Peace

asdfadsfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

asdfasdfadsf

O Canada: armed & ready leaflet

Condensed and printer-friendly version of the items on this website. Download the PDF

Alternative Service

A project of the Mennonite Heritage Centre of Mennonite Church Canada. Uses historical sources to tell the story of conscientious objectors who did alternative service during World War II. Read more...

Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT)

A Canadian network of individuals and which gathers information and conducts research on various international efforts by NGOs, governments and businesses to promote the economic conversion of military industries, bases and other facilities to civilian alternatives. Read more...

Conscience Canada

Advocates for legislation that will enable Canadians to divert the military portion of their income tax to peaceful purposes. Read more...

Peace Ministries Program, MCC Canada

A program of Mennonite Central Committee Canada that provides a wide range of resources on Christian peacemaking. Read more...

The Polaris Institute

A citizen advocacy group addressing issues of social change, including militarism, water privatization, and biotechnology. Read more...

Project Ploughshares

An organization of the Canadian Council of Churches engaged in research and advocacy on peace and disarmament. Also a leading authority on the Canadian arms industry. Read more...

1. Learn about the realities of militarism in Canada. See Resources section. Engage friends, family, and co-workers in dialogue on this topic. Raise this topic in your church context.

2. Find out about military recruitment at your local high school or at places where youth gather. What are young people being told? Encourage people young and old to discuss these issues and think about their responses.

3. Learn about military industry in your community. What is being produced, where is it going, and what is it being used for? Contact the companies involved in military production and let them know your concerns.

4. Learn about conscientious objection and about Canadians who have declared themselves as conscientious objectors. Join MCCC’s Conscientious Objector Registry by making a written statement on your views on war.

5. Write the Prime Minister and your Member of Parliament, urging Canada to advance global security through non-military means such as dialogue and diplomacy, increased foreign aid, just trade relationships, and adherence to international law.

6. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper calling for non-military approaches to the problem of insecurity in Canada and the world.

7. Support the work of Project Ploughshares through prayer, advocacy and donations. Join its efforts to bring about tighter restrictions on Canadian military exports, and to build support for an international arms trade treaty to control gun violence and the illicit arms trade.

8. Plan a form of public witness such as a prayer service or vigil to draw attention to the costs of war.

9. Consider withholding the military portion of your income tax and filing it with Conscience Canada’s peace trust fund. Join Conscience Canada’s efforts to press the government for legal means to designate income taxes for peaceful purposes.

10. Join the War Resisters Support Campaign in providing moral, legal and financial support to American war resisters who are in Canada because of their resistance to U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

11. Examine your personal or family investments to determine whether you are investing in companies involved in military production or training. Consider investing in funds which place screens on military industry.

12. Support initiatives aimed at bringing socially responsible investment screens to the Canadian Pension Plan.

13. Find out about peace groups in your area and get involved!

How do Canadian Christians – especially those in the peace church tradition – respond to the increasing militarism in Canada? What theological insights do we bring to our reflection and discernment? What does scripture say about the pursuit of peace and security?

The prophet Isaiah notes that security is the result of people practicing justice and righteousness. “Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust for ever.” (Isaiah 32:16-18). Security is not to be found through warfare or military might but through right relationships.

The Psalms call on God’s people to trust in God rather than weapons of war. Psalm 33:16-17 reads: “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.” Psalm 37:3 says, “Trust in the Lord and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.” Trusting in military might to provide security is a form of idolatry.

Jesus taught his followers to love their enemies, and to pray for those who were bent on harming him. (Matthew 5:43-48). Jesus practiced this ethic of love as well (1 Peter 2:21-23), even at the point of crucifixion, torture and death. Loving enemies seems incompatible with waging war against them.

Paul wrote that evil is overcome not through vengeance or violence, but is overcome by goodness and kindness. (Romans 12:14-21). He says our response to enemies should be to offer them food, drink, and find ways to meet their needs. In doing so, he echoes the words of the wisdom tradition (Proverbs 25:21-22).

Does the biblical call to love enemies apply only to individual Christians or to governments as well? Some, quoting Romans 13:1-7, would say that God intends nations to suppress evil, using lethal force if necessary. While Romans 13 speaks of an ordering function of government, its focus on punishing the wrongdoer seems to suggest a policing role and judicial processes. This text should not be used as a blanket authorization for war.

Rather, God’s vision for creation is that nations will also love their enemies. As Isaiah suggests, “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4, see also Micah 4:3).

"We live in an interdependent world, and part of the task of the church is to 
help us understand that invulnerability is not an option. Our well-being depends
on others, as well as ourselves. We can’t isolate ourselves within an armed 
fortress; instead we have to be active participants in transforming the world 
into a place where interdependence is not regarded as a threat but as the 
fundamental ingredient of community."

