Bringing peace into politics: why Canada’s next government should adopt a peace lens
As the Canadian federal election approaches, we’re offered a crucial opportunity to rethink not only the outcomes of our political system but also the lens through which we shape public policy. At a time of growing social division, global insecurity, and domestic challenges, many Canadians are looking for leadership rooted in something deeper than partisanship. That is why we call on our next government to adopt a peace lens.
This call is not as idealistic as it might first appear. Canada already applies a specialized lens—Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+)—to assess how policies affect different groups of people. GBA+ encourages decision-makers to consider gender and other intersecting identity factors (such as age, race, ability, and income) to support inclusive and equitable outcomes. This analytical tool has become a standard part of government planning, ensuring no policy is created in a vacuum. It’s time to build on that progress by adopting a peace lens, which complements and expands on the ethical intent of GBA+ with a focus on fostering a culture of peace across all levels of society.
What is a peace lens?
A peace lens would ask: does this policy foster peace—within individuals, among communities, and in our institutions? It would guide decision-makers to consider how proposed laws and programs affect not only physical security but also emotional wellbeing, interpersonal relationships, and the structures that govern our society.
Canadian Friends Service Committee offers a powerful definition of peace that can serve as a foundation for this lens. We believe peace flows through three interconnected levels:
- Inner peace—attitudes, beliefs, and habits conducive to peace.
- Interpersonal peace—peace in interactions with other people.
- Structural peace—political and social structures that support peace.
A peace lens would incorporate these three levels into a holistic framework for policy analysis. It would prioritize long-term wellbeing, restorative practices, and harm prevention, over reactive or punitive approaches. Much like GBA+, it would not be a rigid formula but a way of thinking that promotes conscious, compassionate governance.
Why now?
This proposal comes at a time when the world desperately needs more peace-oriented leadership. The climate crisis demands global cooperation, not competition. Polarization, both political and social, is fraying the fabric of our communities. The rise in hate crimes, mental health challenges, and public distrust of institutions is not coincidental—it’s symptomatic of systems that fail to understand positive peace.
Canada is well-positioned to take on this challenge. With a strong international reputation for diplomacy, peacekeeping, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have values (in theory) that must now be applied more consistently and intentionally in practice.
“A peace lens would ask: does this policy foster peace—within individuals, among communities, and in our institutions?”
We live on land initially shaped by Indigenous worldviews that, like the Quaker perspective, emphasize interconnectedness, balance, and relational responsibility. Embracing a peace lens would be an act of alignment with these teachings and not an imposition of something new.
Policy implications of a peace lens
- Justice reform: A peace lens would move us toward restorative justice practices that focus on healing rather than punishment. Instead of expanding prisons, we would invest in community supports that prevent harm and rebuild trust.
- Foreign policy: Our diplomatic efforts would be measured not just by trade deals or military alliances but by contributions to global peacebuilding, disarmament, and climate justice.
- Education: Curricula would include social-emotional learning, conflict resolution, and the skills of dialogue. Students would be equipped with peaceful habits of heart and mind.
- Housing and income: Recognizing that economic insecurity fuels stress, conflict, and instability, policies would prioritize adequate housing, living wages, and the reduction of inequality—all essential for structural peace.
- Reconciliation: A peace lens would affirm that true reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples isn’t a box to check. It’s an ongoing process of building relationships through truth, equity, and mutuality.
A Quaker perspective: Spirit-led peacemaking
Quakers have long advocated for peace, not as a vague ideal but as a spiritual and practical commitment. Friends believe that through the grounded inner life of the individual—through listening, reflection, and discernment—flows a commitment to peace in all interactions and systems. This approach aligns with CFSC’s understanding of a culture of peace and counterbalances the cynicism that often pervades political discourse. A peace lens rooted in this worldview invites us to see the humanity in others, to practice nonviolence, and to build systems that nourish the common good.
Adopting a peace lens would not require every Canadian to become a Quaker—but it would draw from a rich tradition that sees peace not as passive or utopian, but as active and urgent.
Making peace a ballot box issue
In this election, voters can demand more from their leaders. We can ask our candidates:
- Are nonviolent strategies for addressing conflict adequately emphasized and resourced within Canada? How can we do more?
- How will you integrate the lessons of GBA+ and extend them through a peace lens?
These are not abstract questions. They’re about the world we want to live in. Peace isn’t the absence of conflict. It’s the presence of justice, empathy, and right relationship. By making peace an explicit priority in policy development, Canada has the opportunity to lead by example, both at home and abroad.
Mel Burns is CFSC’s Peace Program Coordinator.
