No. 31

May 7, 2026

Beware of Carney Government's War Preparations!
Hands Off Canadian and Quebec Pension Funds!

– Pierre Soublière –

• Unacceptable Announcement that Canada Will Host NATO's "Defence, Security and Resilience Bank"

– Christine Dandenault –

• Recruitment of Young People into Canadian Armed Forces Faces Retention Problem

– Youth for Democratic Renewal –

• Opposition to Militarization of Economy in Sudbury, Ontario

– Rob Woodhouse –

• Opposition to Militarization of Economy in Sherbrooke, Quebec

– Geneviève Royer –

• Record $2.9 Trillion Global Military Spending in 2025

Beware of Carney Government's War Preparations!
Hands Off Canadian and Quebec Pension Funds!

No to the CANSEC Arms Fair!

– Pierre Soublière –

Protest against CANSEC arms fair in Ottawa, May 28, 2025

The 2026 edition of the CANSEC arms fair in Ottawa on May 27 and 28 will take on an entirely different dimension this year in light of ongoing developments at both the national and international levels.

A major development in this regard is that the genie in the bottle, Mark Carney, has fulfilled all the wishes expressed by the organizer of the arms fair, CADSI, the main association of arms industries misleadingly referred to as the "defence" industry.

Mark Carney's new Defence Industrial Strategy includes a Defence Investment Agency aimed at meeting one of CADSI's key demands: simplifying the procurement process. The agency's CEO is Doug Guzman, a former senior executive at the Royal Bank of Canada and Goldman Sachs.

This is part of the ongoing restructuring of the state that gives a place of privilege to private interests, similar to the so-called major "national interest" projects, which allows them to bypass oversight, whether on environmental issues, human rights or others.

Under this strategy, arms manufacturers will benefit from preferential treatment, such as increasing their share of military contracts from one-third to 70 per cent. The Canadian government is also setting aside $4 billion to support small and medium enterprises linked to major arms manufacturers through the Business Development Bank of Canada. In this way, arms manufacturers are further integrated into the state apparatus and gain a privileged seat at the decision-making table, to the detriment of the public good.

With his Defence Industrial Strategy, Mark Carney plans to invest $500 billion, including $180 billion in direct investments for equipment purchases and $290 billion in capital investments tied to defence infrastructure. This infrastructure includes ports and other corridors and routes to facilitate the transport and extraction of critical minerals essential to the U.S. war machine. It also includes increased militarization of the Arctic as an integral part of NORAD and, in all likelihood, Donald Trump's Golden Dome. Furthermore, Mark Carney announced that Canada has already reached the NATO target of two per cent of GDP in military spending and has committed to reaching the five per cent target imposed by Donald Trump by 2035.

Thus, the wish of arms manufacturers to place Canada on a war footing has been fully realized. This is the desire of every arms manufacturer who, in order to prosper, promotes war, aggression and genocide, while the government gives them free rein in the name of defending "shared values" and other such nonsense.

Mark Carney's announcement that the social wealth -- which should go to workers and the people to meet society's needs for health care, education, and social programs -- will be swallowed up by military contracts has led some to demand their "share of the pie." This is the case of former Quebec premier François Legault. As for the new unelected premier, Christine Fréchette, she is of the same view. Moreover, when she was Minister of the Economy, she changed the regulations of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and other Quebec institutions -- those that prevented them from investing funds, such as workers' pension funds, in arms manufacturers that could violate human rights.

Yet another recent global development, and not the least, is characterized by the assertion of the peoples' right to be, their right to defend themselves, and their right to resist. This is a right that is not begged for but affirmed. This resistance has been expressed in Gaza under conditions of an unspeakable genocide, and it continues in Lebanon and Iran. It is thriving in Cuba and at various levels around the world. One can see, with recent victories by Iran against Israel and the United States, that the tide is beginning to turn. Resistance is confronting war criminals and enemies of humanity head-on and will deal them one crushing blow after another.

