Is the peace movement wrong?
Election 2025: Why most parties support more military spending
Good morning – here is your Saturday newsletter. This is a free article for the election. My sincere thanks to everyone who is a paid subscriber to PeaceQuest and supports peace education.
In peace,
Steve
Is it time I admit defeat, pull up my tent and go home?
For 30 years I have advocated for reductions to Canada’s military spending, and it keeps rising and rising. Now it’s reached the point where Canada is the 6th highest in actual dollars within NATO (after USA, Germany, UK, France, Poland).
Responding to expensive plans to increase military spending across Europe, the U.S. and practically everywhere else, international organizations launched their annual Global Days of Action on Military Spending (GDAMS) this week.
They are calling on governments to reduce military spending. I support that goal, and maybe you do, too. But it’s a view of military spending not shared by many in Canada.
Canadians support more military spending
A poll released last month by Nanos Research found close to seven in ten Canadians prefer increasing defence spending to reach the current two per cent NATO ally target (69%) of the GDP, followed by those who want to maintain our current level of spending at 1.4% (13%).
Only four per cent prefer to spend less than the 1.4% we currently spend. That’s so low, its close to the poll’s margin-of-error.
But the cost of hitting 2% is enormous, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. “To meet Canada’s NATO spending commitment, military expenditures need to rise to $81.9 billion by 2032-33, which is nearly double the $41 billion projected for 2024-25,” said Yves Giroux, Parliamentary Budget Officer, in October 2024.
Military spending in the election
The mainline political parties all agree on increasing military spending. Only the Greens disagree.
According to CTV’s campaign tracker, the Liberals promise to accelerate Canada’s defence spending to reach the two per cent NATO target by 2030.
The Conservatives will uphold the Liberals’ existing pledge to increase military spending to two per cent of GDP, and they’ll defund some foreign aid in order to invest in defence.
Before the election was called, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said his government would commit to meeting the two per cent target by 2032.
The Bloc Québécois wants Canada to hit the NATO goal of two per cent of GDP for military spending before the end of this decade by investing in Quebec industry.
The Greens reject NATO’s 2% GDP target.
Canada among NATO’s elite spenders
Hardly anyone knows that Canada is among NATO’s elite military spenders because lobbyists, retired generals, and politicians all focus on a different measurement: military spending as a percentage of our entire economy (or GDP).
Journalists repeat this sleight-of-hand without criticism, always focussing on when Canada’s military spending will reach the NATO prescription of 2% of GDP. (I have described how the math fails to show the real situation in earlier posts)
So it may not be surprising that public opinion and politicians support more military spending.
Should peace activists just give up?
Is it impossible to tackle the momentum to increase military spending? Of course not. In fact, there is reason to be hopeful that we can avoid costly defence spending.
Here are three ideas:
Put military spending in context of other government services. When asked to rank budget priorities, Canadians put military spending far down the list when it comes to health care, housing, and making life more affordable.
Focus on what the money will be spent on. Once people tale a close look at massively expensive projects, questions start to arise about value for money, necessity. For instance, most people support cancelling the F-35 (and buying something else).
Propose alternatives to military spending to promote peace and security. Arguably people think spending on the military promotes Canadian independence from a belligerent United States, or prevents aggression abroad through peacekeeping. But authentic peacebuilding requires diplomacy and cooperation.
Ernie Regehr and Douglas Roche summed up this last point well in the Hill Times this week.
“The call on Canada to rally around the old shibboleth ‘if you want peace, prepare for war’ is persuasive only if you ignore what contemporary war most often produces. The Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Ukraine, and Gaza tell the story. The one thing these wars have not brought is peace. In all those devastating conflicts, it is when the fighting finally stops that peace can begin to be built.”
Leave a comment to explain your answer.
Last week’s poll results
Last week I asked you to answer this question: “Do you think political parties should exclude candidates if they hold controversial views?” Most said “Yes,” (70%) while the remaining respondents were evenly divided between “No” (15%) and “Don’t know/unsure” (15%).
Did you miss last week’s newsletter?
Viewed 2.16k times
Thank you for everything you do for peace. If you support PeaceQuest’s peace education impact, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Steve
I am against spending a penny on military forces. Let's follow the example of Costa Rica and spend money instead on health, housing, education and the arts. How come you didn't list "no military budge" as a choice of your supporters? What good do you seen in military spending? Martin D.
Thanks Steve for this piece. Living back here in the U.S., questioning military spending or, for that matter, discussing foreign policy, is far more challenging than in Canada and I am indeed starting to wonder if peaceniks like myself are a dying breed. I like your approach, which is to not to approach it in the abstract but to break it down, and focus on what folks really want in terms of government services and "entitlements". I have always maintained that both Americans and Canadians would be shocked to learn just how much money is spent on the military (compared to essential services) but there is no education or media attention on military spending beyond abstract high-level percentages of the GDP or dollar figures that by themselves don't mean much to the average voter.