- Ernie Regehr

The issues identified above illustrate the ways in which Canada is increasingly choosing military responses to the problem of insecurity in the world. Armed responses such as peacekeeping may reduce violence and prevent further suffering, at least in the short term. At times, armed force may be helpful in providing protection to vulnerable populations as, for instance, in Sudan, Uganda or Lebanon.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that a disturbing paradigm shift may be underway in Canada's defence and security policy. Some signs of such a shift are:

• A preoccupation with responding to terrorist acts rather than understanding and acting on the deeper causes that push people to embrace terrorism or extremism
• A dehumanization of those who are considered the enemy.¹
• Acceptance of the idea that the violence of terrorism must be dealt with by the greater violence of military might
• More use of "national security" and "national interests" language, as opposed to the language of "human security" and "common security" advanced in the past decade.2

                       o Human security assumes that security is more about people
                         than about states. It measures the existence of security in
                         terms of the availability of food and water, access to education
                         and healthcare, clean air, personal safety, freedom of
                         expression, and political inclusion.

                      o Common security calls for policies that advance the security
                         of all countries and all peoples, not one nation’s security at the
                         expense of the security of others.

Canadians should consider what this new paradigm means. How do we understand insecurity and security? What are helpful ways of responding to terrorism? What is an appropriate role for Canada’s military forces? What do we have to say about the “new militarism” in Canada?

"In the final analysis, human security is a child who did not die, a disease 
that did not spread,a job that was not cut, an ethnic tension that did not 
explode in violence, a dissident who was not silenced. Human security is not 
a concern with weapons--it is a concern with human life and dignity."

- UN Human Development Report 1994

¹In July 2005, Canada's chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier, described the Taliban in Afghanistan in the following way, "These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." Quoted in Justin Podur and Sonali Kolhatkar, "Detestable Murderers and Scumbags: Making Sense of Canada's Deployment in Afghanistan," Briarpatch, 5 December 2005, http://briarpatchmagazine.com/news/?p=50.

²In spring 2006, Project Ploughshares intimated that some of the government's policies, including the combat and counter-insurgency effort in Afghanistan, were not in keeping with the human security framework. John Siebert, "Canada Under a New Government," Ploughshares Monitor, Spring 2006 (Vol. 27:1). http://www.ploughshares.ca/libraries/monitor/monm06b.pdf

Millions of Canadians make compulsory contributions to the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP). A special investment board is charged with the task of investing CPP surplus funds. The federal and provincial finance ministers appoint members of the investment board and also act as stewards of the board.

With assets of over $90 billion, the CPP board controls one of the largest funds in the country.

The board’s main concern is to receive a high financial return on its investments. Because the arms industry is one of the most profitable places to invest today, CPP funds are invested in some of the world’s leading arms manufacturers. To date the board has resisted putting in place criteria that screen out military investments.

Officially, Canada did not join the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. However, Canadians have supported the war effort through CPP investments in companies like Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Electric.¹ Canadian contributions have helped these and other companies produce anti-personnel cluster bombs, incendiary bombs, field artillery weapons, cruise missiles, as well as parts for fighter and bomber aircraft, warships, missile launchers and battle tanks. All of these weapons and delivery systems have been used in the war against Iraq.

¹For more information on CPP and military investements, see the research of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT).

The Canadian Forces currently number about 60,000 individuals in the Regular (full-time) service and 20,000 in the Reserves (part-time). The Canadian government is eager to increase the amount of Regulars to 75,000 and Reserves to 30,000 through a concerted recruiting campaign.

One part of this recruiting campaign geared towards young people is the Co-op Army Reserve Program. Under this program, high school students in participating schools may gain academic credit by doing basic training during the school year and summer months. Like all applicants to the Forces, participants need to be 17, have a minimum of grade 10 education, and pass medical, fitness and aptitude tests. Once they pass the basic training, they can sign on as full-fledged members of the Army Reserve.

Unlike other academic programs, the Co-op Army Reserve Program pays students who participate. Because of the financial incentives, poorer students are more likely to look to military options for their future.

Some people argue that the Co-op Army Reserve Program is an important way of teaching responsibility and respect for authority. Critics say that it contributes to the militarization of society.

"Armies are there to kill people at the behest of the state, that is the
brutal reality."

- David Bercuson, military historian, University of Calgary

A little known fact is that Canada is a major producer of military equipment. In fact, as the table below shows, Canada ranks higher than China, a country often cited as a major weapons supplier.