Acts of resistance in Canada and Quebec are gaining momentum. These include communities opposing the expansion of General Dynamics, of the port of Contrecoeur, and widespread opposition to the La Loutre mining project directly funded by the Pentagon. Workers are increasingly demanding that their pension funds not be used to finance the arms industry. The slogans advanced over the past two and a half years by Palestinian communities in Canada and Quebec and their allies -- "Money for health care and education, not bombs and occupation!" -- and the demand for an arms embargo on Israel are more relevant than ever in the context of a Canada and Quebec on a war footing, increasingly complicit in and appeasing the genocide and aggressions committed by Israel and the United States.

The struggles of workers and Indigenous communities who say NO to the destruction of the natural and social environment, who defend their dignity, and who demand a say over their working and living conditions are an integral part of this resistance, which ensures the security of peoples and offers them a future.

CANSEC this year will therefore take place in a context where the normalization of the worst crimes against humanity will be more rampant than ever. Government representatives will speak there as they do every year, but the fusion between them and the arms manufacturers will have reached a political dimension that goes beyond simply awarding contracts, having consolidated the grip of oligarchs over public institutions and decision-making bodies.

Opposition to CANSEC is part and parcel of a well-established movement, firmly rooted in reality -- a movement that forms the foundation of the anti-war government that the peoples of Canada and Quebec, along with Indigenous Peoples, are in the process of building to comply with international law, establish genuine diplomatic relations with countries around the world, withdraw from NATO and NORAD and make Canada and Quebec a zone for peace.

Toronto protest against CANSEC arms fair, May 28, 2025

Unacceptable Announcement that Canada Will Host NATO's "Defence, Security and Resilience Bank"

– Christine Dandenault –

Toronto teachers' protest at the Annual General Meeting of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) April 16, 2026 to demand it immediately stop investing in war crimes and genocide, and immediately stop promoting the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank (DSRB).

The Carney government announced on April 29, 2026 that multilateral negotiations in Montreal on the "Defence, Security and Resilience Bank's (DSRB) Charter" had concluded, marking the first formal step toward creating the new institution. The same announcement says participating countries "unanimously supported Canada as the host country for the DSRB's future headquarters, once the charter is ratified."

"Together, we have recognized the urgency of crafting a new multilateral institution that will leverage shared resources to support more growth for our industries than can be achieved individually. This will support member nations to be ready and able to meet today's defence challenges with speed and resilience," said the April 29 news release from the Department of Finance Canada.

The announcement was made with Minister of Finance and National Revenue François-Philippe Champagne, National Defence Minister David McGuinty and Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand attending the event and highlighting the initiative.

Not present was Isabelle Hudon, CEO of the Business Development Bank of Canada, who is Canada's lead negotiator with the other 18 countries interested in establishing the DSRB. Even though the names of those countries have not been made public, indications are that European and NATO-member countries as well as countries from the Indo-Pacific region attended the March negotiations in Montreal. Already in September 2025, representatives from 37 countries were at a high-level meeting in London, England, to advance the bank's development, where several countries indicated their intention to become founding members.

While hosting the partner countries during the negotiations in Montreal in March, the Department of Finance Canada announced that in order to advance the establishment of the DSRB, the future bank "will provide long-term, low-cost financing for defence, security, and resilience initiatives across supply chains, helping to address critical financing gaps, with benefits for member governments and defence firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises [SMEs]."[1]

Bank Answers Call of U.S.-Led NATO

The DSRB is not a new idea. It was first floated by the U.S.-based Atlantic Council (AC), an organization founded in 1961 at the height of the Cold War, in line with its Anglo-American imperialist Cold War world outlook.[2]

On December13, 2024, the AC published on its website an article by the CEO of DSR Bank Development Group Rob Murray entitled: "How a New Global Defense Bank -- the 'Defense, Security, and Resilience Bank' -- can solve U.S. and allied funding problems". [4] In it, Murray says:

