up $32 billion)
2. Old Age Security subsidies ($27 billion)
3. National defence ($16 billion).   

Plus, Carney’s Productivity Mega Deduction to attract corporate investments forgoes $9.3 billion in revenue.

Compared to those four investments, all other budget increases are small. Housing is up by $3.7 billion, childcare by $0.9 billion. There are no noteworthy changes in funding for postsecondary and youth employment. Employment insurance will receive $6.2 billion, and the Canada Child Benefit subsidy will gain $5.6 billion.

The projected federal deficit at the end of the decade will be $52.9 billion. It is entirely accounted for by growth in OAS spending since 2014, when the Trudeau government reversed PM Harper's plan to raise eligibility to age 67 to contain costs. So while OAS growth fuels rising debt charges, these charges are the only Budget 2026 line increasing more than OAS itself.

Given these budget priorities, it’s no wonder that youth-led movements are gaining momentum.

Ontario students held a province-wide strike earlier this week, echoing large youth-led protests in Serbia, France, Italy, Spain, and India. Young people increasingly question whether the institutions they inherit can still deliver the opportunities and economic security previous generations enjoyed.

Pollster David Coletto and columnist Max Fawcett highlighted the trend this week. Their analyses suggest traditional left-right divisions matter less, as concern grows that governments work harder to protect the assets previous generations accumulated than to help younger people have similar opportunities.

The young and frustrated are not gathering around any single ideology. They seem more skeptical of whoever is currently in charge, as recent events in British Columbia reveal. Vancouver voters replaced a centre-right mayor with candidates associated with Green and democratic socialist politics. Days later, in the provincial election, they shifted support from the governing NDP toward a nascent Conservative alternative. The common thread was a desire for change from voters, young and old alike, increasingly convinced the status quo cannot deliver the standard of living on which previous generations banked.

This has important implications for PM Carney. As younger Canadians lose faith in today's institutions, his government must show it can fix them. Or he risks young people’s frustration with democracy, and possibly an electoral reckoning as parents watch their children shut out economically.

On this front, Budget 2026 scored an own goal, because it did not modernize the federal government's largest expenditure. At $110 billion by 2030/31, OAS consumes over one in every six tax dollars.

Rapid OAS growth might be defensible if it eliminated seniors' poverty. It doesn't. 400,000 seniors remain below Canada's official poverty measure, even as Ottawa directs over $17 billion annually to retirees with household incomes above $100,000. Unlike the Canada Pension Plan, recipients did not fully pre-fund OAS benefits, leaving younger taxpayers to backstop the bill.

Most Canadians now question this design. Three-quarters of Canadians, including three-quarters of seniors, support phasing out OAS faster once household incomes exceed $100,000 so the savings can be used to eliminate seniors' poverty and improve affordability for younger and working age Canadians.

That approach would strengthen, not divide, generations. Most Canadians agree it is hard to justify spending billions on subsidies for retirees with secure six-figure incomes - most of whom own their homes outright - while Ottawa invests comparatively little in affordable housing, postsecondary education, childcare, and youth employment.

The challenge facing Canada is to design an affordability plan that prioritizes need more than age. Budget 2026 falls short on that test.

If political leaders refuse to fix flaws in their largest spending commitment, they should not be surprised when more voters look elsewhere for answers. The warning signs are already visible abroad, and increasingly visible here at home. Rebuilding hope must become a project in the national interest.