Table: Largest global arms exporters 2004 ¹

The top five Canadian companies producing military equipment in 2005 were the following:²

• CAE Inc., Montreal — military simulation equipment
• General Dynamics Land Systems Canada, London — armoured vehicles
• SNC Lavelin, Montreal — munitions
• General Dynamics Canada, Ottawa — electronics, systems integration
• Standard Aero, Winnipeg — aircraft engines

Canadian companies sell their goods to the Department of National Defence for use by the Canadian Forces and export them to countries around the world. The Canadian government requires licenses for all military-related exports to prevent Canadian equipment from being sent to countries in conflict or in violation of basic human rights. However, these licenses are not required for exports to the U.S. This means that Canadian weapons and weapons components bound for the U.S. may be used wherever the U.S. military is engaged. They may also be sold by the U.S. to other parties, thereby circumventing the reason for Canadian export licenses in the first place.

Besides military equipment, Canada also ranks high in the production of ammunition. According to Oxfam, Canada is the fourth-largest known exporter of ammunition for small arms. (Many countries are in the business of producing ammunition but do not report it.) Between 2002 and 2004 Canadian firms earned approximately $26 million US annually.³ Small arms kill more than 1,000 individuals around the world every day.

¹Congressional Research Service figures, as quoted in Ken Epps, "Canada ranked 6th largest weapons exporter in 2004," The Ploughshares Monitor (Autumn 2005, Volume 26:3): 12-14.

²Ken Epps, "Canada's largest military contractors 2005" Ploughshares Monitor (Summer 2007, Volume 28:2).

³Oxfam, "Ammunition: The Fuel of Conflict" (June 2006). Accessed 2 July 2006.

Contrary to popular belief, Canada spends a lot of money on its military. In 2007-88 Canada will spend $18 billion on military expenses, the highest amount since the Second World War. Canada currently ranks 13th in the world for overall military spending. As shown on the table below, Canada is 6th in the list of 26 NATO member countries.¹

Table: Defence Expenditures of NATO Countries, 2006 ²

Canada's military spending has been going up steadily since the late 1990s, with marked increases after 9/11. In 2005, the Liberal government announced that military spending would increase to $17.6 billion annually by the year 2010. In 2006 a new Conservative government announced additional and accelerated increases. So the $17.6 billion target has already been surpassed, nearly three years ahead of schedule. Analysts are predicting that total annual military spending could near $20 billion by the end of the decade.

In 2006, approximately 7.9 percent of total federal expenditures were devoted to the Department of National Defence for military purposes.³ This means that the government used approximately 7.9 percent of the income tax revenue from each tax-paying Canadian for military purposes.
Canada currently spends four times as much on defence and military purposes as it does on overseas development assistance. It is not even half-way to meeting its own commitment of 0.7 percent of GNI for international development. Moreover, while defence spending is on the increase, programs which support Canada's social safety net are being cut back.

¹Stephen Staples and Bill Robinson, "More than the Cold War: Canada's military spending 2007-08," Foreign Policy Series, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2:3 (October 2007).

²Staples and Robinson.

³Conscience Canada

From the mid-1950s till quite recently, Canada has seen itself as a peacekeeping nation. After Canadian Lester Pearson proposed United Nations peacekeeping in response to the 1956 Suez crisis, Canada has regarded its military role in the world as one of supporting such peacekeeping missions.

For many years Canada ranked within the top ten of all countries contributing troops to UN peacekeeping missions. In 1992-93, under a Conservative government, Canadian participation in UN missions accounted for more than 90 percent of what the country spent on military missions overseas.¹

However, Canada has been shifting away from this peacekeeping identity over the past decade. During the Gulf War in 1991, Canadian CF-18 fighter planes escorted U.S. jets dropping bombs on Iraq. In 1999, Canada supported a NATO-led operation against the former Yugoslavia by providing fighter jets for bombing missions. Canadian jets flew a total of 682 sorties and dropped 530 bombs. Today, Canada spends less than 3 percent of its international military operations budget on UN peacekeeping missions.²

Canada’s involvement in the “war on terror” in Afghanistan also reflects the change. Its military involvement was initially described as peacekeeping in 2001, but it shifted to combat-oriented counter-insurgency in 2006. Over 2000 Canadian soldiers are now serving in Afghanistan; half of them are engaged in combat with Taliban insurgents.

"Canada can no longer be called a committed peacekeeper, and certainly it 
is no longer the prolific peacekeeper."

- Walter Dorn, Professor of Defence Studies, Royal Military College

¹Polaris Institute, "It’s Never Enough: Canada’s Alarming Rise in Military Spending," (Ottawa: Polaris Institute, 2005), p. 2.

²"It’s Never Enough," p. 2.