"The proposed Defense, Security and Resilience bank (with a AAA credit rating) would allow many Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific allies to borrow at lower interest rates than their own cost of capital. This financial mechanism would benefit both those countries currently below the two per cent GDP target [of defence spending] and those already meeting it due to the economic activity the bank would bring about in terms of financing defense production. Beyond issuing debt through capital markets, the bank could act as the depository institution for annual monetary commitments from the allies for collective financing of institutions such as NATO."[3]

Murray explains that one of the DSRB's main objective would be to supply loans to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs):

"An additional critical function of the DSR bank would be to underwrite the risk for commercial banks, enabling them to extend financing to defence companies across the supply chain. This mechanism is essential to sustaining and expanding production capacity, particularly for small [SMEs] that are pivotal to defence manufacturing but often struggle to access capital. By guaranteeing a portion of the risk, the DSR bank would ensure that these companies can secure the financing needed to maintain operations, fulfill contracts, and invest in scaling their capabilities. This approach not only stabilizes supply chains but also reinforces the defence industrial base, ensuring production readiness and resilience during times of heightened demand or economic uncertainty."

The same author proposes that the interests generated from "seized Russian central bank funds" by European countries and others such as Canada, could be used "as paid-in capital." At the same time, he recognizes that "given the potential for significant political and diplomatic repercussions, including possible retaliatory actions by Russia, this approach demands careful consideration and consensus among the bank's prospective shareholder nations."

Financing DSRB Through Public Pension Funds

As for financing the DSRB, the Carney government has indicated at that it will at first ask for "modest equity contributions" made by member states which would be recorded as assets on national balance sheets and count toward NATO defence spending targets. Canada's lead negotiator for the DSRB, Isabelle Hudon, said that Canada's share could exceed $1 billion but is not yet finalized. Still, it is an issue for many countries to be able to finance such an undertaking.

Already at the June 2025 NATO Summit, it was recognized that "banking in particular plays a crucial role in financing the DSR sector by providing access to credit, guarantees, export finance, equity investments and general services but has not kept pace with the needs of the rapidly expanding DSR sector."[4]

Kevin Reed, president of the DSR Bank Development Group whose leaders "include former senior NATO and government officials," went in front of the House of Commons' Industry and Technology Committee to testify in favour of the DSRB. He spoke there on November 5, 2025, one day after Finance Minister Champagne tabled the 2025 Federal Budget. Regarding how the DSRB will overcome the limits imposed by government constraints such as "Budget ceilings, balance sheet pressures and regulatory frameworks," Reed had this to say:

:"Private sector capital has largely been absent from the defence industry for decades. The DSRB is designed to close that gap. Structured as a sovereign-owned, AAA-rated institution, it would enable participating nations to pool paid-in [upfront contribution made when a country joins the bank, like a down payment -- TML. Ed. Note] and callable capital [a promise to provide extra money if the bank is ever in a crisis -- TML Ed. Note] -- a factor that would help secure an AAA rating for the bank, which the bank would then leverage through private capital markets, including our Canadian pension funds–which I know are discussed a lot with regard to how we can get Canadian pension funds back into the Canadian marketplace -- so that commercial banks ultimately can provide full traditional credit packages to defence companies and the SMEs that are mission-critical for our supply chains."

During his testimony, Reed didn't hide the fact that his inspiration comes from the CEO of the DSRB Development Group, Rob Murray:

"The blueprint for this proposed multilateral development bank was created by Rob Murray, our CEO. Rob also built the blueprint for the NATO innovation fund, which I think came out in yesterday's budget, and the blueprint for the NATO DIANA [Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic] group, for which there are two accelerators and over 10 regional test centres in Canada."

DSRB Development Group's Recipe to Overcome "Governmental Restraints"

In the same testimony, Reed had this to say about "unlocking credit" for SMEs: "I know that SMEs are vital to the future of our job creation, our intellectual property and where we stand in sovereignty as a nation. [...] When we talk about capital markets, I look at it from the lens of the credit side, and that's what we are addressing. I believe firmly that the banks have to unlock the credit, which has been very shallow to date because of ESG [Environmental, Social Governance] and a bunch of other policies that have changed radically this year. [...] Prior to 2025, if you were in the defence category, then you were deemed to be in other categories that had a lot of stigma too, principally because of ESG. That has changed with all global banks, including the Canadian ones, in the last six months, where they are building their defence teams. They are building their knowledge set. The 'S' in ESG is now 'societal.' The protection of people is a societal right. We're seeing this rapidly changing, not just with the banks, but with pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and insurance companies. You will start to see by 2026 more credit available and more equity flow into the category, which has been starved."

The same Defence, Security and Resilience Development Group had already identified the issue as one where "Defence Spending Faces Two Core Financial Challenges:

" 1. NATO countries' defence financing tools are highly limited, as budget allocation competes with critical social spending, close to 70 per cent of NATO members lack credit ratings and investments are often delayed or diluted by annual budget cycles and

"2. Reluctance from private capital because of compliance and long-term procurements risks, limited economies of scale, especially for SMEs, component manufacturers, and startups, and sharp rise in defence equipment price inflation."

The DSRB Development Group came up with a model for financing the DSRB by involving not just commercial banks but also "institutional investors -- such as pension funds and other private entities." [TML emphasis]. The following diagram shows in four steps how the whole process would work (see figure 1) as well as the four levels of financing involving governments, pension funds, DSR Bank and commercial banks and private capital. (See figure 1)

Figure 1 (DSRB Development Group)

Figure 2 (DSRB Development Group)

A financial analyst said about this new financial architecture for defence that "The DSRB represents an unprecedented attempt to mobilize private capital for defence spending across NATO and Indo-Pacific allied nations. Designed as a multilateral development bank, it aims to issue AAA-rated bonds backed by member states' combined credit strength, potentially mobilizing five to eight times the initial sovereign capital contributions." Already "Major financial institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, ING, and the Royal Bank of Canada have backed the initiative."

Financing Mechanism Involving Institutional Pension Funds

Canadian pension funds (e.g., Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) Investments, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System (OMERS)) are expected to invest voluntarily in DSRB-issued AAA-rated bonds and securities as part of private capital mobilization. Other pension funds positioned to invest in DSRB bonds include Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP), Ontario Pension Board (OPB), Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments), and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ). CDPQ and PSP are among Canada's largest sovereign-like investors with AAA ratings, making them "natural fits for high-grade defence bonds."

Canadian and Quebec Pension Funds like CPP Investments, OTPP, OMERS, PSP, CDPQ have expressed support for the DSRB Toronto/Montreal hosting bids but have not yet made any financial commitments. This is despite the peoples expressed opposition to having their pensions funds invested in war-related ventures. The excuse is that the responsibility of pension fund managers is to get the highest returns and the people who funds are involved have no say in the matter.

Quebec's Political Elite Wants Its Share of Military Market

In recent weeks, high-ranking members of Quebec's elite have been working to ensure that Montreal is chosen to host the headquarters of DSRB. This elite includes former Quebec Premier François Legault; Montreal Mayor Soraya Martinez Ferrada; Quebec Minister of International Relations Christopher Skeete; CEO of Montreal International Stéphane Paquet; new Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette; and new Minister of the Economy and Energy Bernard Drainville.

This elite is promoting Montreal as a "turnkey" solution, highlighting its advantages such as tax exemptions, streamlined procedures, personalized support, bilingualism, and an educated workforce and the fact that Montreal is already hosting many international institutions. They dangle the prospect of job creation and technological innovation while the true pillars of a modern and independent economy, such as health care and education, are abandoned, destroyed and sacrificed.

Canada's six major banks have now signed up to the DSRB: [5] they will be among those lending money to arms manufacturers, with repayment and interest payments guaranteed by the governments through the DSRB. This is also an unexpected boon for arms manufacturers, who have been eagerly awaiting the golden opportunities that will arise from NATO governments' commitment to increasing their defence spending to five per cent of GDP.

Already, $6.6 billion over five years starting immediately is put aside by the federal government to launch Canada's "Defence Industrial Strategy" to "develop our defence industrial base so that more of our military capabilities are procured from Canadian supply chains."

The Carney Liberals' Defence Industrial Strategy is a form of public-private partnership. In it, the government doles out money to private armaments companies in Canada to work closely with the Canadian military to increase weapons production under the pretext of job creation, security and prosperity.

The increased emphasis on military spending necessarily leads to further impoverishment of the workers throughout the economy. Spending on war production represents an increase in the total value of goods produced that are consumed for wasteful purposes and are of no value in meeting the needs of working people. Yet every public dollar that is spent on war production forms part of the total amount of currency in circulation that is available for people to use for the purchase of goods that satisfy their needs. The same amount of money in circulation is chasing fewer useful goods. Whether or not they are employed in the defence industry, workers are then paid their employment income with these inflated dollars.

Notes

1. "Canada Hosts Partners to Advance Establishment of the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank," Department of Finance Canada, March 23, 2026.

2. The Atlantic Council's website says about hits history, "After the fall of communism, programs began to examine the transition underway in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states, the long-term impact of the conflicts in the Balkans, efforts toward European integration, and nuclear security. [...] In 2004, the [Atlantic] Council became the U.S. partner in the British-North American Committee [launched in 1969], a group of leaders from business, labour, and academia in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada committed to harmonious, constructive relations among the three countries and their citizens."

3. "How a New Global Defense Bank -- the 'Defense,Security, and Resilience Bank'- Can Solve U.S. and Allied Funding Problems," Rob Murray, Atlantic Council, December 13, 2024.

4. "Banking DSR: Challenges and Opportunities," NATO Innovative Fund, 2025.

5. Canada's six major banks are: TD, RBC, BMO, Scotiabank, CIBC, and National Bank.

Recruitment of Young People into Canadian Armed Forces Faces Retention Problem

– Youth for Democratic Renewal –

In April 2026, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) announced it had reached its highest recruitment rate in 30 years for the Regular Force, with 7,310 new soldiers.

The CAF reports having received 44,000 applications and accepted 7,310. Of these, 17 per cent are women (1,343) and 19 per cent are permanent residents (1,400). However, reports indicate that this still falls short of its goal, with 3,600 more soldiers needed, and that the number of departures is high: 5,960. Taking the ones recruited and deducting the ones which have left means a net growth of 1,350 soldiers towards the target of recruiting 71,500 full-time members by 2032. Clearly a tall order.

Between 2022 and 2025, out of more than 192,000 applications, only 14,000 people were recruited. The problems cited are: after basic training many recruits wait months, sometimes more than a year, for their professional training; there is a shortage of critical trades, such as technical trades like weapons technicians and pilots. The CAF fails to mention that a major recruitment problem is the refusal of young people to serve as cannon fodder in the wars and aggression and genocide in which Canada participates on behalf of NATO and the United States.

In the fall of 2025, a Canadian Defence mobilization plan was developed to increase CAF personnel by raising the number of volunteers to 300,000. The Department of Defence also aims to increase the number of reservists from 30,000 to 100,000, with less stringent physical and age requirements.

The CAF recruitment criteria require applicants to be citizens or permanent residents, at least 17 years old (16 with parental consent), and to have completed at least Grade 10 (Secondary 4 in the Quebec system). To address staffing shortages, the CAF eased its recruitment criteria in 2025-2026 by relaxing medical requirements (allowing recruits with ADHD, allergies) and for permanent residents to have accumulated only three years of actual residence in Canada to be eligible for recruitment.

Given that conscription was abolished after the end of the Second World War in 1945, a volunteer refers to any member (regular or reserve) who enlists.

Reservists (also known as reserve force members) are part-time military personnel who often work near their place of residence. They are required to participate in evening training sessions and at least one weekend training session per month. They are mobilized for operations that are part of the militarization of public spaces, such as parades, festivals, or during natural disasters.

Regular Forces members are full-time military personnel who can be deployed across Canada and abroad.

Cadets (ages 12-18) are not part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but the program is supported by the CAF.

Opposition to Militarization of Economy
in Sudbury, Ontario

– Rob Woodhouse –

Sudbury pickets against Canadian complicity in the U.S./Israeli genocide in Palestine demand "No Nickel for Genocide" and war.

On April 14 Greater Sudbury City Council adopted a resolution by a vote of eight to four expressing "strong support for pursuing opportunities in the federal government defence industrial strategy" and "Council's readiness to partner with federal and provincial governments, industry and businesses to attract investment and grow regional capacity."

The actionable clauses of the resolution commit Council to co-ordination of a collaborative approach with (Liberal) MP Lapointe's office to: i) "solidify further partnerships in the defence industrial strategy"; and ii) direct city staff "to present to Council during the second quarter of 2026, a high level overview of the opportunities and challenges associated with positioning Greater Sudbury as a competitive location for defence related manufacturing and supply chain activity."

The people of Sudbury region have a long history of opposing militarization of the economy and of opposition to wars of aggression and this latest development was no exception. People immediately went into action in an effort to block Council from adopting the resolution. Even before the meeting took place a letter was in circulation calling on the Council to vote it down.

The letter, from well-known anti-war activist and member of Palestine Solidarity Sudbury's No Nickel for Genocide Committee, David Starbuck, recalled that "the history of Sudbury is that the nickel industry has been to provide Sudbury nickel for the purposes of war." He went on to say that "The path to a prosperous Sudbury is not in supporting the manufacturing of the weapons of war but in developing nickel for the purposes of peace and the benefit of humanity. Sudbury needs to develop uses for nickel such as stainless steel and nickel alloys which will serve as a basis for the development of a comprehensive manufacturing industry which can be used to serve the interests of humanity and build a prosperous economy for Sudbury and the north of Ontario."

Meanwhile, the Coalition for a Liveable Sudbury mobilized public opinion to oppose the resolution. No Nickel for War Sudbury activists protested at the Council chambers and since then many people from diverse walks of life and political persuasions have written letters, organized information pickets and continue to speak out against Council's decision.

Everything about this proposal shows that the federal government's Defence Industrial Strategy goes against the interests of the people. To start with, the proposal originated with Sudbury Liberal MP Viviane Lapointe who is a member of Parliament's Standing Committee on National Defence, the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group and the Canada United States Interparliamentary Group, amongst others.

Lapointe did not engage her constituents, consult and get their opinions about what direction to take to develop Sudbury's economy. No. She instead hosted a closed-door gathering on April 1 of some 30 handpicked businesses, economic development agencies, innovation hubs and educational institutions "leaders" who could capitalize on the Build, Partner, Buy framework of Prime Minister Mark Carney's militarization spending plans, to arm twist Council to endorse the motion. It was done behind the backs, not with the consent, of Sudbury region constituents.

Councillors who supported this motion were either briefed or knew instinctively that the people of Sudbury do not want a militarized economy that thrives on perpetuating wars, murder, genocide and mass destruction. When they rose to speak in Council even those supporting the motion tried to deny that militarization of the economy and war preparations go hand in hand.

Mike Parent, who tabled the motion, made sure to state that he doesn't support violence or harm to any person anywhere. He described the Canadian Armed Forces as engaged in peacekeeping, disaster relief and defending Arctic sovereignty, deliberately misdirecting attention to hide the fact that Canadian armed forces are integrated into the aggressive U.S.-led NATO alliance, as well as NORAD and U.S. Homeland Security and as such actively participate in U.S.-led wars of aggression abroad (Iraq, Libya etc.).

Other councillors peddled the illusion that militarization of the economy means economic development, jobs and prosperity. Nothing is further from the truth. Every public dollar that is spent on war production is either borrowed at public expense or a dollar that is taken out of investment in public services and infrastructure that would actually build our nation. Militarization of the economy is not nation-building activity.

The Carney Liberals' Defence Industrial Strategy is a form of public-private partnership through which the government doles out money to private armaments producers to increase weapons production. Militarization of the economy does not stimulate economic development to satisfy the growing needs of the Canadian people and their economy but promotes war and war preparations and that it is in Canada's interest to make sure that wars keep going as often and as long as possible.

The people of Sudbury will not let this pass unopposed.

Opposition to Militarization of Economy in Sherbrooke, Quebec

– Geneviève Royer –

Demonstration in Sherbrooke, August 22, 2025 against weapons producer General Dynamics which is supplying armaments to Israel.

On April 7, during the Sherbrooke City Council's public plenary session, the city's new defence and security strategy (DEFSEC) was tabled. A document of more than 90 pages explaining the strategy had been produced and was presented as a collective work edited by Stephen Cabana, Deputy Director of the City of Sherbrooke's Economic Development Department. According to Cabana, the strategy aims to ensure that the City of Sherbrooke and local businesses "benefit from and seek out federal defence investment to establish an integrated ecosystem in Sherbrooke for defence, security and dual-use technologies (civil and military)."

Mayor Marie-Claude Bibeau, in office since November 12, 2025, after serving as a federal Liberal Member of Parliament from 2015 to 2025, announced two weeks earlier, on March 24, that the DEFSEC Sherbrooke Strategy would be presented at the April 7 plenary session. She said the goal was to create an ecosystem to showcase Sherbrooke as a leader in various defence-related sectors, as Canada plans to significantly increase funding in this area over the coming years, and that this strategy "emerged from the milieu" after gauging the interest of Sherbrooke businesses in the economic potential of the defence sector.

At the April 7 meeting, Stephan Cabana, Assistant Director of the City of Sherbrooke's Department of Economic Development, defended the strategy, saying: "It is not about creating a war or military industry; that is neither the objective nor the vocation of the territory [the City]. It is about responsible economic development. We want to support our businesses, protect our critical economic infrastructures and position our region within the value chains where innovation, security and resilience become key drivers of prosperity."

Cabana explained that DEFSEC Sherbrooke wants to help businesses in the region better understand the Canadian procurement process, but above all, to access the international market. "We are primarily targeting the NATO market, but also other Canadian allies, such as Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea," said Cabana. According to him, the process began in May, a year earlier, with businesses in the region, following the Carney government's announcement of major investments in the defence sector. Representatives from the Sherbrooke Economic Development Service, the Regional Centre for Industry, the Sherbrooke Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Quantum Innovation Zone DistricQ and Entreprendre Sherbrooke, as well as a geopolitical expert from the University of Quebec at Montreal (UQAM), among others, spoke in support of the strategy.

Immediate Opposition

On March 12, the city announced in a press release that "stakeholders in entrepreneurship, economic development and innovation in Sherbrooke and the Eastern Townships are joining forces to structure a territorial approach in the defence, security, and dual-use technology sectors (DEFSEC)." The city launched the strategy that same day before approximately one hundred business leaders from the Eastern Townships, presenting it as a "collective approach to mobilize the region toward success in defence, security, and technology." Cabana is quoted as saying: "There's money lying around, and if we don't pick it up, it will go elsewhere. We must not hesitate to do what needs to be done to ensure this economic activity benefits our community."

On March 13, Laure Letarte-Lavoie, Fernanda Luz, and Catherine Boileau, three councillors representing the districts of Hôtel-Dieu, Brompton and Carrefour, for the municipal party Sherbrooke Citoyen, immediately spoke out against the announcement. "This strategy was unknown; it wasn't discussed in council. The elected officials received a 20-minute presentation of the strategy behind closed doors two days before the announcement [...]. A strategy that was essentially developed by our economic development department, without us having had the opportunity to ask questions," said Letarte-Lavoie. She added, "As a city, I never imagined we would be debating whether to participate in the arms race. We know that this is what's happening internationally. As a citizen, it is extremely worrying." "I don't think that's what we want to leave to our children." Fernanda Luz said, "We learned about it, and 48 hours later, it was launched. It's serious because it positions and orients the City of Sherbrooke politically. So how come the political aspect was completely sidelined? Sometimes the administration does have a certain degree of autonomy when policies are adopted; there are actions that result from them and allow them to work. Except that last April [2025], we adopted an Industrial and Technological Development Policy that is diametrically opposed to the deal being presented to us today."

Letarte-Lavoie also pointed out, "They say [the strategy] emanates from the milieu organizing itself, but it's not just that. They are using and will continue to use our resources for economic development. A document was released, and then it was launched using the city's communications department. It was the deputy director of economic development, Stephan Cabana, who presented the strategy and wrote the document. Elected officials are completely excluded, even though it is inherently political. This completely changes the direction and vision of our economic development."

Shortly after, on March 23, the three elected municipal officials published an open letter entitled: "For an Ethical and Transparent Development at the Dawn of a Turning Point with Major Consequences," calling for a public debate on the strategy.[1] The letter emphasizes: "War, armed conflict, and the militarization of the world are realities that profoundly disrupt millions of lives. Behind the words defence, security and dual-use technologies lie lost lives, a surveilled society, displaced populations and societies scarred by violence. In this dark period on an international scale and given the prevailing economic uncertainties, we must collectively reflect on the use of our knowledge, talents and public resources. [...] It is legitimate to ask whether we, as a municipality, wish to participate in an ecosystem that aims to militarize our communities."

The letter quickly garnered over 221 signatures, including 16 organizations and 205 citizens. A public debate was then held on April 14 to inform Sherbrooke residents about the project, with over 50 people participating. "All voices deserve to be heard; dialogue is a collective responsibility," stated one of the elected officials at the public debate.

Participants to the debate asked representative Fernanda Luz to submit a notice of motion to City Council on April 21, requesting the establishment of rigorous accountability on this important matter and empowering elected officials to authorize or reject any financial support related to the strategy. The City Council voted against the resolution, quoting "administrative complexities related to delegating services" as the reason. By rejecting the motion, Cruz stated, the Council deliberately chose to give the strategy "carte blanche" and deprive itself of its own oversight authority.

The battle waged by Sherbrooke residents against the militarization of their economy and the resistance to it is not unique. It is a pressing issue in Montreal, Quebec City, Sudbury and many other communities. The people of Canada and Quebec need to make their voices heard loud and clear, engage in dialogue and organize to prevent the Carney government's plans for war and aggression from escalating. They must be held in check.

Note

1. To read the open letter, click here.

Record $2.9 Trillion Global Military
Spending in 2025

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reported on April 27 that global military spending hit a record $2.9 trillion in 2025, $169 billion more than 2024.

The 32 NATO members spent $1.581 trillion in 2025, accounting for 55 per cent of the total global military expenditures. The U.S. accounted for $954 billion or 33 per cent of the global total; China 12 per cent; Russia 6.6 per cent.

Canada reports that its military expenditures have come into compliance with NATO's two per cent of GDP demand of member states and as of March 2026 exceeded CAD$63 billion defence spending for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This is reportedly a major surge from 2020–2024, with 2024–25 estimates for example standing at 1.37 per cent of GDP. By comparison in 2023-2024 Canada's defence spending reached approximately CAD$34.5 billion, accounting for about 6.7 per cent of federal spending.

The UN estimates that $93 billion a year would be sufficient to eradicate world hunger by 2030. This means that annually, the world spends roughly 30 times more on military endeavors than what is needed to ensure that everyone has enough food. Commentators have pointed out that the increase in global military spending in 2025 would be enough to eradicate world hunger, eradicate malaria and cover the total expenditure of the United Nations. Oxfam analysts also suggested that less than three per cent of the combined annual military spending by G7 countries could cover the cost of ending global hunger and addressing the debt crisis in the what they call the global south.

It is also known that the military is the largest institutional emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, starting with the U.S. The military is among the world's largest institutional consumers of fossil fuels that are used to power jets and other aircraft, warships, military bases and vast global supply chains that generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions. Globally, militaries are estimated to be responsible for approximately 5.5 per cent of annual emissions; if they were a country, they would rank as the fourth-largest emitter, after China, the United States and India.

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca